2015 Local Food Marketing Practices Survey

Project Code 683

Purpose of Survey• Provide Data on Production and Marketing of Locally and

Regionally Produced Agricultural Food Products.

• Establish benchmark data for Value of Local Food Sales, Marketing Practices and Expenses.o Who are those folks selling local foods?o What enterprises are emerging?o How important are local sales to the farm

economy?o What are the economic impacts and community

benefits?

Target Population

• U.S. Farms which produced and sold crops, livestock, poultry or agricultural products for humans to eat or drink during 2015.

• Marketing Channels of interest:• Direct to Consumers• Direct to Retail Markets• Direct to Institutions• Direct to Intermediate Markets that are one step removed

from the consumer.

Direct Marketing Practices

Screening Questions

• Out-of-scope Operations (those who should screen out of the survey completely) include:• Abnormal Operations (prison farms, university farms, etc.), • Agribusinesses which do not produce food products (only

process or pack them), • Farms which do not produce food for human consumption

(hay, tobacco, Xmas Trees, floriculture, nursery, pulpwood, horses, feed crops)

• Landlords.

Screening Questions

• In-Scope Operations: Three big questions to consider:• Was the operation on the label a farm or a ranch?• Did the sampled operation produce and sell products

directly to a consumer, retail market, institution, or intermediate market*?

• Were those products, sold directly, food for humans to eat or drink?

If the answer is “no” to any of these three questions, then the target screens out.

Intermediate Market

The “Intermediate Market” idea can start as a “catch-all”for all other sales of food products that are not direct to consumer, retail, or institution, but in order to complete section four, two criteria need to be met:1. The operation intends to use the intermediary to market

the product as locally or regionally grown.2. The Intermediate Market pools production with other

farms to sell the goods with a brand that indicates that the products are locally or regionally grown.

Intermediate Market

• Examples where one could sell to an intermediate market, but screen out of the survey:• Operations produce and sell food or food products to an

intermediary without regard or knowledge as to how they are marketed (or the eventual marketing path is unknown),

• Operations which produce and sell food or food products to an intermediate market, but the food products are going to be marketed Nationally or Internationally without “local” branding.

• The intermediate market may label the product with the place of production, but have no intent for that place name to imply that the product will be sold near where it was produced.

ProcessorsGoes back to the screening questions:1. Does the processor selling/marketing the product also producing

the product, or are they exclusively purchasing from growers under a contract?

2. Is the processor using a brand to indicate that the product is locally or regionally grown?

3. Is the product being marketed locally/regionally (as opposed to nationally/internationally)?

Can get very tricky with vertically integrated operations.Collect what data you can, fill out the form and take good notes.

Contracts with Processors and Co-Ops

1. Who owns the product being grown? Does the farmer sell the product to the contractor or does the contractor pay the farmer to raise the product for them? (Production Contract versus Marketing Contract)

2. Is the contractor using a brand to indicate that the product is locally or regionally grown?

3. Is the product being marketed locally/regionally by the contractor (as opposed to nationally/internationally)?

Most production contracts will screen out. Marketing contracts can be tricky, but generally will depend upon what happens to the final product. Take good notes.

Types of Information Collected

Sections 1 – 4:• Mileage (one-way) to marketing channel• Year First Started Marketing Practice• Number of other operations involved in a direct-to-consumer

marketing channel• Specific questions regarding on-line marketing of products and CSAs• Acceptance of SNAP/EBT benefits• Gross value of crop sales• Gross value of livestock sales• Gross value of processed or value added

food product sales

First year of Direct Marketing Practice

The first year the sampled operation began selling through each marketing channel should be reported.

The current operators did not need to be involved when the practice was first used (the Local Foods Project is Operation Dominant)

Operations that used a channel in the past but had a gap of five years or more should report the most recent return to the marketing practice.

Value Added Products - CropsDefinition: Products have been altered or packaged in a way that is not required for transportation before being sold.• Value added crop products have clear definition (jelly, jam, cider,

canned or preserved vegetables, wine, etc.)• Repackaging a product for marketing is considered value added (snack

sized packages of almonds)• Food sold in current state from Crop Categories could include apples,

wild rice, potatoes, tomatoes, oregano, lavender for cooking, coffee beans, beets, sweet corn, edamame, and many more

• What can be excluded? Products made from another operation’s production, products purchased for resale, Products that are not food.

Value Added Products – LivestockDefinition: Products have been altered or packaged in a way that is not required for transportation before being sold.• Most livestock products are going to be considered “value added”.• Value added livestock products are less intuitive (cuts of meat,

including slaughtered cattle, eggs in a carton, dairy products, bottled milk, pork sausage)

• What livestock products aren’t value added? Farm raised fish, oysters, soft-shelled crabs, bulk honey (key: food is sold in current/unaltered state)

• What can be excluded? Products made from another operation’s production, products purchased forresale, Products that are not food.

Types of Information Collected

Section 5:• Total Land/Cropland; County of Operation• Gross value of food sales and non-food sales• Other Ag Production – 16 Farm Types• Total Value of Sales Category and Point Chart• Total expenses• Marketing expenses associated with food production and sales

reported in sections 1-4

Types of Information Collected

Section 6 – 8:• Production and marketing practices

• Use of the internet• Participation in USDA programs• Records Maintenance

• Third Party Certification and Food Safety• Organic, Natural, Cage Free, Anti-biotic Free, Certified Humane• Food Safety Plans• Food Safety Audits

• Personal Characteristics• Demographic information – same as asked on Census

Sampling Sources

• NASS List Sampling Frame (“LSF” or “ELMO” – Green Forms):• Indicated Direct Sales on 2012 Census of Agriculture• Other Control Data Items that suggest producing items for human

consumption (fruits, veggies, specialty crops/livestock).• Operations found on the internet associated with key terms that suggest

they would be farms that would qualify for the local foods survey through a process called “web-scraping” (“MACE” Frame – Blue Forms):• CSA, Farm-to-Table, Farm-to-Fork, Farm-to-Consumer, Slow Food,

Agritourism, Buying Clubs, Local Agriculture Market, Community Food, Cooperative Grocer, Sourcing Local Foods

• Area Frame – Two questions added to June Area Questionnaire this year

Sampling Sources

• Web Scraping was not perfect. Some things picked up include:• Overlap with farms already on the NASS LSF• “Cob-web sites”• Non-Farms• Agri-businesses• Abnormal Farms• Operations that don’t market locally or regionally

• Record Linkage to Eliminate Duplication Attempted: • Not Perfect• Some operations may get two forms.

Data Collection Timeline• EDR Available: March 31• Mailing Dates: April 4 and May 11• Formal Training: Mid-Year Workshop, May 17-19• Primary Phone and Field Follow-Up: June 1 – July 31• Call Center Support Provided? Yes• CAPI Available? Yes• Call-outs from Call Center: July 18 – August 12• Last Day to Submit Call-Outs in CAPI: August 12• Data Released to Public: December 20, 2016

Expected Sample Counts*

Total Mail DCC Local FieldSTATE Count Only CATI Phone Enum-------------- -------- -------- -------- --------- -------INDIANA 884 20 675 97 92MICHIGAN 1,085 36 897 64 88OHIO 1,138 18 972 85 63-------------- -------- --- ------ ---- ----TOTAL 3,107 74 2,544 246 243

Available Resources

On NASDA/Purdue Website• Questionnaire (two versions)

• Green = NASS List• Blue = MACE (web-scraping) List

• Respondent Instructions• Pre-Survey Postcard• Pre-Survey Letter• Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Sheet• Interviewer’s ManualMore will be posted as it becomes available

Survey Contacts

Team Lead: John Miyares, Field Crop and Fruit Section, 517-324-5314

Backup: Ben Magen, Field Crop and Fruit Section, 517-324-5305

Clerk: Nathan Elias, 517-324-5317

Deputy Director: Kif Hurlbut, 517-324-5300