POTLUCK COMMMUNITY CO-OPERATIVE
AGRICULTURAL AGRI-FOOD SECTOR LITERATURE REVIEW
January 2011
by
Christine Spinder
Zoe House Projects
264 – 108 Elliot Street
Whitehorse, Yukon Territory Y1A 6C4
[email protected]
for the Potluck Community Co-operative
with funding from
Agriculture Canada, Canadian Agricultural Adaptation Program
via the Yukon Agricultural Association
POTLUCK COMMMUNITY COOPERATIVE
AGRICULTURAL FOOD SECTOR LITERATURE REVIEW
SUMMARY
The primary aim of this Literature Review was to build a guide
to what information is already gathered on the Yukon Food
Sector, overview what this sector knows from recent Yukonbased reports and studies, and comment on
What do these reports tell us about getting Yukon
food to Yukon markets?
What questions do they raise about getting Yukon
food to Yukon markets?
FOUR MAJOR FINDINGS
1. Approved government policy already exists to support
agricultural expansion. The primary policy that was passed
and publicized in the 2006 Agricultural Policy, calls for
• a 200% increase in the agricultural sector by 2016
• a 50% increase in improved land utilization on existing
agricultural parcels.
• The completion of priority infrastructure projects for the
industry
• Several agricultural land policies to enhance economic
viability, that may need to be reconciled with
challenging policy from other departments.
2. Amongst all the reports and studies, however, there is
no cohesive strategy, and few objectives of how existing
support channels could complement one another. The
concepts of a Yukon farm-to-table food supply chain, or of a
Yukon Food System, do not appear in the existing literature.
3. Two Information Gaps
Many of the reports comment on two ongoing gaps in crucial
information:
• Consumer interests and patterns
• Farm food production costs, outputs, and market
values: basic farm business feasibility thresholds.
Most reports are built without hard data and are based on
assumptions of how the market operates, and how agriculture
expands. Often reports comment that these two crucial areas
of information are needed to make sound decisions on
activating recommendations, and to build strategic options.
The Literature Review comments directly on numerous gaps,
assumptions, and omissions of decision-ready information.
4. Pattern for small-scale, diverse, and entrepreneurial
Both the Multi-Year Development Plan and the studies for the
Multi-Use Facility point to the common forms for agricultural
infrastructure in other Canadian regions: small-scale and
entrepreneurial. Across the Food Sovereignty movement,
small, localized private meat processing businesses, and
transportation services partner with consumer co-ops and
social enterprises to complete the food supply chain.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Multi-Year Development Plan
4
2. Discussion Paper: Towards Development of Meat Processing
Infrastructure in the Yukon
11
3. 1988 Feasibility Study (for) a Commercial Growers Collective
and Associated Storage Facility
18
4. Whitehorse Area Cold Storage Facility
22
5. Needs Assessment for a Community Kitchen
25
6. Fireweed Community Market Society: Vendors Survey and
Towards a Permanent Home Feasibility
26
7. 2006 Yukon Agriculture Policy
29
8. Yukon Farm Products & Services 2008 brochure
30
MULTIYEAR DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2008 - 2012
for Yukon Agriculture and Agri-food
Date: December 2007
Authors:
Serecon Management Consulting, Edmonton AB
TransNorthern Management Consulting, Whitehorse
Research Northwest, Marsh Lake
OVERVIEW:
The Multi-Year Development Plan is developed by the
Yukon Agriculture Branch of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada. It sets direction for government focus. It is not a
business plan or a feasibility study. It points to areas of the
food sector in the Yukon that need attention for development.
It is a progressive plan, not a strategy of activities with highly
integrated objectives and timeline. Rather, the MYDP points to
sector factors that need support. The MYDP was created
within the existing policy framework of both Agriculture
Canada and the Yukon Territorial Government. As such, it is
not within the mandate of the MYDP to suggest policy
changes, areas for collaboration with Yukon Government
departments or specify the actualities required to increase the
size or scope of Yukon food system.
•
•
•
•
•
•
The MYDP project, from its extensive interviews and a
workshop, offered some insight on how growth can be
achieved… setting boundaries for the MYDP’s goals:
•
Yukon agriculture should foster individually-owned
farms, and not encourage large corporate farms or
agribusinesses. What do new farmers need in
financing, infrastructure, and expertise to
succeed?
•
The agricultural sector should encourage a diversity of
farm sizes and products in suitable locations across the
Territory. What sizes, yields and products reach
feasibility?
•
The agricultural sectors should foster an environment
of inclusiveness between all stakeholders of the
agriculture and agri-business sectors (inclusive of
producers of all types and sizes, processing and retail
The Plan offers a framework for development, outlined in its
Goal Statements on page 9:
Goal: To increase and sustain production, sales, and
profitability in the Yukon agriculture and agri-food industries.
Strategy: “Build on the willingness of Yukoners to buy and eat
locally produced foods. Identify and focus on products that are
agronomically feasible, economically profitable, and for which
markets exist or could be reasonably created. Areas of
concentration will include:
increasing production of viable commodities;
increasing value-added processing;
increasing value of both commodities and products
(quality, image, positioning)
increasing volume and value of sales;
reducing costs of development, infrastructure; and,
reducing costs of production, marketing, and
distribution.
•
stakeholders, governments, First Nations and
consumers). What is the ultimate goal of
inclusiveness? What is possible with collaboration
and cooperation?
These issues raise questions about the capacity of the
MYD Plan to consider agriculture as a system and a
comprehensive, integrated socio-economic sector in the
Yukon.
Yukon agriculture and agri-food should build on its
perception as a producer of healthy and safe foods and
other agricultural products, and be environmentally
responsible.
Some umbrella questions stemming from the Multi-Year
Development Plan:
There are two challenges of the boundaries of the Multi
Year Development Plan:
1. It excludes innovations in policy, partnership, financing,
social enterprise, food system networks and the farmto-table supply chain that are being developed, tested,
and implemented across Canada and the world;
2. There is a fundamental lack of data on production
process and costs, or understanding of the Yukon
consumer profile, that informs both the foundation
policies that the MYDP was developed within, and
which it points to.
For instance, the 2006 Policy statement that the MYDP must
follow, ‘by 2016: ‘A 200% increase in production and sales of
Yukon-grown agricultural products’ appears to be made
without research and forecasting on what makes up the
current volumes, standard increase rates for farm produce, or
what the Yukon market will absorb, and how soon.
The MYDP makes forecasts without a specific financial
foundation or an agricultural risk management assessment.
•
Was it ratified or passed as an industry plan?
•
What has the sector response been?
•
How much of this plan has been achieved?
•
What government structures or supports have been
created to enable this plan?
•
How do the component parts of this Plan fit within the
larger Yukon government economic, social, health,
First Nations, and community enterprise support
systems?
MULTI-YEAR DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2008 – 2012
COLLECTED DATA AND QUESTIONS THAT COME NEXT
1. What does this report tell us about getting Yukon food
to Yukon markets?
2. What questions does it raise about getting Yukon food
to Yukon markets?
pg i – iii Executive Summary
The Plan makes Recommendations for a range of initiatives to
support development for an unmeasured Goal:
“To increase and sustain production, sales, and profitability in the
Yukon agriculture and agri-food industries.”
The Multi-Year Development Plan raises questions about the
infrastructure and organizational partnerships needed to develop
a comprehensive and unified food system strategy in the Yukon.
Ten Recommendations of “strategies for industry-wide issues
related to infrastructure, regulations, financing, marketing,
information gathering, and sector development such as meat and
vegetable production” are outlined in the Plan Framework
“that would greatly enhance the physical and organizational
infrastructure for the agricultural sector.” This enhancement is
generally undefined, however. Plan Strategies:
Points to the need for expressed, clear expectations, vision, and
goals for the Sector.
How do the Plan’s various recommendations interconnect?
How can each of these objectives and their recommended
activities complement each other?
1. What is the purpose and focus of the survey?
1. Implement an annual or periodic survey of the Yukon
agriculture and agri-food business
2. What alternatives to the MUF have been explored?
2. Move forward with a multi-use facility (or develop a secondary
strategy for meat and vegetable processing infrastructure).
3. What government supports are accessible to alternative
market enterprises?
3. Support the development of permanent community market
facilities including infrastructure at the Fireweed Community
Market.
4. What is the ask of the marketing strategy? What does the
agricultural sector want people to do?
4. Implement a new marketing strategy.
5. How can organic supports be complemented by land access &
enterprise support mechanisms?
5. Implement plans to support the organic sector.
6. What is the purpose of the research program? To research
Yukon Food System Literature Review
Potluck Community Cooperative / Zoe House Projects
November 2010
6
MULTI-YEAR DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2008 – 2012
COLLECTED DATA AND QUESTIONS THAT COME NEXT
what?
6. Implement a 5 year research program
7. Improve access to finance, and reduce costs associated with
land development.
7. What policies and government departments would need to be
involved? What timelines are involved in farm development
cycles?
8. Broaden the base of support for agriculture in the Yukon.
8. Consumer interest? Other government departments? Business
sector?
9. Improve labour availability.
10. Develop strategies to manage and reduce disease and pest
risk.
pg 8 Policy Context:
The MYDP is based on the 2006 Agriculture Policy: all of its
recommendations and findings must stay within the existing
policy framework of the Agriculture Branch.
9. What kinds of labour are needed? What skills? Are there
business labour support programs that could apply to family-run
farms?
10. What special considerations is there in North? What risks?
The goals of the 2006 Agricultural Policy are not measurable or
described by what their outcomes will be.
for example:
“A 200% increase in Yukon Agriculture by 2016”:
by what measure? dollars? yield? consumers? profit?
The MYDP raises multiple questions of the policy context of the
agriculture sector, and the government bodies involved. Many
policies noted in the Plan are set or influenced by multiple
government departments, and their lack of cohesion is evident.
Are the Agriculture policies internally supportive, or are they
rendered null by other government policies? p7
Yukon Food System Literature Review
Potluck Community Cooperative / Zoe House Projects
November 2010
7
MULTI-YEAR DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2008 – 2012
COLLECTED DATA AND QUESTIONS THAT COME NEXT
p8 Policy: 2c Support Infrastructure
“The completion of priority infrastructure projects for the industry,
(the Multi-Use Facility) Infrastructure projects should be
financially self-supporting by the fifth year of operation.”
How is this time frame established? What are national
development timelines for collective/ essential service facilities
for the agricultural sector?
What infrastructure supports are provided by government to other
industries?
Did the Plan consider options of patient capital and social
enterprise models in use in growing local-food focused
agriculture sectors in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces?
pg 10 – 13 Infrastructure:
Local marketing and retail channels.
Objectives and strategies throughout the Plan refer to marketing
and retail channels as crucial to the economic growth of the
agricultural sector. Often there is reference to increasing
producers’ capacity to manage infrastructure activities. Many of
these food development products and activities happen off the
farm:
- cleaning and staging
- meat processing
- value added production
- storage
- transportation
- marketing – community education
- retailing
Are Yukon farmers responsible for staging, processing,
transportation and retailing?
With a potential Food Co-op that includes membership of
producers, is this within the economic scope of the Co-op?
What other enterprises are possible to contribute to this
infrastructure? What partners are interested, capable, and
available?
What are the scales for enterprise viability?
Skills and expertise for infrastructure are also deeply needed in
the areas of farm labour, machinery upkeep, and infrastructure
management. There is no ‘owner’ responsible for planning,
developing, or managing these activities.
Yukon Food System Literature Review
Potluck Community Cooperative / Zoe House Projects
November 2010
8
MULTI-YEAR DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2008 – 2012
COLLECTED DATA AND QUESTIONS THAT COME NEXT
pg 15 Financing
Make capital and R&D capital available for producers and
infrastructure projects.
What scales and types of financing do Yukon producers want?
What models and structures work in other jurisdictions?
pg 20 – 27 Sector-specific Objectives:
Objectives for particular products.
Hay and Grain Feed, Eggs, Chickens, Red Meat and other core
agricultural products are recommended for seemingly arbitrary
levels of increases – either 100% or 25%, but cost analysis for
what constitutes the economies of scale that the Plan refers to in
its Industry-Wide recommendations are not made.
Why are certain product enhancement recommendations made?
Some estimates are made of what current production levels may
be, and some market prices for these products.
pg 32 – 37 Plan implementation & timeline
A 5 page timeline chart suggests a rollout of the
recommendations. There is no commentary of how the sets of
recommendations complement or support one another, what the
focus of several activities should be (such as ‘survey agricultural
sector), or tags on activities to ensure synergies of timing, such
as synchronizing hay production increases with major chicken
development.
How do these objectives complement each other in their timing?
How does one set of objectives build upon another, so that they
complement each other’s activities and outcomes? When is the
best time for each activity for maximum impact and framework for
success?
Yukon Food System Literature Review
Potluck Community Cooperative / Zoe House Projects
November 2010
- What are actual costs of farm to market for each product?
- What is the dollar value of these increases?
- What are production growth rates achieved by other agricultural
communities – what are achieveable models?
- What is the incremental growth rate required to achieve this? By
what percentage each year?
- How much, in dollars, capital investment is needed by
producers to expand to this level of production? What is the
dollar value of this increase, in retail value, profit to producers?
How many more tones of food, at what value, would need to be
produced?
How can generic business feasibility studies be produced for
each product sector, so that potential farmers or farmers
interested in increasing can have some idea of the risk?
Who will undertake these activities? eg: Marketing plan,
Research Program, Improving access to Finance
9
MULTI-YEAR DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2008 – 2012
COLLECTED DATA AND QUESTIONS THAT COME NEXT
Appendix:
pg A32 - 35 Prices and Figures for Yukon Agricultural
Products
The initial charts that estimate current production focus on
vegetable production. However, the vegetables tabled are not
primary Yukon products: instead, the focus is on field crops of
warmer climates: asparagus, beans, cauliflower, cucumbers,
peppers. The charts note a possible market share for these
products, such as 15% or 2%, and makes visible that there either
is not data collected on current production levels, or the
production yield is too small to warrant measure.
pg. 35 Comparison of Whitehorse/Calgary Prices
This chart compares retail prices for common products in
Whitehorse and Calgary – but the focus is on imported products.
It serves a purpose to compare locally-produced production
costs.
Yukon Food System Literature Review
Potluck Community Cooperative / Zoe House Projects
November 2010
Why were these products tabled, rather than the more common
Yukon crops such as northern greens and herbs, raspberries,
and more root vegetables? Certainly a wide variety of crops are
needed for farm resiliency, but the absence of more common
Yukon crops is noticeable.
How do locally-grown products compare on a direct price
comparison?
10
REPORT:
DISCUSSION PAPER
TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT OF MEAT PROCESSING
INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE YUKON
(DISCUSSION PAPER: Multi-Use Facility 2009)
DATE: June 2009
AUTHOR: Malloch Graham and Associates
OVERVIEW
This MUF Discussion Paper provides a comprehensive
analysis of prospects and feasibility for a Multi-Use Facility in
the Yukon, reviewing studies of the previous 5 years. The
MUF, proposed by the Yukon Agricultural Association, has
been the centre of infrastructure development discussions for
some years. The Discussion Paper, as an independent review,
includes analysis of proposed MUF financial structure and
feasibilty, industry practice standards, facility design, business
and management models, and supply and market frameworks
for meat processing in the Yukon.
The Discussion Paper points to numerous gaps in data that
led the MUF studies to rely on assumptions. The assumptions
include Yukon producer’s capacity for supplying meat, market
interest in buying local meat, design of the facility space and
equipment, and management structure.
on pgs 7 & 8, which includes all of the requirements for
increasing production, processing, and likely retail pricing.
This literature review, and stakeholders in the agricutlture
industry in the Yukon, appear to agree with the analysis
provided in the Discussion Paper, and the concept of a single
facility for red and white meat processing, packaging, and
vegetable processing, has been shelved.
A consumer food co-op handling local products will require
cold storage and meat and produce processing facilities,
access to a supply of commercially-inspected meat products,
and policies to access them. The issues and standards
identified in the Discussion Paper that relate to these
infrastructure needs of the Co-op are tabled below.
Some of the most directly useful data in the Discussion Paper
is the cost recovery analysis for chicken and beef production
Yukon Food System Literature Review
Potluck Community Cooperative / Zoe House Projects
November 2010
11
DISCUSSION PAPER: Multi-Use Facility 2009
COLLECTED DATA AND QUESTIONS THAT COME NEXT
1. What does this report tell us about getting Yukon food
to Yukon markets?
2. What questions does it raise about getting Yukon food
to Yukon markets?
Section: MARKET p 3-4
Potential of local consumer base, or ‘potential market
penetration’ to pay premium prices for local, organic meat
products.
Detailed surveying and forecasting of consumer market
potential is needed.
The DP points to specific data on Yukon consumer potential that
needs to be gathered before predictions can be made about what
products, quantities and prices local consumers will carry.
Meat products, pointed to in the Multi-Year Development Plan
as the local product with the greatest potential (profit or sales
potential is not specified), are described in MUF as needing to
increase 4 times for beef, 11 times for pork, and 10 times for
chicken, to be feasible. The DP points to several gaps in market
data, outlined in these questions at right:
“Significantly, neither report addresses how this might be
accomplished, other than to assume that additional
penetration is possible given the right market strategies re
product selection, positioning, price, and so on… the much
larger issue is determining potential market penetration….”
What size is the potential market for Yukon meat products?
How do Yukoners want to access meat products? What market
channel will suit the Yukon’s geographically dispersed
consumers and producers, to facilitate easy access for all
parties?
Who are the potential consumers? How much will the buy, and
in what forms, ie: size of package, frequency of purchase, point
of purchase?
How will these products be stored by the potential food co-op or
by consumers?
The MUF Discussion Paper points to the direct connection
between market readiness and its capacity to buy local products,
and producers’ ability to increase their production for a supply
Yukon Food System Literature Review
Potluck Community Cooperative / Zoe House Projects
November 2010
12
DISCUSSION PAPER: Multi-Use Facility 2009
COLLECTED DATA AND QUESTIONS THAT COME NEXT
source. The two can only be strategized in relation to one
another.
p4: Compares consumer market uptake trends and the basis
for feasibility of MUF: Early adopters
“The expectation – assumption – seems to be ‘if we
produce it, they will buy’ at least to the extent of a 10%
market share. That assumption, however, is based almost
entirely on a handlful of consumers buying a small number
of beef and poultry at farm gates…. In many consumer
markets, a rule of thumb is that early adopters comprise
about 1-2% of the total market.”
pg 4. The MUF mentions jerky as a potential value-added
product, and the DP mentions that ‘Producers need do nothing
except make a new product available and it will sell to this
segment (early adopters)” via farm gate sales.
Producers currently absorb all the risks involved with trialing new
products, without consumer data or avenues to reach and
research wider markets.
How much will the Co-op (need to) rely on early adopters before
the wider consumer base begins to pick up membership in the
Co-op? For how long?
What policies and structures are needed in the Yukon to
facilitate farm-gate accessibility to products via a commercial
food enterprise?
What value-added products are Yukon meat producers
interested in testing with consumers? How does the consumerfacility (the Co-op) share the risk of delivering valued products
to consumers? How soon in the Co-op’s development can it
begin experimenting with product trials/ consumer research for
new products?
At what time will the Co-op be able to contract with producers
for products? This involves preparations for the next growing
season that begin the Autumn preceding, such as buying seeds
and ordering livestock. When will the Co-op have enough data?
How will the Co-op collect this information?
Section: SUPPLY p 5 – 9
Yukon Food System Literature Review
Potluck Community Cooperative / Zoe House Projects
November 2010
13
DISCUSSION PAPER: Multi-Use Facility 2009
COLLECTED DATA AND QUESTIONS THAT COME NEXT
Assumptions on production increases
p 5 “The working assumption is that, once a MUF is built,
Yukon producers will recognize the opportunity and rise to
the occasion with increased production of animals over a
period of a few years.”
Livestock processing
p 5 “The Mobile abattoir does not appear to be the
breakthrough piece of infrastructure required to grow the
sector.”
Farmers are currently (2010) organizing community work parties
to slaughter and process livestock for consumption on a farmgate basis.
p6 – 9 Chicken and Beef: Financial Scenarios
Dollars needed to increase production to meet a potential 10%
market share.
Notes:
The MYDP’s suggested needed increases in production, 3 times
for beef and 10 times for poultry, requires a ramping up of
production from the informal farmgate to ‘commercial’ scales.
“Commercial production implies that producers seeking to
expand need to be reasonably assured that expansion
makes financial sense – that raising more animals
represents a sound investment and will put more cash in
their pockets.”
Detailed cost recovery analysis for chicken and beef follow, and
provide clear and realistic outlines of farmers’ true costs and
potential retail prices, and compares them to mainstream,
Yukon Food System Literature Review
Potluck Community Cooperative / Zoe House Projects
November 2010
What role does the Co-op play in ‘build it and they will come’?
What role does the Co-op play in enabling producers to
increase production? What is beyond the scope and
management capacity of the organization? What must be
enabled by other sector players?
If the Co-op plans to include sale of local meat products in its
financial projections, what equipment and organizational
infrastructure will be needed for a secure or dependable supply?
What are the slaughter and processing costs and other
implications to producers to increase production?
Which farmers are interested in scaling up production? Are new
farmers interested? Who can take on a sector-wide business
analysis?
Where are the business plans for farm production increases?
Can this be done for each product sector to inform all farmers
who are interested in scaling up? Eg: pigs, or root vegetables
from unfortified soil?
14
DISCUSSION PAPER: Multi-Use Facility 2009
COLLECTED DATA AND QUESTIONS THAT COME NEXT
organic, and southern market pricing. Steps to viability, for
example,
‘would require a decision by five producers to ramp up a
commercial operation that grows on average 6,000 birds in
each of four, two-month cycles…’
offer some of the only real numbers that clearly demonstrate
what is needed to happen to reach the undefined goals of the
MYDP.
Section: FACILITY DESIGN AND OPERATION
Complex Design & Operations
p 9 “The MUF concept involves achieving a processing
quantity of some one million pounds annually…. the
proposal invokes a complex matrix of considerations
beyond just the design of the physical plant, including such
factors as a threshold number of animals, scheduling
throughout the year, expertise of the manager and trained
staff to operate the facility, production of value-added
products, and relationships with meat cutters and retails
stores. It isn’t clear from the materials reviewed that these
factors and needs have been adequately considered and
understood to the extent that the operational (as opposed
to the economic) viability of the proposed MUF is
demonstrated.
For the interests of the Co-op
(How) Can meat slaughter and processing infrastructure be
developed in phases, to enable an incremental increase in
production and consumer capacity?
Three key points are made concerning cold storage and
managing the processing, p 12:
- producers cannot and should not participate in slaughter/
Yukon Food System Literature Review
Potluck Community Cooperative / Zoe House Projects
November 2010
15
DISCUSSION PAPER: Multi-Use Facility 2009
COLLECTED DATA AND QUESTIONS THAT COME NEXT
processing – for liability and so that they are not removed from
farming time.
- the sanitary transfer of meat and increased cooler capacity
were not options under consideration. Why not? the paper asks –
these elements may be keys to success
- availability of an experienced meat processing manager is
crucial.
Industry Standards & Precedents
The study refers to over 200 independent, small-scale meat
slaughter and processing operations in British Columbia and
Alberta, but the models are not described except that they are
mostly independently owned small businesses.
What are the meat slaughter and processing methods and
models used elsewhere?
What models and structures can grow out of what already works
for farmers? Are current processes only stop-gap measures?
What small scale enterprises could be built to provide the
needed processing infrastructure?
Section: POLICY AND REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
p 13 Regulation:
“If an MUF exists, Yukon cannot allow uninspected meat to
be marketed in competition with the inspected products.”
Some mention is made of a structure where producers can sell
their inspected-processed products at their farmgate or through
whatever markets and retail channels are available to them, a
policy active in BC and the Island Grown Co-op in Washington
State.
Yukon Food System Literature Review
Potluck Community Cooperative / Zoe House Projects
November 2010
What alternate policy frameworks exist to facilitate small-scale
livestock production to retail markets?
Is this a priority policy area for the Agricultural Branch?
What are the successful certification models in other rural and
remote regions of Canada? eg: allowing both inspected and
uninspected (like farmgate) products?
16
DISCUSSION PAPER: Multi-Use Facility 2009
COLLECTED DATA AND QUESTIONS THAT COME NEXT
Section: PLANNING
Product Choices and Alternatives
p17 Several fine points are added that relate to Potluck Co-op’s
potential supply and partnerships with producers:
“The restaurant market typically wants only New York cut
steaks and prime rib roast; the seller is left to find other
buyers for the remaining cuts. Indications are that
opportunities exist in value-added products such as
prepared hamburger patties and exotic species such as elk
and bison.”
Yukon Food System Literature Review
Potluck Community Cooperative / Zoe House Projects
November 2010
Does the Co-op, if buying whole or bulk meat, then become the
front line responsible for finding buyers for the less glamorous
cuts?
Do members have to buy large packages? How can the Co-op
facilitate consumers’ access to local meat throughout the year?
What kind of pricing scales are possible to attract buyers?
17
REPORT:
1988 FEASIBILITY STUDY
ON ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMMERCIAL GROWERS COOPERATIVE
AND ASSOCIATED STORAGE FACILITY IN THE YUKON
Date: 1988
Author: HLA Consultants
OVERVIEW
This study was done 23 years ago, with an approach that the
Co-operative would be a Growers Co-operative to wholesale
local produce with cold storage facilities for crops. Seven
producers were involved in the scoping of models, systems,
and structures that would work in the Yukon context, and the
market development recommendations throughout the study
are logical and grounded in factual data.
“”The primary objective of this study is
to examine feasibility of establishing a
vegetable storage facility, grading and
packing facility and preparing a
marketing development plan for the
Whitehorse area commercial growers
cooperative.” Introduction, pg 1.
Another important difference from Potluck’s proposal is that
this 1988 Co-operative would act as a wholesaler to Yukon
retail channels, and would “avoid attempting to compete
against wholesalers for the retail market.” p. vi. The Study
provides insight into the logistical needs of growers and cold
storage, and cooperative governance issues, with informed and
concise commentary on issues the food business.
The study includes in its feasibility importing produce to fill
the ‘production gap’ and consistently supplying Yukon
Yukon Food System Literature Review
Potluck Community Cooperative / Zoe House Projects
November 2010
retailers. At the time of this study, the retail/ distribution
picture in the Yukon was quite different, with different key
players with very different interests in handling local produce.
This includes a local wholesale distributor, Kelly Douglas, that
facilitated buying directly from farmers, and demonstrated the
feasibility for local production. It would be interesting to look
at how Kelly Douglas inspected products.
An important consideration is that this feasibility was written
before Free Trade and the glutting of the Canadian food system
with cheap, highly subsidized produce from the US and
international producers, although the dominance of imports is a
constant factor in the report. Consumers’ expectations for
food prices are entirely different now. The feasibility landscape
is considerably different today in terms of pricing at the market
end and the cost of meat and vegetables to be produced locally.
In the late 80’s, diets were likely quite different – more meat
and potatoes – and less ‘fresh’ and health conscious than today,
with little or no considerations for organic preferences. And,
the Yukon’s economic base was mining – quite a different
consumer group than the current highly educated,
institutionally-based demographic. It was noted in the Cold
Storage Study of 2004 that many farmers gave up production
with the introduction of free-trade priced produce. There are
fewer producers, and less food produced, now than in 1988,
18
1988 HLA GROWER’S CO-OPERATIVE FEASIBILITY STUDY
when production and market conditions were far more
favourable for the local food system.
There is useful information, and useful assessments and models
that could be updated with current data. Most of this review
comes from commentary in the Market Assessment, Production
Assessment, Cooperatives, and Marketing Strategy sections.
The bulk of the study examines details of farm equipment,
expansion, and production costs, which have changed
considerably. Still, some of these examples are useful models,
such as the Cash Flow Projections with Imports on pg. 73.
•
•
•
Review of Cooperatives, Organizational Structures and
Marketing Agreement Contracts
Marketing Strategy
Capital and Labour Requirements for a cold storage &
market facility
COLLECTED DATA AND QUESTIONS THAT COME NEXT
1. What does this report tell us about getting Yukon food
to Yukon markets?
2. What questions does it raise about getting Yukon food
to Yukon markets?
Section 2, Market Assessment
pg3 - 11
Strong and explicit case for how and why a cold storage and
processing cooperative should be opened – consistent price
protection for farmers, consistent products to offer the market
(which the market likes), method to coordinate crops & products
amongst producer members, channels for coordinating crops and
crop expansion.
What cold storage options are available today? Should that be
part of a consumer-producer co-operative, or a separate
enterprise? What are the options?
Section 3, Production Assessment
p 16. Recommendations that growers focus on crops that ‘are
close to fulfilling the Yukon market,’ in order to assure market
commitment and assured purchase by retailers. This suggests a
difference in approach to mono-cropping rather than the varied
crops preferred by current farmers.
Is mono-cropping an option or interest of current farmers? Are
there certain products that farmers are willing to specialize in?
This requires a guarantee that the market will always buy that
product.
Yukon Food System Literature Review
Potluck Community Cooperative / Zoe House Projects
November 2010
19
1988 HLA GROWER’S CO-OPERATIVE FEASIBILITY STUDY
COLLECTED DATA AND QUESTIONS THAT COME NEXT
Section 4, Cooperatives
p 20 – 22. Puts producers’ coop inside the context of competitive
or partner wholesalers with details and analysis of existing
market shares and what is already supplied.
What are current farmers’ needs from a consumer co-operative?
What benefits make membership worthwhile for them? What
logistical supports, what long-term benefits?
What structures and policies have been developed in Canada’s
food cooperative movement that enable the flexibility and
assurance that both today’s cooperative and farmers need?
pg 21: Disadvantages of Cooperatives:
lack of technical business expertise in co-op governance
(because they’re all volunteers and farmers) can slow decisionmaking needed to be responsive to changing market or
infrastructure developments.
pg 23: Outlines limits of boards’ decision-making power.
How can Potluck Co-op, and other food-to-market partners, gain
the expertise to ensure co-operative decision-making?
Paying our Producers
pg 24: Marketing Agreement Contracts
details required in a producer- market supply contract
What financial and policy models exist now for payment
contracts with producers?
pg 27 - 29 Surplus Earnings: How producers get paid: according
to gross sales or percentage supplied. Need for exclusivity
What are the boundaries of board and staff decisions?
Has the wave of food sovereignty systems across Canada
created new models for multiple suppliers, processing options,
and points of sale?
pg 34 – 38 Alberta Marketing Board and Cooperatives
examples. The structures of the Co-ops are informative for the
Yukon open-ended situation.
Section 5, Cooperative Marketing Strategy
pg 39 – 44
Yukon Food System Literature Review
Potluck Community Cooperative / Zoe House Projects
November 2010
As demonstrated at the Fireweed Farmer’s Market and the
diverse U-pick scenarios, retail consumers ask for a certain
20
1988 HLA GROWER’S CO-OPERATIVE FEASIBILITY STUDY
COLLECTED DATA AND QUESTIONS THAT COME NEXT
Required standards for products to meet 1988 wholesale market
demands: uniformity, cleaned, packaging, consistent supply
level of clean, reliable produce – and they are open to a certain
level of ‘just from the farm’.
Without a vegetable processing and storage facility, what are
the supply quantity, type consistency, and presentation needs of
the Co-op?
Can the Co-op sustain a retail market with a ‘as is’ and
unpredictable supply? What ranges can the Co-op work with,
and can farmer members provide?
Capital and Labour Requirements, Financial Analysis
Sections 6 & 7, pgs 45 - 74
Technical requirements for a vegetable processing and storage
facility, including storage temperatures and bin sizes, and
equipment costs
Technical/ Constructed Elements
Details have been developed on produce processing and storage
facilities, required equipment.
pg viii: processing facility size, farming equipment
Yukon Food System Literature Review
Potluck Community Cooperative / Zoe House Projects
November 2010
Useful details needed for a processing and cold storage facility.
What are current prices, and what kinds of processing/storage
do current consumers and producers require?
21
REPORT
WHITEHORSE AREA COLD STORAGE STUDY
PRESENTED TO THE YAA CARD COMMITTEE
Date: January 2004
Author: Garret Gillespie
OVERVIEW
This study considers the feasibility of a non-profit or
cooperatively based, cold storage and marketing facility in the
Whitehorse area. The HLA Producer’s Cooperative study in
1988 found Yukon conditions favourable for a producers’ cooperative; this 2004 Study re-examines cold storage feasibility
in light of the loss of the local-produce-supportive KellyDouglas & Co. food company and the introduction of free-trade
produce imports from the United States. While in 1988 there
had been favourable market infrastructure and pricing for local
producers to sell directly to local grocery stores, and
conditions for food producers to organize into a cooperative to
support expansion, these changes, particularly free-trade,
made it financially impossible for local producers to continue
farming. Many farmers shut down, an pattern that continues to
repeat across Canada.
The Cold Storage Study gathered its findings from a fairly
limited survey, and like almost all reports regarding the
Yukon Food System Literature Review
Potluck Community Cooperative / Zoe House Projects
November 2010
agricultural sector, must make its commentary without the
backing of thorough data. But, it is considered a fair reading
and assessment of the feasibility of a commercial cold storage
facility at the time- not feasible. It focuses on the possibility of
home-gardeners’ interest in a community cold storage facility
downtown, which would complement current thinking that
community food strategies require extensive home gardening
as part of the food system.
Consumers’ interest in local foods have changed considerably
since this report was made, as have the number and intent of
potential organizing partners, and strategies and policies to
facilitate the development of a cold storage facility.
This study includes useful information about the historical,
economic and political context that the Yukon food
infrastructure must develop in.
22
WHITEHORSE AREA COLD STORAGE STUDY
COLLECTED DATA AND QUESTIONS THAT COME NEXT
1. What does this report tell us about getting Yukon food
to Yukon markets?
2. What questions does it raise about getting Yukon food
to Yukon markets?
Outlines obstacles created by Free Trade
– direct undercutting of local producers, and the warranting illegal
of any local policies to give price preference to local farmers.
Expanding consumer interest in local foods – for health,
community investment, and political reasons – seems to be the
key to override the artificially-low cost of imported foods.
Farmers do not have time to manage community education
campaigns – who else is responsible and able?
It is interesting to note, however, that because of rising costs of
transportation, particularly in winter months, organic locally- and
regionally produced food is often only nominally more expensive
than that brought in by distant import.
Who wants Storage
Is this still true?
p5 “All respondents felt that that lack of adequate storage was
keeping production down.”
Next to the lack of direct access to consumer markets, the lack of
cold storage space is high priority.
Do commercial-sized farmers want shared storage? Does the
market? At what step in vegetable staging should long-term cold
storage happen?
p6. “The larger growers did not feel that access to extra (off farm)
cold storage space would stimulate increased production. The
smaller producers did feel they would increase production if they
had somewhere to store the produce.’
‘the home/urban gardener group could be expected to account
for 90 – 95% of stored vegetables in Whitehorse.
What partners are or could be in place to open a cold storage
facility? Does this have business potential? Would it need to be
non-profit/ community based? What models exist already?
What size of farms require cold storage, for how much produce?
Who has their own? Is it adequate for year-round storage if a
processing facility where a separate facility?
Can home production be encouraged adequately to consititute a
Yukon Food System Literature Review
Potluck Community Cooperative / Zoe House Projects
November 2010
23
WHITEHORSE AREA COLD STORAGE STUDY
COLLECTED DATA AND QUESTIONS THAT COME NEXT
portion of Yukon’s food supply? How much can families produce
for themselves? Is the need more for a community cold storage
facility?
Integrating Social Inclusion:
access to quality foods by people living in poverty is integrated
throughout this study. Though no hard data or interview
respondents are quoted, it reflects a long-standing intention and
value of the food system sector that food security is closely linked
with equitable access to nutritional food.
Yukon Food System Literature Review
Potluck Community Cooperative / Zoe House Projects
November 2010
Where is this priority today?
24
REPORT:
NEEDS ASSESSMENT ON COMMUNITY KITCHEN
to the Yukon Agricultural Association CARD Council
December 2003
by Heidi Marion
OVERVIEW
This Needs Assessment gathers the interests of producers of
value-added food products in a certified community kitchen for
commercial purposes. The 2000 Multi-Year Development Plan
identified a certified community kitchen as an infrastructure
asset that would facilitate local food businesses to expand
their production, and increase products for the local valueadded market.
While there appeared to be in 2003 general community
support for a commercial community kitchen, there was a
somewhat low response to the survey. However, the author
gathered a high response through phone interviews.
This study provides an outline of equipment needed by a
range of value-added producers. However, specific lists of
value-added producers active at the time, or what percentage
Yukon Food System Literature Review
Potluck Community Cooperative / Zoe House Projects
November 2010
of them were interested in this venture, is not known. This
reflects the informal and ‘farm gate’ style of value-added food
creation in the Yukon. Many people do not count themselves
as formal producers, or their production as a source of income.
Today, through the Yukon Made store and various artisan
markets, a wide range of value-added food producers are
active in the Yukon. New facilities are also available, such as
the community-accessible kitchen in the Frank Slims building,
managed by the Fireweed Market Society. Who uses this
facility& how much they produce, what products are possible
through its equipment, and its level of use is not documented.
The data collected would need to be updated and revised to
include the list of products, producers, the quantities they
produce, and what they require in facilities.
25
REPORTS:
FIREWEED COMMUNITY MARKET STUDIES
VENDORS SURVEY
Date: Aug 2009
Augthor
and
TOWARD A PERMAMENT HOME… SCENARIOS AND FEASIBILITY
March 2010
Author:
OVERVIEW
Fireweed Community Market Society has been an immense
and effective forerunner in connecting consumers with
farmers, and customers with food producers, It is the success
of the Fireweed Community Market, confirmed in the 2009
Vendor’s Survey, and identified in the Multi-Year Development
Plan 2008-2012 that set the call for a permanent, year-round
market facility, which was explored in ‘Towards a Permanent
Home’. Approximately 50% of the substantially-producing
farms in the Yukon sell at the Fireweed Community Market,
and find the current Fireweed Market highly suitable.
Towards a Permanent Home
This study focuses on infrastructure, strategies and location
approaches for a successful farmers’ market, with three
examples of successful, year-round community Markets in
small Canadian communities. It is encouraging to read of their
success through partnerships, consistency, diversity of
products, and year-round presence. All of these older markets
have provided the market infrastructure to spin-off small
Yukon Food System Literature Review
Potluck Community Cooperative / Zoe House Projects
November 2010
businesses and evolve value-added products – more products,
more customers, more business, more local food system.
Most of the issues that comparative markets face is not with
finding adequate vendors – there seem to be plenty of vendors
if the market space is made available – it is in enhancing the
‘market experience’ to attract customers. The increases in
local production are seen over years as customers become
more involved in food product direction, and more potential
vendors see accessible avenues for sales.
The key finding of the ‘Permanent Home’ study is “that the
major stakeholders in the Fireweed Community Market have
differing goals and face a variety of constraints and incentives
that are not necessarily aligned,’ pg 1, in the Summary, ‘No
single scenario can bridge the differences.’
The question this raises: what variety of market channels and
food system infrastructure are needed for the diversity of
Yukon producers and consumers?
26
The Vendors’ Survey confirms that there is a significant range
of farmers with produce available, who do not sell at Fireweed.
1. What does this report tell us about getting Yukon food
to Yukon markets?
2. What questions does it raise about getting Yukon food
to Yukon markets?
TOWARDS A PERMANENT HOME
Market the Market:
People come for Experience
p 4 – 9 Lessons and tactics from other Markets:
Space & activities for families & children
Entertainment
Hot food vendors & kitchen to operate from: from falafels to
bacon and eggs (local, of course)
Space to sit down & eat
Use social media – immediacy
Get municipality onside & championing
Does the Co-op need to create an ‘experience’ to attract
members? What experience do Yukoners want with their food?
Connecting with family & community are consistent themes –
how can the Co-op offer & encourage community connecting
through & because of the Co-op?
What happens in buying clubs that Yukoners value? Autonomy,
DIY, cooperative work. Does the sokatsu/ depot model suit this
interest in community connectivity through food, with feasible
overhead?
Optimal Facilities and Whitehorse Options
Characteristics from other successful markets included
1. Mixed use of the space throughout the week, when the
farmers’ market is not open. This helps underwrite
overhead.
The study could not find a space that would suit mixed-use
Yukon Food System Literature Review
Potluck Community Cooperative / Zoe House Projects
November 2010
How can a consumer market share space to underwrite rent in
Whitehorse’s expensive real estate market?
What thinking and philosophy informs Cities that support
Farmers’ Markets and Food Co-ops, and food strategies as civic
issues?
27
FIREWEEK COMMUNITY MARKET STUDIES
COLLECTED DATA AND QUESTIONS THAT COME NEXT
or be accessible to other groups.
2. City support through In Kind waiving of rental fees for
City-owned property. In each example, the City absorbed
rental costs in exchange for the business and social
benefits that grew from the Farmers’ Markets.
City of Whitehorse is firm that they are not interested in
being involved.
How can Fireweed and / or Potluck Co-op demonstrate and
measure the benefits to the City, or the Territory, to warrant
more direct support?
VENDOR’S SURVEY
Farmers not at the Farmers’ Market
p 31 Approximately 50% of Whitehorse-area substantial farmers
do not use the Farmers Market. There are various reasons,
mostly that they do not have time to set aside for the preparation,
transport, and attendance at the Market (83% of the respondents
who answered the question ‘why do you not participate’)
Yukon Food System Literature Review
Potluck Community Cooperative / Zoe House Projects
November 2010
How do these farmers sell currently? Are these farmers
interested in selling to retail market where they only have to
provide the products?
What other obstacles exist to them selling commercially?
Is their farming of an informal nature, where they are
uninterested in entering contracts or agreements to produce
certain products or quantities?
28
REPORT
VISION FOR YUKON AGRICULTURE:
2006 YUKON AGRICULTURE POLICY PAPER
Overview:
A policy review is far outside the scope of this literature review,
which is intended to summarize data on the status of the
agriculture sector and Yukon food market system. The 2006
Policy does not report research findings, data collection, or
enterprise feasibility for infrastructure development. Agriculture
Policy is deeply influential on the farm-to-table system, and
affects government support for infrastructure and new product
development, access to agricultural land, food certification,
and allowable enterprise structures.
Government policy exists in two worlds that must be made
cohesive, or come into balance with each other:
1. Policies of other local (Yukon Government)
departments that directly affect the intention and reach of the
agriculture policy, such as enterprise development support,
land zoning and pricing, and health inspection.
2. Policy Models of other jurisdictions that enable the
sector to grow and prosper in and with the current economic
and social situations.
It appears that Yukon Agricultural Sector policies are missing
channels and capacities to enable a robust local food system.
Many policies refer only that government ‘will work with X’, to
discuss issues, there is little direction given for intended
Yukon Food System Literature Review
Potluck Community Cooperative / Zoe House Projects
November 2010
results. The Agricultural Branch is also a relatively recent
department, and is deep in the process of developing
organizational partnerships and has been responsive to the
sector as it develops.
Across Canada and the world there has been much innovation
in Agriculture Policy for local food systems as both an
economic and social enterprise. Knowledge and expertise in
alternative policies for food certification, infrastructure
frameworks, land development, and enterprise support
systems is urgently needed if the Yukon food sector is to grow
beyond its current fragmented, if I may, entrepreneurs and
interest groups.
Key policy areas for development will be scanned and
discussed at the Situation Mapping workshop for the
agricultural sector that follows this review.
Some Questions
Many policies noted in the Plan are set or influenced by
several different government departments, and their lack of
cohesiveness or complementariness is evident. Are the
Agriculture policies self-contradicting, or are they rendered
null by other government policies? p7
29
REPORT
YUKON FARM PRODUCTS & SERVICES 2008
FARMERS’ CATALOGUE MARKETING BROCHURE
DATE: Bi-Annual
AUTHOR: Agriculture Branch
OVERVIEW
The Farm Products Guide provides a tidy overview of farms
and their families across the Yukon. It is a marketing piece and
serves as a quick reference to operating farms and what each
specializes in.
COLLECTED DATA AND QUESTIONS THAT COME NEXT
1. What does this report tell us about getting Yukon food to
Yukon markets?
2. What questions does it raise about getting Yukon food to
Yukon markets?
This study tells us the range and variety of food products
produced in the Yukon by Yukon farmers, where those farmers
live and operate, and a bit about who they are.
Who are the substantial producers, ie, who regularly produces
amounts large enough to sell?
How much is available for sale?
A table at the back of the booklet overviews what each farm
produces.
The guide includes producers of value added-products such as
goat cheese and cashmere yarn.
Yukon Food System Literature Review
Potluck Community Cooperative / Zoe House Projects
November 2010
How often do they sell, and by what channels? Product
information is included in the narratives about each farm, and
some refer to their dominant means of sale, such as CSA or
Fireweed Market, or the general ‘farmgate’.
30