Qualifying Exam Presentation

Jonathan Adam Watson
PhD Student
Agricultural Operations Management

◦ Bring locally or regionally
produced foods in school
cafeterias.
◦ Provide hands-on learning
activities such as school gardens.
◦ Sponsor farm visits.
◦ Teach culinary classes.
◦ Integrate nutrition education into
classroom curriculum.
Source: USDA Food and Nutrition Service.
What is Farm to School?
Farm to School (F2S) is a movement to enrich children’s
bodies and minds while supporting local economies. The
program encompasses efforts to:

Source: Gunderson (2003), USDA Food & Nutrition Service (2015)
1853
Children’s Aid Society
of NY initiates first free
school lunch program
in the U.S.
1929
Stock market
crash signal
beginning of
Great
Depression,
value of
agricultural
production
decreases by
50%
1936
Congress approves
P.L. 320 to
purchase surplus
commodities
forms Commodity
Donation Program
1941
The U.S.
declares war
on Japan.
From
beginning to
end of war,
meals served
decreases by
79.5%
nationally.
1946
The National School
Lunch Act signed by
President Truman,
NSLP first federally
funded school lunch
program
1962
Congress
enacts
amendments
to the Act to
change the
funds
formula to be
based on
participation
and
assistance
need rates.
1996
Birth of F2S
through pilot
programs in
California
and Florida.
2000
USDA Initiative
for Future
Agricultural
and Food
Systems (IFAFS)
supports
establishment
of National
Farm to School
Program.

 2004 Child Nutrition Reauthorization
◦ Establishes a federal farm to school program, through the program was not funded at the
time. Required all school districts participating in the NSLP or other federally funded-
school meal programs to have a wellness policy by 2006-2007 school year.
 2008 U.S. Farm Bill
◦ Section 4302 of the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 established geographic
preference option to improve opportunities for local procurement in school meal programs.
 2010 Food Safety Modernization Act
◦ Provided new regulations both for produce farms and for facilities processing food for
human consumption. The FSMA impacts everyone including farmers, distributors and food
hubs who are involved in producing, aggregating or processing food for schools.
 2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act
◦ Section 243 of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 provided $5 million per year in
mandatory funding for the Farm to School Grant Program. Strengthens school food
nutrition standards and wellness policies.
 2014 U.S. Farm Bill
◦ Section 4202 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 established a new pilot program for up to eight
states to explore procurement alternatives – including local procurement – for unprocessed
fruits and vegetables.

• Complex hierarchy and
system of food procured
from various sources
produced in many states
• Includes:
• Producers
• Packers
• Processors
• Wholesalers
• Distributors
• Government agencies
• School districts

Authoritative Body Responsibility
Federal Government • Sets reimbursement levels.
• Determines nutrition requirements.
• Creates policies for commodity foods.
State Government • Sets regulations for schools not in
federal programs.
• Creates academic state-level
standards for testing procedures.
School Board/District • Approves district operating budget.
• Sets priorities for superintendent.
• Proposes tax measures for approval
by voters.
Superintendent/Admin. • Establishes expectations for food
service.
• Recommends budget.
• Secures additional resources.
Food Service Director • Creates food service budget.
• Sets menus.
• Determines food service roles.
Principal • Determines level of support for staff.
• Creates class schedule.
Teachers & Staff • Chooses to integrate food into class.
• Models attitude toward school food.
• Communication with parents.

 2010 Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 140
◦ The Florida Farm Fresh Schools Program Act establishes the Florida Fresh Schools Program
within the Florida Department of Education (FDOE). It requires FDOE to work with the
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) to develop policies that
encourage school districts to buy fresh and local food, select foods with maximum
nutritional content, and provide outreach services regarding local food products.
 2013 House Bill 7087/7089
◦ House Bill 7087 establishes the Florida School Food and Nutrition Act, which requires
FDACS to develop policies pertaining to school food services in order to implement the
Florida Farm Fresh Schools Program. Requires the department to provide outreach,
guidance and training about the benefits of fresh food products from farms in the state to
stakeholders. These policies specifically encourage:
1. Sponsors, defined as any entity conducting a program under a current agreement with the department,
to buy fresh and high-quality food grown in Florida when feasible.
2. Florida farmers to sell their products to sponsors or school districts.
3. Sponsors to demonstrate preference for competitively priced organic food products.
4. Sponsors to make reasonable efforts to selects foods based on a preference for those that have
maximum nutritional content.
◦ House Bill 7089 provides an exemption from public records requirements for personal
identifying information.

 In 2012:
◦ 47,740 farms.
◦ 9.5 million acres.
◦ Over 300 products.
◦ Average farm size – 200 acres.
◦ $5.97 billion in crop sales.
◦ Commodities:
 Fruits, tree nuts, and berries:
 $1.85 billion.
 Vegetables, melons and potatoes:
 $1.35 billion
 Approx. 2.5 million children in 3800 schools in the state.
 Approx. 3.5 million people (15% of households) participating in SNAP.
 About 25% of children under 18 years of age are SNAP eligible.
Image Source: USDA Economic Resource Service. Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP) Data System: Maps. Available at:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-
program-(snap)-data-system.aspx#.UYj7J6JawsB
2012 number of Florida SNAP participants by county

 Federally assisted meal
program operating in
over 100,000 public
and non-profit
educational institutions.
 Participating agencies
receive cash subsidies
(reimbursements) and
USDA foods for each
meal they serve.
 Must serve lunches that
meet Federal
requirements.
 Must offer free or
reduced price lunches
to eligible children.
40%
10%
20%
30%

Requirements for free or reduced lunch?
 Child must attend a participating school.
 For free meals:
◦ Children from families with incomes at or below 130% of poverty level. For a family
of 4, this equates to $31,005 in FY 2014-2015.
 For reduced price meals:
◦ Children from families with incomes at or below 185% of poverty level. For a family
of 4, this equates to $44,123 in FY 2014-2015.
 Programs that operate in areas where at least 51% of students are
eligible for free or reduced-price meals may serve afterschool
snacks for free.

National School Lunch
Program
Less than 60%
F or RP
Lunches
Served
Less than
60%
+6 cents*
60% or
more
F or RP
Lunches
Served
60% or
more
+6
cents*
Contiguous States**:
Paid
Reduced Price
Free
$/Meal
0.28
2.58
2.98
$/Meal
0.34
2.64
3.04
$/Meal
0.30
2.60
3.00
$/Meal
0.36
2.75
3.15
How much reimbursement do schools get?
* Certified Schools in compliance receive additional federal cash reimbursement.
**Includes District of Columbia, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and Guam.
 In addition to cash reimbursements, schools are entitled by law to receive USDA Foods
called “entitlement” foods.
 There are also “bonus” foods that are declared as surplus by USDA. Bonus foods are
offered periodically as they become available.

The USDA purchases food to support the American
agricultural market and to remove surplus. Cost
includes administrative, storage, delivery and
processing fees.
Products include:
◦ Fruits and vegetables.
◦ Meats.
◦ Cheese
◦ Dry and canned beans.
◦ Vegetable shortening and vegetable oils.
◦ Peanut products.
◦ Rice.
◦ Pasta product.
◦ Flour and other grain products.

 In spite of the benefits, there are very few
schools that procure fresh fruits and
vegetables through local F2S distribution
channels.
Image Source: Randy Glasbergen

 It is estimated that school aged children eat between 19% and 50% percent of
total daily calories at school (Gleason & Suitor 2001).
 Children who are at risk of becoming overweight or obese are at an increased
risk of developing a variety of adverse long-term health effects including
heart disease, Type II Diabetes, stroke, and osteoarthritis (Office of the
Surgeon General, 2010).
 Certain attributes of the built environment are found to be significantly
associated with the prevalence of obesity among low-income preschool
children (Salois, 2012).
 Poverty and food insecurity are associated with lower food expenditures, low
fruit and vegetable consumption, and lower-quality diets (Drewnoski, 2004).
 Children’s eating is modified by exposure and accessibility of foods; by
modeling behavior of peers, siblings, and parents; by the physiologic
consequences of ingestion; and by child-feeding practices (Birch & Fisher,
1998).

 In 2014, there were over 5 billion lunches were served to 30.3 million
children in the United States and its insular areas costing $1.3 billion. 71.6%
of those meals served were either free or reduced price lunches (USDA,
2015).
 Bonus food costs account for less than 1% of federal commodity purchases
that are distributed to schools (USDA, 2015).
 Evidence from a number of studies suggest F2S increases NSLP participation
from 1.3 to 16.0 percent from baseline. Average of those studies was
around 9.3 percent (Joshi, Asuma and Feenstra, 2008).
 Creating connections with farmers and schools/children is more easily
accomplished in short supply chains, particularly farm-direct, when farmers
themselves deliver food directly to schools (Renting, Marsden, and Banks
2003).
 While an abundance of research has investigated consumer responses and
preferences for local foods, less attention has focused on the producer
(Brown and Miller 2008).

The overall goal of the F2S research effort is to
increase the number of purchases and the
number of producers supplying Florida
specialty crops distributed through Florida
public schools participating in the National
School Lunch Program (NSLP).

It is hypothesized that direct procurement of fresh fruits and
vegetables from local specialty crop producers is a viable
method of distribution as it provides access to healthy,
nutritious produce to children while offering alternative
marketing channels and increased income to producers.

 Objective 1
◦ Describe current F2S food systems in Florida, and identify
opportunities for expanding procurement within the state.
 Objective 2
◦ Collect, organize, analyze, and interpret data for cost of
production, distribution, processing and food
reimbursement for selected fresh commodities produced in
or surrounding Sarasota County in the State of Florida.
 Objective 3
◦ Determine if a F2S supply chain operating within Sarasota
County Florida meets the economic needs of school food
authorities (SFA’s) and producers by conducting a feasibility
study.

 The term “food system” used to describe the
system in which our food travels from land to table
to waste stream.
Image Source: Building a Better Local Food System, Bitmann et al., 1996

 Background Research
 Basic background information and economic conditions. Capacity to supply,
fresh versus processed, demographics, Federal, State & local regulations
required etc.
 Marketing Feasibility
 Description of the market environment including handling of specialty crops,
markets served, ease or limitations to entering market. Descriptive statistics.
 Technical Feasibility
 Supply of labor and its quality, supply & costs of key inputs needed for
operation. Technical characteristics & specifications of required equipment.
Operational capacity & efficiency. Facilities.
 Organizational & Managerial Feasibility
 Legal structure and governance. Responsibilities too large and too small.
Need for outsourcing.
 Financial Feasibility
 Project revenues, operating costs, net income (enterprise budgets). Capital
requirements. Pro forma CF,IS & BS. Ratio analysis.
Feasibility study methodology: (Justis and Kreigsmann,1979), (Gooch, Marenick, Felfel, and Vieira, 2009)

 Data Sets:
◦ Florida F2S Census Data (2013).
◦ Florida District SFA Procurement Data (2013).
◦ Sarasota County Procurement Data (2014).
◦ U.S. Census of Agriculture Data (2012).
◦ Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014).
◦ Florida Department of Education (2014)
◦ Enterprise budgets
 Information
◦ Interviews.
◦ Ground-truth.

Why start with a feasibility study?
 A feasibility study is generally defined as a structured way to
efficiently organize the information that is needed for confident
decision-making regarding the profitability and
technical/financial/social/environmental viability of a specific
proposal.
 Necessary before drafting the business plan.
 Even though an unsuccessful feasibility study may appear to be a
failure, its not. True failure would have occurred if resources such
as time, capital and energy were invested and then lost because of
poor planning and research.

Challenge Producers School Districts
Infrastructure  
Distribution  
Labor  
Supply 
Lack of information  
Product Consistency 
Quality, health and safety standards 
Costs and Budgets  
Regulations 
Delivery Methods 
Creating contacts with suppliers 
Seasonality 

 In 2012:
◦ 1,662 farms.
◦ 187,985 million acres.
◦ Average farm size – 113 acres.
◦ Important Specialty Crop Items:
 Cowpeas
 Blueberries
 Pecans
 Persimmons
 Watermelons
◦ Value:
 Crop sales: $69.3 million.
Image Source: Weichert
$0.67
$0.83
$0.50
$0.85
$1.50
$0.03 $0.09 $0.05 $0.08 $0.12
$-
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
Romaine Broccoli Cucumbers,
Fresh
Strawberries Tomatoes,
Grape
Alachua County School District
Top 5 Commmodities
$ per Pound $ per Serving

 Farm to School Documents & Publications
1. A Farm to School Procurement Calculator for Specialty Crop Producers and School
Food Service Staff (Watson, Treadwell, Pizzia & Brew, 2014)
 Status: Published
2. Farm to School Guide to Postharvest Storage, Packaging and Handling for Florida
Small Farm Specialty Crop Producers (Watson, Treadwell, Brecht, Sargent &
Pelletier, 2015)
 Status: In review
3. Getting Started in Farm to School Programs: A Guide for Small Farm Specialty Crop
Producers in Florida (Watson & Treadwell, 2015).
4. Food Safety Guide for School and Community Gardens (Watson & Treadwell, 2015).
 Completed supervised teaching (PKG 3001 Packaging Principles).
◦ Developed and presented lecture material on packaging law, assisted with grading
assignments.
 All coursework completed as of Spring 2015 semester.

Source: Watson, Treadwell, Prizzia & Brew, 2014)

 Acquire data from Sarasota County.
 Obtain IRB approval for interviews.
 Contact producers, distributors, SFA’s and F2S
district coordinators.
 Modify enterprise budgets to include assumptions.

 Introduction
 Literature Review
◦ Motivation, History of F2S programs, definition of
local.
 Methodology
◦ Research design, methods of data collection,
analyzing and reporting data.
 Results & Discussion
◦ Describe findings and significance.
 Conclusions & Recommendations

Activity 2013 2014 2015 2016 Comments
Coursework
Publication Title: A Farm to School Procurement Calculator for Specialty
Crop Producers and Food Service Staff
Status: Published
September 2014
Publication Title: A Guide to Storage, Packaging and Handling for Florida
Small Farm Specialty Crop Producers
Status: In Review
Publication Title: Getting Started in Farm to School Programs: A Guide for
Small Farm Specialty Crop Producers in Florida
Status: In Review
Publication Title: Food Safety Guide for School and Community Gardens in
Florida
Status: In Review
Publication Title: A List of Commonly Used Abbreviations in Agriculture Status: In Review
Qualifying Exam March 31st, 2015
Collect data April – May 2015
Conduct interviews June – August 2015
Analyze data & report results August – October 2015
Draft dissertation November – Dec. 2015
Last day to achieve FINAL CLEARANCE status prior to Spring semester January 5th?, 2016
FIRST SUBMISSION and PhD Transmittal Letter February 11th?, 2016
Defend dissertation March 31st?, 2016
FINAL SUBMISSION deadline for dissertation April 8th?, 2016
Last day to achieve FINAL CLEARANCE April 22nd?, 2016
Publication Title: Creating Successful Farm to School Programs: A County-
Wide Feasibility Study of Direct Procurement in Florida
May 2016

 Improve the health of children, especially those from low-
income families, by providing healthy, nutritious locally-
sourced fruits and vegetables.
 Provide producers with alternative marketing channels and
mitigate price risk by offering forward contracts.
 Build stronger communities and preserve family farm.
 Potential for a wide range of institutional applications:
◦ Hospitals.
◦ Universities.
◦ Penitentiary.
◦ Military.

 Focus F2S impact on the surrounding
community, direct, indirect and induced
effects it has on local economy (input-output
IMPLAN).
 LCA to assess the environmental aspects and
potential impacts associated with the
distribution process.

Questions?
A special thank you to:
The Agricultural & Biological
Engineering Department and
Institute of Food & Agricultural
Sciences at
The University of Florida
&
The Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services

 Birch, L. L., & Fisher, J. O. (1998). Development of eating behaviors
among children and adolescents. Pediatrics, 101(Supplement 2), 539-
549.
 Brown, C., & Miller, S. (2008). The impacts of local markets: A review of
research on farmers markets and community supported agriculture
(CSA). American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90(5), 1298-1302.
 Drewnowski, A., & Specter, S. E. (2004). Poverty and obesity: the role of
energy density and energy costs. The American journal of clinical
nutrition,79(1), 6-16.
 Gleason, P., & Suitor, C. (2001). Food for thought: Children's diets in the
1990s. policy brief.
 Gooch, M., Marenick, N., Felfel, A., & Vieira, J. (2009). Feasibility study for
establishing a local food distribution initiative in niagara & hamilton Friends
of the Greenbelt Foundation.
 Gunderson, G. W. (2003). The national school lunch program:
Background and development. Nova Publishers.
 Justis, R. T., & Kreigsmann, B. (1979). The feasibility study as a tool for
venture analysis. Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 17, No. 1

 National farm to school network. (2015). Retrieved January 21, 2015,
from http://www.farmtoschool.org/
 Ohmart, J., & Markley, K. (2007). Product source integrity for farm to
cafeteria projects. Paper presented at the Farms to Cafeterias to Capitol
Hill: Growing Healthy Kids, Farms, and Communities Conference,
Baltimore, MD,
 Renting, H., Marsden, T. K., & Banks, J. (2003). Understanding alternative
food networks: Exploring the role of short food supply chains in rural
development. Environment and Planning A, 35(3), 393-412.
 Salois, M. J. (2012). The built environment and obesity among low-
income preschool children. Health & place, 18(3), 520-527.
 U.S. Census Bureau. (2014, May 2). 2012 Census of Agriculture :
Alachua County, FL. Retrieved January 25, 2015, from
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resources/Co
unty_Profiles/Florida/cp99012.pdf
 U.S. Census Bureau. (2014, May 2). 2012 Census of Agriculture :
Alachua County, FL. Retrieved January 25, 2015, from
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resources/Co
unty_Profiles/Florida/cp12001.pdf

Qualifying Exam Presentation

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Qualifying Exam Presentation

Qualifying Exam Presentation