A Report on the Feasibility of Establishing

A Local Foods Aggregation, Sales and Marketing Center in Yancey County, North Carolina

Prepared forYancey County Cooperative Extension Service10 Orchard DriveBurnsville, NC 28714

By

Smithson Mills, Inc.34 West Oakview RoadAsheville, NC 28806

March 2012

This research was funded through the generous support of the following:

Yancey County GovernmentMitchell County GovernmentMayland Community CollegeThe Z. Smith Reynolds FoundationYancey County EDCYancey County Cooperative ExtensionMayland College Small Business CenterCarolina Farm Credit Yancey CountyYancey County Extension and Community AssociationYancey County Farm BureauNCSU Agricultural FoundationMitchell County Cooperative ExtensionJim EdwardsBennie RiddleBeverly HillsBilly BryantMark LangnerAdam McCurryJames Magner

The following researchers contributed to the development of this report:

David Harper, Land In Common

Michael McDonald, Research Associate Smithson Mills, Inc.

Smithson Mills, President Smithson Mills, Inc.

John Hou, Mechanical Engineer

Computer Assisted Design

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

#

Chapter 1 Introduction

#

Chapter 2 - Regional Agricultural Profiles: Yancey and Mitchell

#

Chapter 3 - Regional Farmer Participation Survey: Yancey and Mitchell#

Chapter 4 - Yancey County Consumer Participation Survey

#

Chapter 5 - Existing Facility Research

#

Chapter 6 - Regional Market Research Results: Yancey and Mitchell#

Chapter 7 - Site Review

#

Chapter 8 - Facility Operations

#

Chapter 9 - Regulatory Issues

#

Chapter 10 - Budgets

#

Chapter 11 - Legal Incorporation

#

Chapter 12 - Marketing a Local Food Movement

#

Chapter 13 - Future Funding

#

Chapter 14 - Conclusions and Next Steps

#

Appendix A GAP Assistance LetterAppendix B GAP Self AssessmentAppendix C GAP Request for Audit Services Appendix D GAP ApplicationAppendix E GAP Authorization Appendix F Facility Availability Form Appendix G TRACTOR Articles of Incorporation Appendix H TRACTOR Bylaws

Executive Summary

In August 2010, Smithson Mills Inc. was contracted with Yancey County to perform a feasibility study for establishing a local foods aggregation and sales and marketing center. The purposes of the research were to:

Measure demand for a local foods marketing program from farmers, consumers, and retail intermediaries;

Determine suitable locations for development of the project;

Provide recommendations for necessary infrastructure, layout, budgeting and legal establishment;

Make recommendations for sorting and packaging equipment acquisition and installation;

Develop actionable budgets, management plans, sales goals, and a plan for long-term sustainability.

According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture, Yancey County has a total of 447 farms on 33,431 acres. Of this, there are 44 farms harvesting 128 acres of vegetables for sale. Yancey County also has 9 farms in orchards on 23 acres. Mitchell County has 24 farms on a total of 55 acres harvesting vegetables for sale. Of these 24 farms, 23 of them are less than five acres. Mitchell County also has 13 farms in orchards on 71 acres, with 7 orchards having less than 5 acres.

Through use of farmer participation surveys, researchers determined that there is sufficient producer demand in Yancey and Mitchell Counties to warrant further investigation into the development of an agricultural marketing, consolidation and distribution center. A total of 49 farmers from the two counties expressed positive interest in participating in consolidated sales and marketing. Researchers suggest merging project development efforts in Yancey County with similar efforts underway in Mitchell County. A study completed for Mitchell County in 2011 did not find sufficient demand in Mitchell County alone for an aggregation, sales and marketing center. Merging the two projects into a regional effort will allow for a stronger and more diverse farmer base to support project development overall.

The goal of regional market research was to learn more about perspectives on local food marketing in Yancey and Mitchell Counties, measure demand for locally grown foods, and learn more about the logistics of how buyers purchase products from a farmer distribution network. Market analysis indicates that a produce aggregation project serving the two counties should have a highly diversified strategy of sales and distribution, with income generated from direct retail sales, wholesale distribution, sales to restaurants, direct-to-store wholesale service, subscription consumer sales, and direct-to-institution sales. Major potential wholesale accounts include Ingles Markets, Mountain Foods, and Whole Foods.

Researchers assessed numerous properties in Burnsville and Yancey County to determine suitable locations for local farm product aggregation and distribution. A suitable facility, site of the former Yancey County tomato cooperative, was identified for project development. This 6,000 square foot space can be upfitted to accommodate washing, grading, packaging, and storing farm produce for aggregated sales and distribution.

Researchers recommend legal establishment of the project as a nonprofit entity. The project should strive to serve all Yancey and Mitchell County growers who desire services, regardless of whether they participate in collaborative marketing of produce. Farm operators should be offered access to the facility on a scheduled basis and be offered technical support on post-harvest product handling, business preparedness and meeting all relevant inspection and certification requirements.

As a facility offering open access to services, the project should be willing to develop new marketing channels in coordination with growers. While an aggregated sales and marketing service has the greatest potential for long-term success, other initiatives, such as direct sales at the facility, can help further expand market access and provide needed revenues for facility operations. Similarly, seasonal promotions and the development of Community-Supported Agriculture (CSA) also may be supported, depending upon the business interests of participants. Direct retail and CSAs offer the greatest opportunity for the project to sell local produce at higher margins. Diversified revenue streams will prevent the project from becoming overly dependent on one or two large accounts. Experimentation with different levels of pricing for different markets will allow project leaders to develop a mix of sales volumes and gross margins, and may lessen the project cash flow burden on large wholesale accounts, which will have higher volumes but lower per-unit profit margins.

There are two essential principles for serving farmers through an operating a sales and distribution business that has as its key goal serving farmers: transparency and communication. Transparency is a commitment to let growers know exactly what the project is trying to achieve, who the project will be selling to, how the farmers will be paid and what margins are needed for the project to achieve self-sufficiency. Communication means having regular formal and informal contact between the project manager and the growers and between the project manager and buyers.

The facility should become certified for Good Agricultural Practices (GAP). The facility should also develop an effective Hazard Analysis of Critical Control Points (HACCP) plan.

Base operational costs for the project are estimated at $85,250 per year, of which $30,000 is for facility rent and $25,000 is for a general manager working on a seasonal contract basis. The remaining costs of operation include utilities, part-time labor, supplies, servicing equipment, and other miscellaneous costs.

By year three, most core operating expenses for project management, labor, accounting, travel and lease of a refrigerated truck should be covered by proceeds from sales, sponsorships, and fundraisers. By the third year of operations, the project should achieve wholesale sales of $125,000, as well as sales of $20,000 from a community supported agriculture program and retail sales of $10,000.

During the course of the feasibility study, a working group was convened that decided upon the name Toe River Aggregation Center and Training Organization Regional (TRACTOR) for the legal entity. TRACTOR received notice of its legal incorporation as a non-profit by the Secretary of State of North Carolina on December 15, 2011.

A key strategy in making TRACTOR successful is marketing the concept of local foods to consumers in Yancey and Mitchell Counties. Marketing, however, should be understood as distinct from sales activities; the goal of marketing is to establish long-term product identification and the association of TRACTOR with concepts of freshness, quality, locality and sustainability. Within two years, TRACTOR should have name and brand identification among a high percentage of food shoppers in the area.

Cross marketing opportunities with other aggregation projects in the region should also be investigated.

Researchers recommend TRACTOR secure all operational costs for a 2 to 3 year period to achieve self sufficiency without eating into project revenues. The following are available resources for potential future funding of a local produce aggregation, sales and processing center. They include state, federal, and private foundation grant resources and alternative funding methods.

CHAPTER 1 - Introduction

In August 2010, Smithson Mills Inc. was contracted with Yancey County to perform a feasibility study for establishing a local foods aggregation and sales and marketing center. The purposes of the research were to measure demand for local foods marketing from farmers, consumers, and retail intermediaries; determine suitable locations for development of the project; provide recommendations for necessary infrastructure, layout, budgeting and legal establishment; make recommendations for facility construction, renovation and/or upfit; and make recommendations for sorting and packaging equipment acquisition and installation. In order to fulfill contracted service obligations, research was conducted for the following deliverables:

Demographic analysis of Yancey County and the Asheville Metropolitan Statistical Area;

Measurement of producer demand for a local food aggregation and marketing service;

Measurement of consumer demand for improved supplies of locally grown foods;

Analysis of market opportunities for sales of local foods through wholesale distribution, community-supported agriculture subscriptions, direct-market sales, internet-based sales, and wholesale supplies to area supermarkets;

Regulatory analysis for Good Agricultural Practices (GAP), HACCP, FDA and USDA inspection;

Site selection for a local foods aggregation center with discussion of viable available sites in and near Burnsville.

Researchers took a brief hiatus from research in 2011. During this time the project principals worked on securing a suitable physical location for the aggregation center. Research proceeded once the final site decision was made. The following deliverables were then completed:

Develop floor plans and renovation budgets to accommodate bulk food handling, processing, and storage;

Identify and price equipment needed for produce handling, including washing, grading, cold storage and packaging;

Develop a pro-forma operations budget for a three to five year period, with a sustainability plan for achieving current-account break-even;

Determine suitable legal establishment options for a business aggregating and marketing locally grown foods in Yancey County;

Develop a funding strategy and proceed with securing funds for project implementation.

Sufficient demand was found to exist from farm-based producers for participation in a local foods aggregation and marketing program;

Sufficient community support was found to exist for a project of this nature to be supported by local leaders and the community at large;

Market opportunities for local foods continue to grow. A consolidated aggregation and marketing project may generate sales and additional income for area farmers through a diversified marketing strategy that includes direct sales to consumers, subscription sales through a community-supported agriculture (CSA) program, wholesale distribution to area supermarkets and distributors, and online marketing services;

Available sites were identified in Burnsville and surrounding areas to accommodate a local foods aggregation facility. Key positive factors for site selection included suitable floor space of 2,000 square feet or more, a central location and ease of access, commercial grade utilities including water, sewer, and 3-phase power, potential retail location, affordability, and possibility of co-location with support services including Yancey County Extension;

Researchers visited a variety of different site locations in Burnsville and surrounding Yancey County. Necessary criteria for the facility include, but are not limited to: location, size of parcel, square footage of facility, availability of commercial grade utilities, cost of purchase and upfit, and proximity to support services such as Cooperative Extension. Researchers, in consultation with project participants, ultimately decided on the portion of the former Tomato Coop building owned by Mr. Sam Young as the best location for this facility;

Researchers have developed floor plan designs in CAD to indicate the potential locations and orientation of necessary equipment, including three hand sinks, a 10 x 10 forced air cooler, a 20 x 10 walk-in cooler, a 10 x 10 walk-in cooler, and two 16-18 produce wash lines. The CAD drawing, representative site location images and pricing estimates for equipment and non-fixed asset improvements can be found in Chapter 7: Site Review. Necessary fixed asset improvements for renovation and upfit of the facility can be found there also;

A pro-forma operations budget has been created to reflect the projects needs over a three year period to achieve current account break even. This budget reflects facility operations needs as well as fixed- and non-fixed asset improvements critical to success of the facility;

Suitable legal establishment comes in many forms. For a business aggregating and marketing locally grown foods, several different but important forms of organization were considered. In consideration of this facility, a producer non-profit corporation is the specific type recommended for development. The aggregation facility received notice of its legal incorporation as a non-profit by the Secretary of State of North Carolina on December 15, 2011. Following adoption of bylaws, researchers recommend pursuing federal designation as a federal non-profit entity. The application form may be found at the following link: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1023.pdf;

Researchers have developed a funding strategy for the project moving forward and recommend securing all operating costs in the first three years to achieve self-sufficiency without eating into project revenues. The project has begun implementation for support during this ramp-up phase. Grant funds have been secured from the North Carolina Rural Economic Development Center, the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation, the Golden LEAF Foundation and NC Department of Agriculture and Consumer Sciences; Further financial consideration has been provided by the county. Recommendations for additional future funding are made at the private foundation, state and federal levels;

David Harper from Land in Common completed a complementary research study in Mitchell County in March 2011 for development of an aggregation facility. His research concluded that there was insufficient demand for development of such a facility in Mitchell County. However, there was opportunity to dovetail his research with the research performed in Yancey County, with the focus on developing a regional produce aggregation facility serving farmers in both counties and the region at large.

CHAPTER 2 Regional Agricultural Profiles: Yancey and Mitchell

Yancey County Agricultural Profile

Formed in 1833, Yancey County is a rural county located in the northwest part of the state. It is not a part of any Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), but is immediately adjacent to Buncombe and Madison Counties that are a part of the Asheville MSA. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the county has a total area of 313square miles. It has 11 townships: Brush Creek, Burnsville, Cane River, Crabtree, Egypt, Green Mountain, Jacks Creeks, Pensacola, Prices Creek, Ramseytown, and South Toe. With a 2010 population of 17,818, the demographics of Yancey County show many typical characteristics of a rural community located within the Appalachian Mountains region of Western North Carolina.

Yancey sits along the northern North Carolina border with Tennessee. In North Carolina, Yancey is bordered by Madison County to the west, Mitchell County to the east, McDowell County to the southeast and Buncombe County to the south. Of the adjacent counties, only Buncombe is considered to be an urban county. The county is largely situated in the Toe River Valley, an region known for its outdoor recreation and scenic views. The highest point in Yancey County, and the highest point east of the Mississippi River, is Mount Mitchell in the Black Mountain range, rising to 6,684 feet above sea level.

Buncombe County, where Asheville is located, has a population that is more affluent, younger, more diverse and more educated than that of Yancey County. The North Carolina Department of Commerce has designated Yancey as a Tier One County, placing it among the 40 most economically distressed counties in the state. By comparison, Buncombe County is designated in Tier Three, among the 20 wealthiest counties in the state. The chart below shows the wide disparities in population, income and education between the two counties:

County Profiles: Yancey and Buncombe Counties

Population

Yancey

Buncombe

Median Age

41.9

38.9

Percent Black

0.6%

7.5%

Percent Born in NC

75.4%

60.6%

Percent 65 and over

18.2%

15.4%

Percent White

98.0%

89.1%

Population 2000

17,774

206,330

Population 2008

18,503

229,047

Population Density 2000

57

314

Income and Poverty

Yancey

Buncombe

Child Poverty Rate

22.1%

15.3%

Elderly Poverty Rate

16.3%

9.8%

Median Household Income 2000

$29,674

$36,666

Per Capita Income 2000

$16,335

$20,384

Poverty Rate 2000

15.8%

11.4%

Education

Yancey

Buncombe

Percent with Bachelor's Degree or Higher

13.1%

25.3%

Percent with High School Diploma

36.9%

28.3%

Percent with Less Than High School Education

28.9%

18.1%

Labor Force and Employment

Yancey

Buncombe

Unemployment Rate Feb 2011

12.8%

8.1%

Agriculture and Natural Resources

Yancey

Buncombe

Total Agricultural Receipts

$5,173,000

$37,241,000

Yancey ranks 93rd in the state in agricultural cash receipts, with a 2007 total of just over $7 million. It had 447 farms, a decline of 28% from 2002, and 33,431 acres of farmland, a decline of 14% from 2002. The average farm size is 75 acres. As with many rural counties in North Carolina, livestock production accounts for a large portion of agricultural activity. However, Yancey ranks 86th in the state in poultry and egg production and 51st in cattle production. The $1,958,000 in livestock, dairy and poultry receipts account for 38% of Yancey Countys agriculture production. The county also has a well-established, larger crop production, with 4,875 acres of land in crops according to the 2007 Census of Agriculture. It ranked 62nd in the state for tobacco production, and went from 255 tobacco farms to 28 in the five years from 2002 to 2007; tobacco income on these farms declined 89%. According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture, Yancey County has 44 farms harvesting $323,000 worth of vegetables, potatoes and melons.

Evidence from farmer interviews and discussions with agricultural service providers indicates that only a few Yancey County farms grow specialty crops for targeted local distribution, although u-pick and other direct marketing at farmers markets and roadside stands are popular among smaller farms. Those farms that do grow specialty crops, such as tomatoes, tend to grow larger quantities for larger brokers based outside of Yancey County. Often, varieties grown for national or regional distribution chains do not have the characteristics of flavor and quality that are expected by many consumers seeking local food.

Statistics from the 2007 Census of Agriculture show Yancey Countys agricultural economy:

2007 Census Data

Number of Farms

447

Total Land in Farms, Acres

33,431

Average Farm Size, Acres

75

Harvested Cropland, Acres

4,875

Average Age of Farmers

57.3

Average Value of Farm & Building

$364,053

Average Market Value of Machinery & Equipment

$33,914

Average Total Farm Production Expense

$11,843

Crops 2007

Harvest Acres

Yield

State Rank

Barley: Bu.

-

-

-

Corn for Grain: Bu.

7

45

91

Corn for Silage: Tons

82

1,305

59

Hay, All: Tons (2008)

(D)

(D)

(D)

Soybeans: Bu.

-

-

-

Tobacco: (1,000#).

134

1,757

65

Wheat: Bu.

-

-

-

Livestock

Number

State Rank

Broilers Produced (2007)

-

-

Cattle, All (Jan 1, 2009)

6,100

48

Beef Cows (Jan1, 2009)

2,300

50

Chickens, Excluding Broilers (2007)

705

73

Hogs and Pigs (2007)

-

-

Cash Receipts: 2008

Dollars

State Rank

Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry

2,404,000

85

Crops

3,966,000

92

Government Payments

949,517

75

Total

7,319,517

93

Yancey Countys geographical location in relation to the larger urban Buncombe County indicates an opportunity to capitalize on the existing agricultural strengths of the county to serve a larger and relatively wealthier population, particularly in the city of Asheville and Buncombe County. Burnsville, the Yancey County seat, is located in the middle of Yancey County, just 36 miles from downtown Asheville. The map below shows Burnsville to the northeast of Asheville and connected to the city by U.S. Hwy. 19/23. The regional demand for local foods is on the rise: in and around Asheville, locally grown foods can be found in most chain grocery stores; restaurants utilize and advertise the use of local products; and non-profits and government entities promote the purchase of local foods. Many of Ashevilles top chefs visit farmers markets regularly and/or have a working relationship with local growers.

Compared to other urban environments in the state, Buncombe County, and Asheville in particular, supports local agriculture. A web-based search for businesses providing local foods in Yancey County indicates few farms and farmers markets providing local foods and no restaurants, co-ops, wholesale, or grocery stores. The website localharvest.org lists 8 businesses providing local foods: Yancey County Farmers Market, Appalachian Seeds Farm and Nursery, Bee Log Farm and Nursery, Bee Log Garlic and Flower Farm, Mountain Farm, The Mushroom Hut at Fox Farms, Green Toe Ground Farm, and Firefly Farm. In comparison, a search of other cities on the same website shows 20 similar businesses in Greensboro, 31 in Raleigh, 47 in Chapel Hill and 52 in Asheville.

The Yancey County region can benefit from its proximity to the city of Asheville, a city that has made much headway into building local food communities. The goal is to create a more sustainable local food economy to provide fresh and healthy food choices as well as supporting local farmers in the region. The region and its citizens share many of the characteristics important for successful local food distribution: relatively high incomes, high education levels, and a strong agricultural tradition on the outskirts of a larger population area. While there are many people already operating food businesses in the region, other companies and farms have the opportunity to establish themselves in this competitive market environment.

Yancey County Production BaseAccording to the 2007 Census of Agriculture, Yancey County has a total of 447 farms on 33,431 acres. Of this, there are 44 farms harvesting 128 acres of vegetables for sale. Yancey County also has 9 farms in orchards on 23 acres. In addition, research determined the total number of potential arable acres in Yancey County given suitable markets is between 324 and 328 more. Researchers survey of agricultural producers in Yancey County determined which fresh fruits and vegetable local producers had for sale in season. This helped figure the percentages of survey respondents who indicated growing specific fruits and vegetables.

Since some respondents indicated growing or raising multiple items within a given category, percentage totals may exceed 100% in some cases. Over 75% of survey respondents indicated an interest in supplying their locally grown produce to a consolidated sales and distribution organization in Yancey County. These volume outputs and responses appear to provide an adequate supply for wholesale aggregation in Yancey County. However, regional and community collaboration, as well as extension oversight and local government buy-in will remain important to its success

Yancey County Consumer BaseThe 2010 U.S. Census recorded 17,818 people in Yancey County, a slight increase from 2000 Census levels. Yancey County had a 2009 per capita income of $17,939 and the median family income in 2009 was estimated at $39,435. The unemployment rate in the county in February 2011 was 12.8%.

Regionally, Yancey County is located adjacent to the Asheville Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). The Asheville MSA is comprised of Buncombe, Madison, Henderson, and Haywood counties, with a combined 2009 population estimated at 412,672. Buncombe, the largest county, had an estimated population of 225,869 with a per capita income of $26,209 and a median household income of $43,750. Burnsville, the county seat of Yancey, is located approximately 36 miles from Asheville, the county seat of Buncombe and the largest city in western North Carolina.

Mitchell County Agricultural Profile by David Harper, Land In Common

Mitchell County is a mountain community with 141,713 acres of primarily wooded land (76 percent) with a relatively high elevation, averaging 3,000 feet above sea level between a low of 1,700 feet and a high of 6,313 feet. As of 2007, farmland in the county consisted of approximately 22,787 acres (16 percent of the county) in farms, primarily pasture and hay land, with an estimated 5,000 acres in cropland. The acreage of farmland declined by over 3,000 acres in the five preceding years since 2002. The average Mitchell County farmer is 58 years of age.

As of 2007, farming in Mitchell County was an $11 million industry, with an average income of $35,000 per farm. Christmas trees have been a growing part of the agricultural sector for the past 50 years, and replaced Burley tobacco as the leading cash crop in 1996, with over 200 producers growing trees on 1,300 acres, with an estimated $4.5 million in sales (MCEDC, 2011). Burley tobacco was grown on 410 acres on 108 farms in 2002, and only 63 acres on 19 farms in 2007, a decline of over 80 percent of acres and farms in tobacco production. Tobacco income declined 85 percent from $1,037,000 in 2002 to just $155,000 in 2007. Other farm products include landscape ornamentals (the second leading cash crop), beef cattle, hay, apples, trout, vegetables (potatoes and beans), and medicinal herbs.

Importantly, food production and sales income have increased in the county since the tobacco buyout. Sales of fruits and vegetables have increased over 400 percent in the five years from 2002 to 2007. Vegetable production in the county during that period went from 7 farms growing $30,000 worth of vegetables on 8 acres to 24 farms growing $126,000 worth of vegetables on 53 acres. Production of fruits, tree nuts, and berries went from 3 farms growing $64,000 in value to 15 farms growing $280,000 in value.

The 2007 Agricultural Census lists 314 farms in Mitchell County, averaging 73 acres in size, down from 358 farms in 2002. The majority of farms are between 10 and 179 acres. 24 farms are between 180 and 499 acres, 5 farms are over 500 acres, and no farms are over 1,000 acres.

The average per acre market value of land and buildings is approximately $369,209 per farm, or just over $5,000 per acre. The average farm includes equipment and machinery with a market value of $40,580. The vast majority of farms, nearly half, report less than $2,500 in sales, while only 11 farms reported sales of $50,000 or more.

The top income producing commodities listed in the Agricultural Census are as follows:

Commodity

Value

Farm Forestry

$7,816,562

Livestock

$ 952,523

Greenhouse & nursery

$2,760,000

Non-farm forestry

$1,022,271

Fruits & vegetables

$ 330,000

Hay & other crops

$ 154,000

Potatoes

$ 150,000

Burley Tobacco

$ 100,000

Corn

$ 19,000

In 2007, Mitchell County farms reported 217 farmworkers (some migrant) on 57 farms with a payroll of $495,000.

Mitchell County Production BaseAccording to the 2007 Census of Agriculture, Mitchell County has 24 farms on a total of 55 acres harvesting vegetables for sale. Of these 24 farms, 23 of them are less than five acres. Mitchell County also has 13 farms in orchards on 71 acres, with 7 orchards having less than 5 acres. These low volume outputs do not appear to provide an adequate supply for wholesale aggregation in Mitchell County alone.

One of Mitchell Countys assets, its natural beauty, can in some respects become a hindrance. Because of Mitchell Countys high elevation, the growing season is later and shorter than in some surrounding counties. This makes it difficult to sell into the school system, because the window of demand (August to May) does not match up well with the window of supply, which tends to be June through September. While season-extension technologies, especially hoop house and greenhouse production, can extend the harvest season, Mitchell remains at a competitive disadvantage compared to other, warmer areas. However, certain cold crops, including leafy greens and potatoes, grow well in the high elevations. Opportunities exist for production of these crops during times when other locations in the southeast are too hot and humid.

Mitchell County Consumer Base

The 2010 U.S. Census recorded 15,579 people in Mitchell County, a slight decline from 2000 Census levels. Per capita income in 2009 was estimated at $18,522, with median household income of $33,118. The unemployment rate in the county in January 2011 was 13.2%. This low population level, along with a low per capita income and high unemployment rate, indicates that sales potential for high value locally grown foods is limited within the county. However, Mitchell County does enjoy a healthy tourism industry, and in summer and fall months the number of people residing in the county is substantially higher, with visitors tending to have higher disposable incomes than locals. In addition, the federal nutrition program Regionally, Mitchell County is located adjacent to the Asheville Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). The Asheville MSA is comprised of Buncombe, Madison, Henderson, and Haywood counties, with a combined 2009 population estimated at 412,672. Buncombe, the largest county, had an estimated population of 225,869 with a per capita income of $26,209 and a median household income of $43,750. Bakersville, the county seat of Mitchell, is located approximately 53 miles from Asheville, the county seat of Buncombe and the largest city in western North Carolina.

CHAPTER 3 - Regional Farmer Participation Surveys

Researchers conducted surveys of Yancey and Mitchell County farmers to determine their levels of interest in participating in some form of local distribution network to supply local farm products, and to determine what those products could be. The surveys also served to educate farmers about the aggregation center feasibility study and Cooperative Extensions interest in supporting the development of new markets and distribution strategies for locally-grown foods.

In the winter of 2010-2011, researchers distributed a survey to known Yancey County growers soliciting for their interest in participating in an agricultural product aggregation facility. The survey was distributed in hard copy from Yancey County Cooperative Extension and posted online and emailed to farmers. The total number of responses received in hard copy came to 36. The total number of responses received via the online survey instrument came to 5. There were 41 total responses. Since some respondents indicated growing or raising multiple items within a given category, percentage totals may exceed 100% in some cases. A farmer survey form was developed in conjunction with the Yancey County feasibility assessment, and mailed out to 250 farmers in Mitchell County. Approximately 44 of the 250 surveys were returned (a 17.6% return rate).

Yancey Farmer Participation Survey

Question 1 Do you have an interest in supplying your locally produced food to a consolidated sales and distribution organization in Yancey County?

Yes

No

Maybe/Did Not Answer (DNA)

26

(75.6%)

1

(2.4%)

2/7

(22%)

Overt interest among respondents for supplying locally produced food to a consolidated sales and distribution organization is 31/41 or 75.6%. The percentage of respondents with no interest in the project is very small at 1/41 or 2.4%. 22% of respondents were either possibly interested in the project contingent upon prices offered for their products or failed to answer the question entirely. We infer that those who indicated Maybe may have some relevant interest in this project.

Question 2 Which of the following seasonal fresh fruits do/will you have available?

Apples

Strawberries

Blueberries

Grapes

Peaches

6

(15%)

2

(5%)

4

(10%)

1

(2.5%)

3

(7.5 %)

Blackberries

Cantaloupes

Pears

Raspberries

Watermelons

2

(5%)

1

(2.5%)

1*

(2.5%)

4

(10%)

3

(7.5%)

13 out of the 40 total positive respondents, or 32.5%, responded that they had one or another seasonal fresh fruits available.

Among these 13 respondents, 46% indicated that they grow apples; 31% grow either blueberries or raspberries; 23% grow peaches or watermelons; 15% grow strawberries or blackberries; and7.7% grow grapes, cantaloupes or pears*.

*= in the future.

Respondents were given the option of writing in Other fresh fruit. Responses in this category receiving one vote each are as follows: rhubarb and plums.

Note: many respondents indicated that they grow more than one product on their farms.

Question 3 Which of the following seasonal fresh vegetables do/will you have available?

Summer Squash

Tomatoes (heirloom)

Sweet Corn

Cabbage

Red Tomatoes

Hot Peppers

Potatoes

Snap Peas

Zucchini

Cucumbers

11 (27.5%)

7

(17.5%)

5

(12.5%)

7

(17.5%)

6

(15%)

9 (22.5%)

14 (35%)

5

(12.5%)

7

(17.5%)

7

(17.5%)

Green Beans

Romaine

Bell Pepper

Okra

Broccoli

Collards

Shiitake

Carrots

Greasy Beans

10 (25%)

7

(17.5%)

12

(30%)

1

(2.5%)

5

(12.5%)

4

(10%)

3

(7.5%)

5

(12.5%)

1

(2.5%)

23 out of the 40 total positive respondents, or 57.5%, responded that they had one or another seasonal fresh vegetables available.

Among these 23 respondents, the highest response rate came from potatoes. 61% indicated growing potatoes. This was followed in popularity by bell peppers at 52%; 48% indicated growing summer squash; 43% grow green beans; 39% grow hot peppers; 30% grow heirloom tomatoes, cabbage, zucchini, cucumbers or romaine lettuce; 26% grow red tomatoes; 22% grow sweet corn, snap peas, broccoli or carrots; 17% grow collard greens; 13% grow shiitake mushrooms; and 4% grow okra or greasy beans.

Respondents were given the option of writing in Other fresh vegetables. Responses include the following: winter squash (3), kale (3), garlic (3), celeriac, parsnips, Jerusalem artichoke, bok choy, jicama, eggplant, turnips, beets, onion, chard, leaf lettuce, celery, black beans, mixed lettuce, Bibb lettuce, green tomatoes, shallots, basil, parsley and other herbs. Among positive respondents, 13% indicated growing winter squash, kale or garlic. All additional other fresh vegetable responses totaled 4% each.

Note: many respondents indicated that they grow more than one product on their farms.

Question 4 Which of the following other fresh foods do/will you have available?

Eggs

Honey

Herbs

Goat Cheese

Cow Cheese

6

(15%)

2

(5%)

6

(15%)

0

0

11 out of the 40 total positive respondents, or 27.5%, responded that they had one or another other fresh food available.

Among these 11 respondents, 54.5% indicated producing eggs or herbs, and 18.2% indicated producing honey.

Note: many respondents indicated that they grow more than one product on their farms.

Question 5 Which of the following meats do/will you have available?

Beef

Chicken

Fresh Hams

Pork

Turkey

Country Hams

Pork Sausage

Lamb

Italian Sausage

Goat

16

(40%)

2

(5%)

0

2

(5%)

1

(2.5%)

0

0

3

(7.5%)

0

4

(10%)

21 out of 40 total positive respondents, or 52.5%, responded that they had one or another meat available.

Among these 21 respondents, the vast majority, 76%, indicated that they raise beef; 19% indicated raising goats; 14% raise lambs, 9.5% raise chickens and pigs; and 4.8% raise turkey.

Note: many respondents indicated that they produce more than one product on their farms.

Question 6 Which of the following value-added/processed foods do/will you have available?

Canned Vegetables

Salsa/Hot Sauce

Dried Peppers

Chocolates

Jams / Jellies

BBQ Sauce

Baked Goods

Snack Mixes

Apple Butter

Pesto

2

(5%)

6

(15%)

6

(15%)

0

8

(20%)

1

(2.5%)

4

(10%)

0

5

(12.5%)

6

(15%)

14 out of 40 total positive respondents, or 35%, responded that they had one or another value-added or processed food available.

Among these 14 respondents, 57% indicated that they make jams or jellies; 43% make salsa/hot sauce, dry peppers or pesto; 35.7% make apple butter; 28.6% make baked goods; 14.3% can vegetables, and 7% make BBQ sauce.

Respondents were given the option of writing in Other items. Responses in this category receiving one vote each include the following: fleece products, dried flower wreaths, fresh flowers, evergreen wreaths, pickled products, ice cream, dilly beans, chutneys, conserves, tomato sauces, herbed vinegars, and berry vinegars.

Note: many respondents indicated that they produce more than one product on their farms.

Question 7 What other products would you be interested in growing for this project?

8 out of 40 total positive respondents, or 20%, responded with other interests. Responses to this open-ended question were naturally varied and are (in no particular order) as follows: herbs, onions, butternut squash, pumpkins, wildflowers, black-eyed Susan, yarrow, culinary herbs, stevia, Echinacea, comfrey, Fraser firs, and fresh and edible flowers. Three less specific answers included not sure, anything that will sell, and interest in growing produce only if have viable markets or contracts at a competitive price.

Question 8 How many acres do you have in commercial production?

28 out of 40 total positive respondents, or 70%, indicated the number of acres in commercial production. Answers to this question varied from zero acres in production to several hundred. The largest acreage tracts are generally for beef cattle, although some of the larger tracts are in orchards or hay. Many of the smaller total acreages are fruit and vegetable growers. The total number of acres in current commercial production totals 587.75 acres. The average acreage in commercial production is 23.51 acres. Many of these producers with acres in commercial production also have the opportunity or desire to expand into arable land that could be placed into production if suitable markets were available, as will be seen in the responses to the next question.

Question 9 How many acres of arable land could you put into production if you had suitable markets?

25 out of 40 total positive respondents, or 62.5%, indicated they had arable land that could go into production given suitable markets. Answers to this question varied from zero to 100 acres. Some respondents who indicated they had acreage in commercial production did not indicate additional arable land for potential production, while some who did not indicate any acreage under current commercial production indicated they would be willing to put acreage into production given suitable markets. Still others indicated they were operating at maximum capacity on their given acreage. The total number of potential arable acres given suitable markets is between 324 and 328. This means that the average acreage that could be put into commercial production given suitable markets is between 12.96 and 13.12 acres.

Question 10 What are your primary cash crops?

34 out of 40 total positive respondents, or 85%, indicated their primary cash crops. Those crops are as follows in order of number of responses:

Cattle (12), peppers (5), lettuce/greens (5), herbs (3), hay (3), squash (3), tomatoes (3), goats (2), vegetable crops (2), boxwoods (2), eggs (2), Christmas trees (2), landscape trees/shrubs/perennials/field liners (2), shiitake mushrooms, potatoes, garlic, beans, Jerusalem artichokes, broccoli, eggplant, cabbage, herbs, wool, lamb, apple trees, other fruit trees, dried plums, value added, and agritourism.

Question 11 Do you currently sell food products at local markets?

37 out of 40 total positive respondents, or 92.5%, responded to this question. We will assume that those who did not respond to this question do not currently sell food products at local markets.

Yes

No

15

(37.5%)

25

(62.5%)

Question 12 If yes, where do you currently sell your locally grown foods?

21 out of 40 total positive respondents, or 52.5%, answered this question. 21 out of 30 respondents who indicated that they currently sell food products at local markets (70%) indicated the locations at which they sell those products. Those locations are as follows:

Yancey County Farmers Market (7), restaurants (5), friends (3) Wednesday Downtown Asheville Tailgate Market (2), Asheville (2), CSA (2), market/farmers market (general 2), French Broad Co-op, ECO, Earth Fare, Whole Foods, camps, Mountain Foods, JJ Tomato, Southeastern Animal Fiber Fair, UNCA Tailgate Market.

Question 13 Are you a current or former tobacco farmer?

37 out of 40 total positive respondents, or 92.5%, responded to this question.

Yes

No

17

(42.5%)

20

(50%)

Question 14 Please add any other information that will be helpful for developing this project:

Responses are as follows:

Respondent 1 --Products coming from Yancey County should reflect the extreme seasonality of availability i.e. educating the public to honor the seasonal availability of varieties -NOT tomatoes in January or watermelons for July 4!!! Support Yancey County's agricultural economy, not the uneducated public demands.

Respondent 3 -- We should learn/model this project after ECO and NROG and with the help from ASAP.

Respondent 6 -Experienced cook, baker food product developer. Value added is the future! Other mushrooms are looming in our future.

Respondent 13 - As you well know, there must be a market. Presently, the Biltmore Estate controls most of large production of cash crops. This pushes the small farmer OUT! in WNC.

Respondent 14 - I've been trying to plant a profitable farm but am limited because of funds. I grow enough for my whole family and to share with family and friends. I also have a small greenhouse which I propagate a lot throughout the year. Right now my greenhouse is in really bad shape but it is full of herbs and sedum planters and bonsai. It needs heat and a new makeover.

Respondent 19 - We think a wholesale distribution center and a commercial kitchen such as the one at BRFV would benefit the county. There is also a need for a meat processing facility in our region - the closest one is two hours away.

Respondent 26 - I strongly believe that this project can directly support economic growth/continued income throughout the season for YANCEY County farmers. That means developing Yancey Grown products, selling only Yancey grown produce in any aspect of this project. If our growing season is so short we should focus on season extension techniques as well as value-added products and specialty items: meats, forest products, medicinal herbs, pies, cakes of regional type, AND most importantly we need to educate both residents and visitors about our region's bounty. This is a detailed answer but to examine individual product feasibility is something I have done on a limited basis but am actively doing for my own farm. On my table is a delicious jar of chipotle salsa made by a friend in Yancey County. I have half a dozen or more unique products that I am exploring. Feel free to contact me anytime to discuss further - I am most available Mondays and Thursdays but my time becomes more flexible in winter.

Respondent 29 - We need a USDA certified kitchen for making products for sale like they have in Madison. We need a facility for canning, drying, cheese making, and butchering.

Respondent 30 - I usually sell all my crop here at the orchard but would welcome other outlets

Respondent 31 - Would like a certified place to make pickles, jam and ice cream. Please consider asking businesses or churches with large campuses to start organic gardens or community gardens to help feed the community. Some people want to garden but have no land. Look at 7th Day Adventist Church campus - high school ag students could grow a lot of vegetables there. Also the sock factory might be willing to let their land be used for gardening. Would make a great site for a demonstration or community garden.

Respondent 33- Could the Yancey County CES establish FDA approved kitchen and processing facilities similar (or better!) than those in Madison County?

Respondent 34 - goat pasture development information.

Yancey Survey Conclusion

After reviewing the submitted survey responses, the researchers determined that there is sufficient producer demand in Yancey County to warrant further investigation into the development of an agricultural marketing, consolidation and distribution center. The survey identifies those respondents who are interested in providing products to such a venture. In order to accurately assess the volumes of products these producers can make available to the project, the next steps were one-on-one producer meetings and interviews. The researchers recommended that full feasibility analysis proceed with deliverables as originally proposed to Yancey County project leaders.

That study, completed by David Harper in 2011, did not find sufficient demand in Mitchell County alone for an aggregation, sales and marketing center. However, merging the two efforts will allow for a stronger and more diverse farmer base to support project development overall.

Mitchell County Farmer Participation Survey by David Harper, Land In Common

In 2011, David Harper of Land in Common conducted a farmer participation survey in Mitchell County. Based largely on methodologies used for the farmer survey in Yancey, the Mitchell County results are useful for contemplating a regional produce aggregation and sales center serving both counties and the surrounding region. Mitchell survey results are presented below:

Question 1 Do you have an interest in supplying your locally produced food to a consolidated sales and distribution organization in Mitchell County?

Yes

No

Maybe/Did Not Answer (DNA)

23

(54%)

10

(23%)

10

(23%)

Overt interest among respondents for supplying locally produced food to a consolidated sales and distribution organization is 23 out of 43 or 54%. The percentage of respondents with no interest in the project is comparatively small at 23% (10 out of 43), while 10 respondents (23%) did not answer the question. Some of these reported that they only raised beef cattle or grew Christmas trees. We infer that at least some farmers who did not answer may have some relevant interest in this project.

Question 2 Would you assist with the formation of a local distribution system?

Yes

No

Maybe/Did Not Answer (DNA)

24

(56%)

6

(14%)

13

(30%)

A majority of respondents 24 out of 43 (56%) responded that they would assist with the formation of a local distribution system. These responses offer the first insight into the potential formation of a distribution organization consisting of farmers as founding members. The percentage of respondents with no interest in participating in this system is much less, 14% (6 out of 43), while 13 respondents (30%) did not answer the question. Some farmers who did not answer may have some relevant interest in participating in a distribution once they learn more about the purpose and function.

Question 3 Which of the following seasonal fresh fruits do/will you have available?

Apples

Strawberries

Blueberries

Grapes

Peaches

8

(19%)

5

(12%)

6

(14%)

2

(5%)

2

(5%)

Blackberries

Cantaloupes

Pears

Raspberries

Watermelons

8

(19%)

4

(9%)

3

(7%)

6

(14%)

4

(9%)

20 out of the 43 total positive respondents, or 47%, responded that they had one or another seasonal fresh fruits available. Those responding that they grow other fruits listed: wineberries, cherries, and pumpkins. Apples and berries are by far the most commonly listed fruits grown by respondents, and could therefore represent important opportunities for distribution to schools and hospitals. Apples and blackberries each accounted for 19% of responses, while raspberries and blueberries each accounted for 14% of responses. 12% said they grow strawberries, and cantaloupes and watermelons each accounted for 9% of responses. Pears, peaches and grapes accounted for 7%, 5% and 5% of responses.

Note: many respondents indicated that they grow more than one product on their farms, and some listed that they will grow certain fruits in the future.

Question 4 Which of the following seasonal fresh vegetables do/will you have available?

Summer Squash

Tomatoes (heirloom)

Sweet Corn

Cabbage

Red Tomatoes

Hot Peppers

Potatoes

Snap Peas

Zucchini

Cucumbers

8

(19%)

4

(9%)

7

(16%)

4

(9%)

5

(12%)

6

(14%)

13

(30%)

3

(7%)

7

(16%)

5

(12%)

Green Beans

Romaine

Bell Pepper

Okra

Broccoli

Collards

Shiitake

Carrots

Greasy Beans

10

(23%)

3

(7%)

7

(16%)

4

(9%)

5

(12%)

3

(7%)

5

(12%)

3

(7%)

7

(16%)

15 out of the 43 total positive respondents, or 35%, responded that they had one or more seasonal fresh vegetables available. This is less than the total number of respondents growing fresh fruits in Mitchell County. Among these 43 respondents, the greatest number (13) reported growing potatoes, a full 30% of those who filled out the survey. This was followed in popularity by green beans at 23%; 19% indicated growing summer squash; while sweet corn, zucchini, bell peppers, and greasy beans are each listed by 16% of respondents; hot peppers are grown by 14%; 12% grow cucumbers, red tomatoes, broccoli, and shitake mushrooms; 9% grow heirloom tomatoes, cabbage, or okra; while 7% grow snap peas, romaine lettuce, collard greens, or carrots.

Respondents were given the option of writing in Other fresh vegetables. Responses include the following: sweet potatoes, greens, mustard greens, dry beans, bush beans, shelling beans, winter squash, pumpkins, cauliflower, onions, spring onions, turnips, beets, spinach, snow peas, swiss chard, kale, and oyster mushrooms.

Among positive respondents, several were growing a wide variety of vegetables. Of those who only grew one or two types, potatoes and beans were most common, which may indicate that these vegetables have been traditionally grown in the county.

Question 5 Which of the following other fresh foods do/will you have available?

Eggs

Honey

Herbs

Goat Cheese

Cow Cheese

5

(12%)

2

(5%)

1

(2%)

8 out of the 43 total positive respondents, or 19%, responded that they had one or more other fresh food available. Among these 5 respondents, 12% indicated producing eggs, while 2 produce honey (5%) and one produces herbs for sale (2%). No respondents listed that they produce either goat or cow cheese.

Note: many respondents indicated that they grow more than one product on their farms.

Question 6 Which of the following meats do/will you have available?

Beef

Chicken

Fresh Hams

Pork

Turkey

Country Hams

Pork Sausage

Lamb

Italian Sausage

Goat

2

(%)

0

(%)

0

0

(%)

0

(%)

0

0

2

(%)

0

0

(%)

5 out of 43 total positive respondents, or 12%, responded that they had one or another meat available, however, it is unclear from the responses whether these are sold at livestock markets or processed and sold locally. Two listed that they have beef available, and an additional 7 respondents noted elsewhere on the form that they raise beef cattle for sale to other markets, for a total of 9 cattle producers or 21% of respondents. Two respondents listed that they have lamb available, and one respondent raises meat rabbits for local sale.

Question 7 Which of the following value-added/processed foods do/will you have available?

Canned Vegetables

Salsa/Hot Sauce

Dried Peppers

Chocolates

Jams / Jellies

BBQ Sauce

Baked Goods

Snack Mixes

Apple Butter

Pesto

0

(0%)

1

(2%)

0

(0%)

1

(2%)

3

(7%)

0

(0%)

3

(7%)

0

(0%)

1

(2%)

2

(5%)

11 out of 41 total positive respondents, or 26%, responded that they had one or another value-added or processed food available. Additional value added/processed foods listed included: cider (2), and lye soap.

Among these 3 respondents, 7% indicated that they make jams or jellies; 5% make pesto; 2% make apple butter; 2% make salsa/hot sauce; 2% make chocolates; and 7% make baked goods.

Respondents were given the option of writing in Other items, though none responded

Note: many respondents indicated that they produce more than one product on their farms.

Question 8 What other products would you be interested in growing for this project?

15 out of 43 total positive respondents, or 35%, responded with other interests. Responses to this open-ended question were naturally varied and are (in no particular order) as follows: dried mushrooms; squash; cut flowers; peppers; vegetable starter plants; blueberry plants; strawberry plants; rhubarb; basil; greens; seed sprouts; pasta; boxwoods.

Question 9 How many acres do you have in commercial production?

29 out of 43 total positive respondents, or 67%, indicated the number of acres in commercial production. Answers to this question varied from zero acres in production to several hundred. The largest acreage tracts are generally for beef cattle, although some of the larger tracts are in orchards or hay. Many of the smaller total acreages are fruit and vegetable growers. The total number of acres in current commercial production totals 660 acres. The average acreage in commercial production is 21 acres. These numbers include some larger pasture acreage producing cattle for sale to livestock markets. The actual acreage of production for local/regional consumption is therefore likely to be lower. Many of these producers with acres in commercial production also have the opportunity or desire to expand into arable land that could be placed into production if suitable markets were available, as will be seen in the responses to the next question. It should be noted that 9 of the respondents (21%) listed Christmas tree production for some or all of their acreage.

Question 10 How many acres of arable land could you put into production if you had suitable markets?

20 out of 43 total positive respondents, or 47%, indicated they had arable land that could go into production given suitable markets. Answers to this question varied from zero to 40 acres. Some respondents who indicated they had acreage in commercial production did not indicate additional arable land for potential production, while some who did not indicate any acreage under current commercial production indicated they would be willing to put acreage into production given suitable markets. Still others indicated they were operating at maximum capacity on their given acreage. It is unclear whether some respondents listed the total acreage they would put in production (including their existing production acreage), or just the additional acreage. The total number of potential arable acres given suitable markets is 205. This means that an average of 10 acres could be put into commercial production given suitable markets.

Question 11 What are your primary cash crops?

38 out of 43 total positive respondents, or 88%, indicated their primary cash crops. Those crops are as follows in order of number of responses:

Christmas Trees (9), beef cattle (8), beans (4), ornamental trees/shrubs (4), potatoes (4), apples (3), honey (2), hay (2), blueberries (2), tobacco (2), strawberries (1), berries (1), lettuce (1), cabbage (1), eggs (1), produce (1), bread (1), mushrooms (1), rabbit meat (1)

Question 12 Do you currently sell food products at local markets?

12 out of 41 responding farmers (28%) said they do sell their foods at local markets, while 24 said they do not. This reflects the relatively high number of cattle and Christmas tree farmers who responded.

Yes

No

12

(28%)

24

(56%)

Question 13 If yes, where do you currently sell your locally grown foods?

23 out of 43 total positive respondents, or 54%, answered this question, with 9 of these respondents indicating that they currently sell food products at local farmers markets (21%) and 6 of these selling at both Spruce Pine and Bakersville. 11 respondents reported selling at other locations. Those locations are as follows:

Bakersville Farmers Market (9)

Spruce Pine Farmers Market (6)

Penland School (1)

Eastern Carolina Organics (1)

French Broad Food Co-op in Asheville (1)

at work (1)

restaurants in Spruce Pine (1)

on farm/from home (4)

repeat customers (1)

Walmart (1)

Question 14 Are you a current or former tobacco farmer?

37 out of 43 total positive respondents, or 86%, responded to this question.

Yes

No

25

(58%)

12

(28%)

Question 15 Would you be interested in participating in the formation of a food distribution organization to supply local schools and hospitals with Mitchell County farm products?

A total of 31 out of 43 farmers responded to this question (72%)

Yes

No

Maybe/Did Not Answer (DNA)

19

(44%)

12

(28%)

11

(26%)

19 out of 43 farmers (44%) said they would be interested in participating, while 12 (28%) said they would not. Out of 11 farmers who did not answer the question, at least 2 said they were not sure or needed more information.

Mitchell Survey Conclusion

After reviewing the submitted survey responses from Mitchell County, researchers do not believe that there is sufficient producer demand to develop an agricultural marketing, consolidation and distribution center for Mitchell County alone. However, opportunities exist for Mitchell County to partner on a regional level with other counties to develop a center to serve growers in a two or three county area.

CHAPTER 4 - Yancey County Consumer Participation Survey

In adherence to the original scope of the contract, consumer analysis was conducted in Yancey County only.

After conducting a survey of local farm producers to gauge their interest in supplying local fresh produce and farm products, a survey was sent out to the consuming public. Mountain Heritage High School FFA instructor Chad Ayers sent this survey home to his students parents. He also sent surveys out to all employees of Yancey County Schools. The responses to this survey were submitted in both hard copy and online. The total number of responses received for this survey was 107.

Question 1: Do you have an interest in purchasing fresh local produce and/or farm products in Burnsville?

104 out of 107 respondents (97.2%) answered question one. Of the 104 respondents, 100 reported having an interest in purchasing fresh local produce and/or farm products in Burnsville (96.2%). It can be assumed that the three who chose not to respond to this question are not interested. This would mean that 100 out of 107, or 93.5%, had an interest in purchasing fresh local produce and/or farm products in Burnsville.

Question 2: Do you believe locally grown produce and farm products are more healthful?

29 out of 107 respondents (27%) answered question two. Of the 29 respondents, 28 (96.6%) believed locally grown produce and farm products to be more healthful. One might assume that the 73% who did not answer this question are not fully convinced that locally grown products are more healthful.

Question 3: How would you describe the current availability of fresh local foods in Burnsville?

104 out of 107 respondents (97.2%) answered question three. Respondents were given a rating scale of one to five, with one indicating Unavailable and 5 indicating Very Available. The average rating response for this question was 2.87 out of 5.

Question 4: How important is it to you to have access to local fresh produce and farm products?

105 out of 107 respondents (98.1%) answered question four. Respondents were given a rating scale of one to five, with one indicating Not Important and 5 indicating Very Important. The average rating response for this question was 4.37 out of 5.

Question 5: Do you feel that eating seasonally is an important way to support farmers and the local agricultural economy?

104 out of 107 respondents (97.2%) answered question five. Respondents were given a rating scale of one to five, with one indicating Not Important and 5 indicating Very Important. The average rating response for this question was 4.66 out of 5.

Question 6: Do you believe it is important that local fresh produce should be available to children in county schools?

105 out of 107 respondents (98.1%) answered question six. Respondents were given a rating scale of one to five, with one indicating Not Important and 5 indicating Very Important. The average rating response for this question was 4.85 out of 5.

Question 7: How far would you be willing to go in-county to get to a market specializing in local fresh foods?

15 out of 107 respondents (14%) answered question seven. Of those 15 respondents, 10 indicated in miles how far they would be willing to go in-county for local fresh food. Answers ranged from 3 to 20 miles. The average distance one was willing to travel for local fresh foods came to 12.1 miles. Other responses include the following:

When open I go from Micaville to Davis Farms in Cane River Area.

I would be more likely to shop at a central location for convenience purposes.

Very.

Anywhere located between the two middle schools.

By lending my support.

One might assume that the 86% of respondents who chose not to answer question seven do not wish to travel far to purchase fresh local food, or at least would prefer the convenience of local foods being sold in markets where they already shop.

Question 8: Would you be willing to pay a little more in order to purchase produce and farm products you know to be local and fresh from the county?

87 out of 107 respondents (81.3%) answered question eight. Of those 87 respondents, 70 (80.5%) would be willing to pay a little more in order to purchase local fresh products from the county. Of those 70 respondents who would be willing to pay a little more, eight (11.4%) indicated an acceptable markup. Acceptable markup ranged from 1% to 20%. The average acceptable markup came to 9.75%. One might assume that the 18.7% of respondents who chose not to answer question eight are not yet willing to pay more for fresh local products.

Question 9: Please RANK the following ordering methods in order of your preference (1-4).

89 out of 107 respondents (83.2%) answered question nine. As can be seen in the chart below, ordering in person is the most desired ordering method with an average rating of 2.4 out of 4. Ordering through the US Mail is the least desired ordering method with an average rating of 0.72 out of 4. Ordering online and over the telephone both scored in the middle with 2.02 and 1.83 out of four, respectively.

Question 10: Please RANK the following purchase methods in order of your preference (1-4):

89 out of 107 respondents (83.2%) answered question ten. As can be shown in the chart below, shopping at a traditional market outlet is the most desirable purchasing method with an average rating of 2.77 out of 4. A paid-monthly CSA came in second with a rating of 1.77 out of 4, while a pre-ordered and pre-paid subscription came in third with a rating of 1.04 out of 5. The least desirable shopping method is a pre-paid CSA with monthly delivery with an average rating of 0.88 out of 4.

Question 11: How much would you be willing to spend on a fresh fruits and vegetables subscription if the prices were comparable to the supermarket?

77 out of 107 respondents (72%) answered question eleven. Of those 77 respondents, 34 (44%) were willing to subscribe at the $50-100 per month level. The following table illustrates response frequency:

Question 12: How often do you shop for seasonal fresh fruit?

93 out of 107 respondents (86.9%) answered question twelve. Of those 93 respondents, 75 (80.6%) shop weekly for fresh seasonal fruit. The frequency of responses can be seen in the chart below:

Question 13: Please check below next to the seasonal fresh fruit that you would be looking to purchase when available:

92 out of 107 respondents (86%) answered question thirteen. The following table illustrates the percentage of respondents who would shop for each fruit when in season. Apples, strawberries and peaches are the three most popular fruits.

Other fruits that people indicated shopping for include kiwi, plums, oranges, rhubarb, banana, pineapple and currants.

Question 14: How often do you shop for seasonal fresh vegetables?

93 out of 107 respondents (86.9%) answered question fourteen. Of those 93 respondents, 78 (83.9%) shop weekly for seasonal fresh vegetables. The frequency of responses can be seen in the chart below:

Question 15: Please check below next to the seasonal fresh vegetables that you would be looking to purchase when available:

91 out of 107 respondents (85%) answered question fifteen. The following table illustrates the percentage of respondents who would shop for each vegetable when in season. Corn, potatoes and red tomatoes are the three most popular vegetables.

Other vegetables that respondents indicated shopping for include green peppers, sweet potatoes, kale, cauliflower, carrots, spinach, banana peppers, arugula, asparagus, mushrooms, onions, winter and spaghetti squash, and salad greens.

Question 16: How often do you shop for fresh meats?

91 out of 107 respondents (85%) answered question sixteen. Of those 91 respondents, 73 (80.2%) shop weekly for fresh meat. The frequency of responses can be seen in the chart below:

Question 17: Please check below next to the fresh meats that you would be looking to purchase when available:

89 out of 107 respondents (83.2%) answered question seventeen. The following table illustrates the percentage of respondents who would shop for each meat when available. The three most popular meats are beef, chicken and pork.

Other fresh meats that respondents indicated purchasing when available include bacon, fish, venison, and kosher meats.

Question 18: How often do you shop for value-added or processed foods?

93 out of 107 respondents (86.9%) answered question eighteen. Of those 93 respondents, 66 (71%) shop weekly for value added of processed foods. The frequency of responses can be seen in the chart below:

Question 19: Please check below next to the value-added or processed foods that you would be looking to purchase when available:

89 out of 107 respondents (83.2%) answered question nineteen. The following table illustrates the percentage of respondents who would purchase value-added or processed foods when available. The three most popular items are Baked Goods, Canned Vegetables and Jams/Jellies.

Question 20: How often do you shop for other fresh foods?

93 out of 107 respondents (86.9%) answered question twenty. Of those 93 respondents, 72 (77.4%) indicated shopping for other fresh foods weekly. The frequency of responses can be seen in the cart below:

Question 21: Please check below next to the other fresh foods that you would be looking to purchase when available:

90 out of 107 respondents (84.1%) answered question twenty one. The following table illustrates the percentage of respondents who would purchase other fresh foods when available. The three most popular items are Eggs, Honey and Cow Cheese.

Other fresh foods that respondents indicated purchasing when available include milk, yogurt, juices and smoothies.

Question 22: Please add any other information that you feel will be helpful for developing this project. Your suggestions and comments are welcome!

To have a central location when these products are available to do shopping at one time.

I only buy organic produce. Who knows what fertilizers and pesticides local farmers use?

This is just what Yancey County needs. Show what Yancey County is made of and consists of. An all-inclusive Farmers Market--Yancey style.

1) Consider incorporating selling opportunities for part-time gardeners. 2) Online access to lists of produce and products available at given times would encourage me to shop a market instead of just going to grocery store. That way I can plan my menus/shopping lists accordingly.

I would be thrilled if this were to get going, wonderful idea

CHAPTER 6 Regional Market Research Results

The goal of regional market research was to learn more about the perspectives on local food marketing in Yancey and Mitchell Counties, measure demand for locally grown foods, learn more about the logistics of how buyers purchase products from a farmer distribution network, and determine who might be likely to play an advisory role in the formation of such a network.

These interviews were also intended to let the food buyers know about the feasibility study, to gauge their receptivity to participating in local food purchasing efforts, and to understand their sense of what farm products would work best as part of an initial pilot project. Follow-up interviews were then conducted based on the specific farm products identified, and how well these fit with what farmers are currently growing (or would be willing to grow). Follow-up questions centered on the logistical details of how and when produce would need to be picked, washed, graded, stored, and delivered.

Retail Purchaser DemandsThe consumer demand survey revealed that 96% of respondents in Yancey County were interested in the retail purchase of fresh local produce and/or farm products in Burnsville. A similar percentage believes those foods to be more healthful because of their being local. While it is important for survey respondents to have access to local fresh produce and farm products, the availability of fresh locally grown foods in Burnsville and Yancey County retail markets is low. Respondents indicated a willingness to pay an almost 10% premium for these products if available. Apples, strawberries and peaches are the three most popular fruits. Corn, potatoes and red tomatoes are the three most popular vegetables.

Responses show that retail consumers prefer to order their produce in person and purchase it in a traditional market setting. This implies the need to investigate completely the opportunity for establishing a retail outlet as part of this project.

Representative Market Opportunities

Market research interviews were conducted with the produce manager of Greenlife Grocery/Whole Foods in Asheville, the produce manager at Mountain Foods, and Jim Ray, Ingles Vice President of Produce. The goal was to learn more about produce purchase and delivery needs from a wholesale perspective.

Barriers to market entry regarding preparedness must be stressed: Potential local producers must ensure that they have GAP/HACCP certification and a minimum of $1,000,000 in liability insurance. Some retailers will require substantially higher insurance minimums.

One main issue concerning the viability of food production and distribution is the continually rising costs of fuel. This raises not only food transportation costs, but also the costs of any petroleum based product used on the farm. In a large nationwide food distribution system, food prices rise in accordance with fuel prices. Food imported from far beyond the local region is becoming more expensive to buy. If the price gap between industrial commodity food and local food gets too wide, this will provide an advantage for local producers. Their farm products would be cheaper and more competitive than food trucked in from around the nation and the world.

Direct Retail

Since survey responses show that retail consumers prefer to order their produce in person and purchase it in a traditional market setting, locating a suitable physical location for direct retail is important. There are a variety of factors to consider when choosing a physical location, such as vehicle access, visibility to traffic and location. The location should be a minimum of 2,000 square feet and have water, sewer, natural gas and three-phase electricity.

There should be suitable parking for both retail customers and truck access for delivery and distribution. Good visibility will ensure more foot and vehicle customer traffic. A small portion of survey respondents indicated that they would be willing to drive an average of 12 miles to access a facility that specialized in local fresh foods. However, since 86% did not answer the question, we assume that a centralized facility with good visibility will fare best in Yancey County.

A centralized direct retail location can capitalize on the fact that harvest time and summer tourism coincide. It can also benefit from local chefs who can pick their fresh local produce and save delivery costs and carbon footprints. A direct retail location can also consider value-added production, but should be prepared to encounter more stringent local, state and federal regulations. See Chapter 9: Regulatory Issues for more information regarding these regulations.

Direct to Consumer through CSA

Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) is an increasingly popular way for consumers to buy local, seasonal food directly from a farmer. It is also a way for farmers to create additional marketing channels for their farm products. It works like this: a farmer offers a certain number of "shares" to the public. Typically the share consists of a box of vegetables, but other farm products may be included. Interested consumers purchase a share (aka a "membership" or a "subscription") and in return receive a box of seasonal produce periodically throughout the farming season. In most cases delivery or pickup of produce occurs weekly or monthly. Many CSAs offer a variety of pickup/drop-off points in a region. This arrangement creates several advantages for both the farmer and the consumer.

Farmer Advantages

Consumer Advantages

Get to spend time marketing the food early in the year, before their long days in the field begin

Eat fresh local food with all the flavor and vitamin benefits

Receive payment early in the season, which helps with the farm's cash flow

Get exposed to seasonal vegetables and new ways of cooking and eating

Have an opportunity to get to know the people who eat the food they grow

Develop a relationship with the farmer who grows their food and learn more about how food is grown

A survey of student families and county education employees determine an existing demand for a CSA delivery program for school employees. A total of 34 respondents indicated that they would be willing to subscribe to a CSA at $50-100/mo., which results in early projected CSA project revenue of $1,700-$3,400. In addition to providing income, the project may charge a premium for providing a CSA service, resulting in increased income generation for the project. The project should consider soliciting shares and organizing farm product delivery for a CSA.

Greenlife/Whole Foods

In 2010, Greenlife Grocery in Asheville was bought by Whole Foods Markets. Since the takeover, Greenlife produce manager Rob Everett reports that some policies and organizational structures have changed. Greenlife is known in the Asheville region as a grocery store that specializes in organic produce. Customers often ask about how the vegetables were grown and what, if any, pesticides or chemicals were used in their production. And, says Everett, people do not want a wishy-washy answer for that they want to know what goes into their food more now than before. They almost only dabble in non-organics since there are logistical and practical difficulties in keeping the two types separated in transport, storage and on the selling floor. Selling of organic and non-organic produce as a certified organic retailer requires tracking documents and procedures in place to ensure the separation of each type of product.

Regional Whole Foods managers might look differently at the idea of selling local non-organics, and Everett indicated that in the near future a wider diversity of non-organic produce may be available in the Greenlife produce aisle. Locally grown foods do not cost as much to transport as national growers based in California. Local but non-organic produce is generally cheaper than either local organic or nationally-distributed organic, which can result in higher profit margins. Sourcing locally also reduces the carbon footprint of the food itself, something that Everett is interested in tracking because people are becoming more aware of this issue. This could lead to an increase in management willingness to embrace the project ideas. Overall, he sees a greater opportunity for local non organics now that Greenlife is part of Whole Foods. He also indicated that there has been somewhat of a clientele shift at Greenlife since the buyout, with more openness to food that is local rather than organic. He estimates that, given Ashevilles passion for local and organic, 70% of his customers want strictly organic and that 30% are flexible with respect to local foods. This could be shifting towards a 60/40 ratio now that Whole Foods is in charge.

Everett is reluctant to identify specific produce items for sourcing from Yancey County growers. Depending on weather and harvest times, there can be a glut in the market one month for an item and a shortage the next month. However, with the growing cycle a little later in Yancey, there may be an opportunity to complement or supplement the availability of other produce supplies. Items like potatoes, onions and squash that can be stored after harvest can be staggered to extend the delivery season. Sometimes there is an exciting immediacy to what is fresh and in season and the store can capitalize on volume sales. This is especially true of sweet corn. In contrast, there are some produce items, heirloom tomatoes in particular, that have a smaller window of opportunity for ripeness.

Everett stressed that new producers that want to get into the shelves at Greenlife are going to have to get in line behind the already established growers that they already do business with. They are encouraged to grow what they know how to grow, and not change to suit a potential market.

Wet produce items have to be handled differently because of the increased potential for comingling of organic and conventional produce. Wet items include such vegetables as greens that retain a lot of moisture and that may have to be left to drain on racks. It is water that is a common culprit in the comingling of organics and conventional. Greenlife also require separate and special signage to identify this difference. In terms of required certifications, Whole Foods is increasingly interested in GAP and HACCP and wants to know that their farmers understand common practices to avoid the spread of food-borne illnesses. Safety is very important to management. Everett believes that Whole Foods would be willing to entertain the idea of providing some certification education for their producers. He recommends that should be discussed with regional team leaders based in Atlanta.

Everett expressed a preference for dealing with one legal entity who retains a minimum of $2,000,000 in liability coverage and who delivers in new clean boxes. All of the farmers should sign up under the legal umbrella organization. Everett recommended that Yancey County consider a partnership with Madison Farms. This would help limit the number of vendors that Everett would have to deal with regularly, and in addition Madison Farms is already an approved vendor in the Whole Foods Southeastern Region.

Since phone calls are time consuming, Everett prefers communicating with vendors through email. Vendors should gather and consolidate their weekly price availability on Mondays. They need to be able to generate an internal order sheet to match the purchase order because those two documents are compared at the loading dock upon delivery. Purchase orders should be sent via email.

Produce needs to be delivered at proper temperatures as well. Greenlife uses a laser temperature gun to ensure that the temperature inside a pallet of vegetables is consistent with the outside. Some deliveries are made in open topped boxes that are filled with ice to keep them cool, and the interior temperature needs to be consistent with the outside temperature. Leading Green Distributors provides transportation services for delivery of produce in a refrigerated truck. This costs money, but when one has to take care of their own distribution, rising gas prices and repairs take a toll on the budget as well. So does the need to hire a responsible driver for the delivery truck. Being dependent on a third party, then, has both its advantaged and disadvantages.

Everett suggested that, as production volumes increase, a consolidated organization consider marketing to Whole Foods regional warehouse. Whole Foods may consider warehouse pickup of local produce at stores along their delivery routes to execute a backhaul of fresh produce to the warehouse and further reduce the carbon footprint of the produce. Selling at that volume would require lower sales prices to account for the chains own distribution costs. Everett thinks that local non organics may sell better in stores that are a further away from the strong local and organic food scene in Asheville.

Contact:Rob Everett, Produce Manager

Greenlife/Whole Foods

70 Merrimon Ave

Asheville, NC 28801 USA

P: 828-254-5440

Mountain Foods

Mountain Foods, a local foods distributor housed at the WNC Farmers Market, specializes in small order delivery to restaurants in the greater Asheville area. The company encourages farmers to grow what they know how to grow. As a policy, Danielle, the produce manager, does not tell farmers what they have a need for because she fears encouraging them to grow something that may not have a market in the future. Growing what they already are comfortable with growing will result in a better product that Mountain Foods will be more likely to be able to move. They do not currently require either GAP or HACCP certifications but they are aware of the movement towards these requirements. Mostly what they would like to see from growers is an understanding of the standards for growing and selling the particular item or items they want to sell.

Danielle encourages farmers who wish to sell through Mountain Foods to come to the warehouse to see examples of similar products as they flow through the warehouse. So, if someone wants to grow cabbage, they should come take a look at the varieties, sizes, cleanliness, packages and product ID stickers of cabbage already being sold. She feels that this visual and hands on approach to orienting farmers to their standards is the most effective for maintaining a high standard of delivery. This means presenting a clean and professional product, but should especially consider the packaging method: packaging should not compromise the integrity of the product. Farmers are encouraged to ship their products to Mountain Foods using similar parameters to the big box distributors (such as waxed boxes for cabbage), which helps products during shipment and travel. Considering the end user of their products is also helpful: chefs will want products that are easily stored in their limited cold storage. Similarly, it is easier for Mountain Foods to ship food items that are conveniently packaged in boxes. These boxes should have tops on them and be in good shape. Mountain Foods will not buy products that are in topless boxes, heavily damag