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