JUNE 12, 2019 CAMPUS DINING 201: Trends, Challenges & Opportunities for Farm to College in New England
SPEAKERS Tania Taranovski Annie Rowell Director of Programs Vermont First Coordinator Farm to Institution New England Sodexo tania@farmtoinst.org Annie.Rowell@sodexo.com Julianne Stelmaszyk Hannah Leighton Manager of Regional & Research & Evaluation Manager Sustainable Food Systems Farm to Institution New England Boston College Dining hannah@farmtoinst.org stelmasz@bc.edu
OUTLINE I. ABOUT FINE II. FARM TO INSTITUTION METRICS III. 2018 CAMPUS DINING SURVEY IV. CASE STUDY #1: VT FIRST @ SODEXO V. CASE STUDY #2: BOSTON COLLEGE VI. Q&A VII. CONCLUDE Photo: Bates College Photo courtesy of Intervale Food Hub
INTERACTIVE FEATURES Q&A
ABOUT FINE PART 1 OF 7
OUR MISSION To mobilize the power of New England institutions to transform our food system
WHAT FINE OFFERS COMMUNITIES OF NETWORK SERVICES PROGRAMS PRACTICE EVENTS & TRAININGS FARM & SEA TO CAMPUS LOCAL FOOD PROCESSORS & HUBS COMMUNICATIONS FOODSERVICE METRICS RESEARCH & METRICS PUBLIC POLICY COLLABORATIVE DINING OPERATORS
FARM TO CAMPUS The New England Farm & Sea to Campus Network is a community of higher education and food systems stakeholders who connect, share, and collaborate to develop transparent regional supply chains and educate campus communities about regional food systems.
RESEARCH & METRICS The information we share about the state of farm to institution through our dashboard, research reports, webinars, and other publications is built from a foundation of primary and secondary research.
FARM TO INSTITUTION METRICS PART 2 OF 7
WHY METRICS? Diversified and stable market To understand the system Serve 3.8 million people per year we are trying to change, Buy 16% local food, on average Want to purchase more local food track our progress, and inform our plans
DATA SOURCES 2018 FINE College Dining Survey (N=110/200; 55% response rate) 2015 FINE Food Distributor Survey (N=56/86; 65% response rate) 2015 USDA Farm to School Census (N=727/1015 New England school districts; 72% response rate) 2016 & 2017 Health Care Without Harm Survey (N=84/150; 56% response rate) (N=54/150; 36% response rate) 2016 FINE Producer Survey 225+ responses across six states All data presented comes from surveys, is self-reported and may conflict with other data sources.
LOCAL FOOD SPEND 16% 21.5% 15% Average Percent of Budget Spent on Local Across Sectors: 17.5%
LOCAL FOOD SPEND $25 $68 $42 Million Million Million Total Local Spend: $135 Million
ONLINE DASHBOARD NEW ENGLAND FARM TO INSTITUTION METRICS DASHBOARD Your source for cross-sector metrics measuring the breadth and impact of farm to institution in six states Explore the dashboard: dashboard.farmtoinstitution.org
2018 CAMPUS DINING SURVEY: RESULTS & RECOMMENDATIONS PART 3 OF 7
SURVEY RESPONSES BY STATE
RESPONDING COLLEGES BY FOOD BUDGET
FOODSERVICE BUDGETS & MEALS SERVED and served Responding colleges spent a total of 87 million $398 million meals during the on food in the 2017-18 fiscal year 2017-2018 fiscal year
LOCAL FOOD PURCHASES BY NEW ENGLAND COLLEGES Photo: Harvard University Responding colleges spent a total of And spent an average of 21.5% $68 Million of their total food budget on local food on local food
FINE estimates all New England colleges spent $100-$115 million on local food during one year’s time in 2017-18 Photo: Worcester State University This estimate is based on data collected in this current survey and the non-respondent survey undertaken on the 2015 survey, and represents a conservative estimate of local food purchases by college.
DEFINING LOCAL FOOD
TRACKING LOCAL FOOD PURCHASES
LOCAL FOOD SPENDING BY STATE
TOP LOCALLY SOURCED PRODUCTS PRODUCT AVG. % OF PRODUCTS SOURCED LOCALLY Dairy/Milk 56% Seafood 29% Vegetables 25% Eggs 23% Fruits 18% Value-added 17% Products Meat 14%
PRODUCTS MOST DIFFICULT TO SOURCE LOCALLY PRODUCT TIMES MENTIONED Chicken/Poultry 50 Meat 31 Seafood & Fish 14 Fruits 13 Lettuce 13 Pork 13 Grains 12
TOP BARRIERS TO PURCHASING LOCAL FOOD Cost/price point Availability/supply Fulfilling volume needs Off-season Consistency/quality Distribution/delivery availability/sourcing of products
CHALLENGES WITH TRACKING LOCAL PRODUCTS Photo: Bates College
OUTLOOK FOR FUTURE LOCAL FOOD PURCHASES Photo: UVM Dining
RECOMMENDATIONS For Dining Operators: For Government Offjcials, Policy- Makers, Funders, and Nonprofits: ● Partner with distributors, vendors, and food service management companies to prioritize ● Support trainings and innovative farm to local and regional procurement institution programs ● Consider working directly with farmers ● Support research and tracking efforts ● Develop meaningful tracking systems ● Prioritize supportive farm to institution policy ● Address potential barriers around cost, seasonality, and access to local food For Distributors: For Farmers: ● Work with institutions to understand their ● Become wholesale ready demand for local and regional food ● Become familiar with the institutions and ● Provide reliable and transparent reporting distributors in your area
READ THE REPORT! Read the full report to learn more about: 1. Defining and tracking regional food 2. Self-op and FSMCs 3. Distributors used in New England 4. Campus farms and gardens 5. Campus food pantries www.farmtoinst.org/campus-report-201
CASE STUDY #1 PART 4 OF 7
CASE STUDY #2 PART 5 OF 7
Increasing local procurement and transparency for institutions Julianne Stelmaszyk Boston College Dining Services June 12, 2019 FINE Webinar Campus Dining 201
Farming More Land & Extending the Season Project Goal: to increase the amount of land farmed in New England, extend the growing season and create new markets for new and emerging farmers through collective buying power and ‘forward agreements’ 50,000+ meals per day 4,000 lbs of beets per month 11,000 lbs of bell peppers per month
Recommendations 1. Identify target purchases and specs (volume) by month for Campus Dining 2. Identify stakeholders and set expectations. Formalize with an MOU. 3. Start the conversation with farms and play matchmaker 4. Keep in constant communication 5. Bring stakeholders together to discuss challenges (i.e. the beet dilemma) 6. Determine shared needs - what crops makes the most sense?
Challenges 1. Some farms needed to meet food safety certifications 2. Cost of local produce is higher 3. Growers can be wary of working with distributors/processors and institutions 4. Local produce is inconsistent in shape, size and challenging to process at high volume
Lessons Learned 1. Forward purchase commitment helps farmers plan their fields and minimize lost sales 2. Processors/distributors were necessary for us food safety coverage ○ ○ processed products logistics/delivery ○ 3. Certain crops make more sense than others 4. Communication is key 5. Start way ahead of the growing season
Q&A PART 6 OF 7
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION Next Webinars - Coming Soon: National Metrics Collaborative Webinar Series - June 25 Product Spotlight: Seafood - TBD
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION CONNECT WITH FINE - SHARE YOUR STORIES Via social media In a working group On the Dining Operators listserv Email: campus@farmtoinst.org
CONCLUSION PART 7 OF 7
Recommend
More recommend
