- FED BEEF MIDDLE VALUE - CHAIN: A CASE STUDY ASSESSMENT By Emma Strong A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Community Sustainabilit y Master of Science 2015 PUBLIC ABSTRACT - FED BEEF MIDDLE VALUE - CHAIN: A CASE STUDY ASSESSMENT By Emma Strong Grass - fed beef is a growing part of the local food movement in Lower Michigan as consumer demand an d production increases. Despite this, the movement is growing slowly and there is little knowledge about the processor, distributor, restaurant, or retail er role in the grass - fed beef market. As these sectors are all essential in the chain of transforming cattle on farm to the products consumers purchase, it is important to explore their role in the evolving local grass - fed beef market. This study assess the current status of the grass - fed beef market in northwest Lower Michigan , focusing on the middle val ue - chain processors, distributors, restaurants, and retailers . Twenty - four participants from the processing, distribution, restaurant, and retail industries were surveyed and interviewed in order to understand their personal and motivating values, their business relationships with others in the grass - fed beef value - chain, and perceived barriers to the market. This research finds that although the value - chain generally adheres to a value - chain framework, the value - chain needs to work together to strengthen their value - chain structure and solve relationship struggles identified with this research. Additionally, the value - chain faces three major barriers that threaten the growth of the market: a lack of processing infrastructure and disconnect between the pro cessors and the rest of the value - chain; inconsistencies between grass - fed beef supply and restaurant and retail demand; and a general lack of knowledge within the value - chain about grass - fed beef. ABSTRACT - FED BEEF MIDDLE VALUE - CHAIN: A CASE STUDY ASSESSMENT By Emma Strong The role of grass - fed beef in the local food movement of northwest Lower Michigan is growing both in scope and size. It is clear that demand for locally raised beef is increasing and there are a g rowing number of producers raising grass - fe d beef and selling directly to consumers. However, there is little knowledge and literature about the middle part of the value chain. As processors, distributors, restaurants, and retail establishments are all ess ential in the chain of transforming cattle on farm to the products consumers purchase, it is important to explore their role in the local grass - fed beef market. This study assess ed the middle of the local grass - fed beef value - chain of i n northwest Lower M ichigan. Twenty - four individuals from the processing, distribution, restaurant, and retail industries were surveyed and interviewed in order to understand their personal and motivating values, their business relationships with others in the grass - fed beef supply chain , and what they believe to be barriers to the market. T his research finds that although the value - chain generally adheres to a value - chain framework, the value - chain needs to work together to strengthen their value - chain structure and solve rel ationship struggles identified with this research. Additionally, the value - chain faces three major barriers that threaten the growth of the market: a lack of processing infrastructure and disconnect between the processors and the rest of the value - chain; i nconsistencies between grass - fed beef supply and restaurant and retail demand; and a general lack of knowledge within the value - chain about grass - fed beef. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT S I would like to acknowledge and thank those who have been instrumental in the pro cess of developing, researching, and writing this thesis. Matt Raven and my co - advisor Dr. Jason Rowntree for their guidance and support throughout this process. My entire committee, including Dr. Raven, Dr. Row ntree, and Dr. Laurie Thorp was invaluable in helping me to streamline and solidify my research focus, and providing advice and feedback . I am so grateful for the assistance of all of my participants. They donated their valuable time, providing honest and candid accounts of their experiences working in the local grass - fed market. Their dedication and commitment to growing Michigan food systems has been inspiring. Raven and Dr. Rowntree for providing the financial assistance that supp orted my graduate education and for additional funding that helped me to complete my thesis research. Also, I would like the Department of Community Sustainability GACC and the Graduate School for their financial assistance that funded the remainder of my research. Finally, I would like to acknowledge and thank my friends and family that spent hours providing editorial feedback and for always taking time to listen to ideas and help me work through struggles. Also, my family and good friends have provided much emotional support throughout my entire graduate experience. Thank you for believing in me and supporting me through this process. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... v ii i LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... ix Chapter 1: Introduct ion ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 1 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 1 Michigan ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 4 Statement of the Problem ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 6 Significance of the Problem ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 7 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 8 Study Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 9 Terms ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 9 Chapter 2 : Literature Review ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 14 Values - based Food Supply Chains ................................ ................................ .......................... 14 The value of value - chains ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 15 Value - chain cha racteristics ................................ ................................ ................................ 16 Value - chain best practices ................................ ................................ ................................ . 17 Value - chain barriers ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 19 Meat centric value - chains ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 20 Social embeddedness in value - chains ................................ ................................ ................ 22 The Middle Value - chain: Processors, Distributors, Restaurants, and Retailers ...................... 24 Processor s ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 24 Producer e xperienced challenges to processing ................................ ..................... 25 Processor experienced challenges to processing ................................ .................... 26 Solutions to the processing problem ................................ ................................ ...... 28 Additional efforts to improve small - scale meat processing ................................ ... 30 Distributor s ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 31 Barriers ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 32 Best practices ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 34 Re staurants ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 35 Values and motivations ................................ ................................ .......................... 35 Barriers ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 36 Best practices ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 37 Retailers ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 38 Values and motivations ................................ ................................ .......................... 38 Barriers ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 39 Best practices ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 4 0 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 40 Chapter 3 : Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 42 Methodology ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 42 v Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 44 Study s ite ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 44 Sample ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 45 Data c ollection ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 47 Quantitative methods ................................ ................................ ............................. 48 Qualitative methods ................................ ................................ ............................... 50 Mixed - methods process ................................ ................................ ......................... 52 Data a nalysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 53 Q uantitative analysis ................................ ................................ .............................. 53 Qualitative analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ 53 Integration (see Figure 2) ................................ ................................ ...................... 55 Validity ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 55 Chapter 4 : Results ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 59 Research Question 1: What Values Permeate the Local Grass - fed Bee f Value - chain? ............ 60 Processors ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 60 Relationships ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 61 Product characteristics ................................ ................................ ........................... 63 Systemic change ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 63 Distributors ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 64 Product characteristics ................................ ................................ ........................... 64 Integrity ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 65 Relationships ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 65 Systemic change ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 66 Social embeddedness ................................ ................................ ............................. 66 Restaurants ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 67 Product characterist ics ................................ ................................ ........................... 67 Integrity ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 69 Social embeddedness ................................ ................................ ............................. 70 Relationships ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 70 Farming ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 71 Systemic change ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 72 Education ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 72 Retailers ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 72 Relationships ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 72 Product characteristics ................................ ................................ ........................... 73 Integrity ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 74 Education ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 74 Survey Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 75 New Ecological P aradigm Survey ................................ ................................ ......... 75 Grass - fed Beef Belief Survey ................................ ................................ ................ 75 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 79 Research Question 2: What is the Nature of the Local Gras s - fed Beef Middle Value - Relationships? ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 81 Long - term ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 81 Commitment issues ................................ ................................ ................................ 82 vi Flexible ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 83 Inflexibility ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 86 Equitable profit s haring ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 87 Price inequity ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 88 Facilitated ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 88 Mutually Beneficial ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 89 Communicative, transparent , trusting ................................ ................................ ................ 91 Communicative ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 91 Communication breakdown ................................ ................................ ....... 92 Transparent ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 92 Lack of transparency ................................ ................................ .................. 93 Trust ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 94 Distrust ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 95 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 95 Research Question 3: What are t he Middle Value - Local Grass - fed Beef Market? ................................ ................................ ................................ 96 Market barriers ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 96 Price ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 96 Supply and demand ................................ ................................ ................................ 97 Consumer demand ................................ ................................ ................................ . 99 Logistics ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 99 Quality ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 100 Processor inconsistencies ................................ ................................ ................................ . 101 Knowledge ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 101 Infrastructure ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 103 Unique proce ssor barriers ................................ ................................ ................................ 103 The grass - fed trend ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 104 Survey results ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 104 Solutions ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 106 Supply and demand strategies ................................ ................................ .............. 106 Differentiate ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 107 Pricing strategies ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 107 Vertical integration ................................ ................................ .............................. 108 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 108 Chapter 5 : Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 110 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 110 Research Question 1:What V alues Permeate the Local Grass - fed Beef Value - chain? ... 110 Research Question 2: What is the Nature of the Local Grass - fed Beef Middle Value - ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 114 Research Question 3: What are the Middle Value - Local Grass - fed Beef Market? ................................ ................................ ........................ 117 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................ ................................ ..................... 123 Future Research ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 127 APPENDIC ES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 130 vii APPENDIX A: Survey ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 131 APPENDIX B: Interview Guide ................................ ................................ ............................ 140 APPENDIX C: Codebook Sample ................................ ................................ ......................... 1 42 APPENDIX D: Summary Statement Sample ................................ ................................ ........ 144 APPENDIX E: Visual Display ................................ ................................ ............................. 147 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 1 7 6 viii LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Results of collaborative activities between buyers and sup pliers (Nyaga et al., 2010)...16 - based meat value - chain (Conner et al. 2008b) ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 22 Tab le 3: Participant distribution by sampling method and county ................................ ................ 47 Table 4: Research questions and associated data collection methods and process ........................ 52 Table 5: Participant total NEP scores and sub - scores ................................ ................................ .... 76 Table 6: NEP total score and subscore mean, median , and standard deviation by sector ............. 77 Table 7: Frequencies of responses to Grass - fed Beef Belief survey values questions by sector ... 7 8 Table 8: Summary of values held by the middle value - chain ................................ ........................ 79 Table 9: Summary of valued product characteristics by sect or ................................ ..................... 80 Table 10: Frequencies of responses to Grass - fed Beef Belief Survey barriers questions by sector ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 106 Table 11 : Grass - fed beef Belief Survey given to participants ................................ ..................... 134 Table 12: New Ecological Paradigm Survey given to participants ................................ ............. 136 Table 13 : Codeb ook ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 143 Table 14 : Visual Display ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 148 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Middle Value - chain ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 45 Figure 2: Mixed Methods Process (Adapted from Designing and Conduction Mixed Methods Research (Creswell & Clark, 2011) ................................ ................................ ................ 56 1 Chapter 1: Introduction Background The re is a growing national focus on food, which is impacting corresponding food systems due to increasing consumer demand for products that are grown close to home and also embody personal values. Consequently, grass - fed beef, a product that appeals to the d emand for local meats while also possessing favorable distinguishing characteristics that consumers value (Mathews & Johnson, 2013), is on the rise nationally, particularly in states such as Michigan. The grass - fed beef market controls only a small portion of the beef - market overall, therefore little is known about its current state. Consequently, there is a need to examine value - chain wide barriers and characteristics of business relationships to better understand how local grass - fed beef is developing and what aspects of the market need to be improved. Doing so will increase the vibrancy of the local - grass - fed beef market. Of particular interest for this study is the grass - fed beef market situated in the state of Michigan. In the last decade there has been a surge in locally oriented food production in Michigan including an increase in grass - fed beef. Focusing on this particular location allows for in - depth understanding of the values and the intimate relationships that emerge through such a local system, w hich may aid in broader understanding of the grass - fed beef market overall. Though not a novel concept, the phenomenon of local food has reemerged in full force following decades of increasingly national and globalized trends in food systems. This upsurge the desire for community food security; and an interest in the origins of their food (Martinez et al., 2010; Pirog , Miller, Way, Hazekamp , & Kim, 2014). Interes tingly, there is no universal definition of local food. However, locals, businesses, and organizations have developed and 2 operationalized their own definitions of local that are typically associated with the proximity of where food is grown to where it is consumed (i.e. defined by a mileage radius, region, or state). Though, this is not always the case. At times local food is also associated with non - spatial characteristics such as methods of production, sense of place, and farmer - community involvement (Mar tinez et al., 2010). While definition s of local food can vary it is often identified with direct - to - consumer markets in the form of farmers markets and Community Supported Agriculture (CSA), both of which have increased dramatically in the last decades. T he USDA reports that direct - to - consumer sales increased by 77% between 1992 and 2007 (Low & Vogel, 2011), and have since increased by another 8% as of 2012 (USDA National Agricultural Statists Service, 2014). The number of farmers markets in the United Sta tes have increased 364% in 20 years, from 1,755 markets in 1994 to 8,268 markets in 2014 (USDA Agricultural Marketing Service, 2014), and as of the 2012 Census of Agriculture, 12,617 farms were marketing food through CSAs while 50,000 farms sold direct - to - institution (e.g. restaurants and retailers) (USDA NASS, 2014). Additionally, the growing number of nationally recognized farm - to - school programs, which numbered 40,328 during the 2011 - 2012 school year (USDA Food and Nutrition Service, n.d.), is further ev idence of the expanding local food movement. Concurrently, grass - fed beef and other alternative meat products are becoming popular as consumers seek out a substitute for conventional meat products that better align with their personal values (Mathews & Joh nson, 2013). Grass - fed beef is defi ned as animals that are only fe d grass or forage after weaning (USDA AMS, 2007). Grass - fed beef products offer many environmental and social benefits over conventionally produced meat. For example, proper grazing manageme nt such as adaptively managed rotational grazing, can improve the health of 3 grassland ecosystems and soil health (Beukes & Cowling, 2003; Ferguson et al., 2013; Teague, Dowhower , Baker, Haile , DeLaune , Conover , 2011), can increase water holding capacity (B euke & Cowling, 2003; Jacobo, Rodríguez , Bartoloni , Deregibus , 2006; Weber & Gokhale, 2011), and can support a more favorably diverse and dense forage population (Ferguson et al. 2013; Jacobo et al., 2006; Teague et al. 2011; Weber & Gokhale, 2011) compare d with continuously grazed and non - grazed systems. Additionally, the health benefits of grass - fed over grain - fed beef are well documented. Grass - fed beef has lower overall fat content, higher levels of conjugated linoleic acid, and a more favorable omega - 6 to omega - 3 fatty acid ratio than its grain - fed counterpart (Daley, Abbott, Doyle, Nader, Larson, 2010; Duckett, Neel, Lewis, Fontenot, Clapham, 2013; Tansawat , Maughan , Ward , Martini , Cornforth , 2013). Finally, raising animals on pasture can result in imp roved animal welfare, a subject of importance to the public (Centner, 2010; Saja, 2013). By raising animals solely on grass, cattle are afforded constant access to pasture during the growing season, and live out their lives consuming their natural diet of grass rather than corn. While literature indicates there are many benefits to raising grass - fed anim als the practice is still under utilized. Also of interest is the national increase in consumer demand for and awareness of local meats and grass - fed beef. The popularity of locally raised meats is evidenced in the American (National Restaurant Association, n.d.). Consumers are aware of the benefits of pasture - raised li vestock products, which Conner and Oppenheim (2008a, 2008b) define as animals that spend their lives on pasture and consume forage for most or all of their lives, which closely resembles the USDA grass - fed marketing claim (USDA, 2007). Conner and Oppenheim (2008a) found that mid - Michigan consumers frequenting retail outlets that sell alternative meat products were aware 4 of the beneficial attributes of pastured meat products. Additionally, respondents in a Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture survey we re at least somewhat aware of the positive animal - welfare and health characteristics of pasture - raised beef and dairy ( Pirog , 2004). Moreover, willingness - to - pay studies show that consumers will pay a premium for grass - fed beef products (Cox et al., 2006; Gwin, Durham, Miller & Colonna, 2012), particularly when having prior knowledge of or presented with information about the nutritional benefits of grass - fed beef Wan dschneider, 2005; Umberger, Boxall & Lacy, 2009; Xue, Mainille, You, & Nayga, 2010) and production practices (Gwin et al. 2012; Umberger et al. 2009). Overall, a review of the literature concerning awareness and the willingness to sacrifice more for access to grass - fed beef demonstrates an endorsement of these practices. In other words, there is market demand. This combined with the aforementioned environmental and social benefits reflects the significant position within the local food movement that grass - f ed beef has. Therefore, this research will use grass - fed beef as an inlet to studying one aspect of the local food market that is important not only in regards to understanding the increasing desire to match positive - values with how food is grown and produ ced, but also as a means of understanding how to operationalize environmentally and socially sustainable practices. Michigan. Along with the rest of the nation, local food systems and grass - fed beef markets are growing throughout Michigan. The number of M ichigan farmers markets has increased over three fold in less than 15 years, from 90 markets in 2001 to over 300 in 2014 (Michigan Farmers Market Association, 2015). As of 2012, 410 farms in Michigan sold products through CSAs (USDA, 2012) and during the 2 011 - 2012 school year 1,159 schools participated in farm - to - school programs (USDA Food and Nutrition Service, n.d.a.). 5 This growth in local food systems can have a tremendous effect on the state economy. According to a Michigan Land Use Institute and Michi gan State University study, higher - percent, or $164 million annually. As farms spent that new income at local restaurants, (Cantrell, 2009, p. 6) The state of Michigan recognizes the economic potential of local food systems. The Good Food Charter, organiz ed by the Michigan State University Center for Regional Food Systems, has identified 6 goals to be achieved by 2020 that are focused on increasing the resiliency and igan will be produced by Michigan farmers, and that 20% of food at Michigan institutions will be sourced from Michigan farmers and processors (Michigan Good Food Charter, 2014). Likewise, 2020, 20% of food consumed within northwest Michigan will be produced within that same region (Food and Farming Network, n.d.). The Grand Vision is a public - private partnership outlining a united vision on the future of transportation, land use, environme ntal stewardship, and economic development in Antrim, Benzie, Grand Traverse, Kalkaska, Leelanau, and Wexford counties (The Grand Vision, 2015). As with local foods, grass - fed beef is a growing industry in Michigan owing to growing consumer awareness and farmers adopting grass - fed beef production practices. Research shows that features of pasture - based meat production practices are valued by Michigan consumers, such as improved animal welfare, eliminating the use of unnecessary hormones and antibiotics, an d 6 environmental stewardship (Conner, Campbell - Arvai, & Hamm, 2008a). Additionally, Michigan consumers patronizing stores selling pastured meat products are willing to pay a premium for pasture - based meat and dairy (Conner & Oppenheim, 2008a, 2008b). The te - fed . In addition to - based meat products, there are a number of grass - fed beef producers in the state of Michigan. Eatwild.com , a site dedicated to providing information on pastured animal products, lists 30 Michigan farms raising pasture - finished beef (Robinson, 2015). With growing consumer demand and increasing numbers of producers raising grass - fed beef, Michigan is well situa ted for a thriving local grass - fed beef market. Statement of the Problem The grass - fed beef market is still a small, but increasingly prominent segment in alternative food markets. The Wallace Center Pasture Project (as cited in Williams, 2015), has determ ined that grass - fed beef sales accounts for only 3 - 6% of total national beef sales. However, Williams (2014) also claims that the grass - fed beef market is currently growing at 25 - 30% each year. Due to the rapid increase of the grass - fed beef market in conj unction with the potential to positively impact local economies, the environment, and social sustainability, it is important to understand how local grass - fed beef markets are developing to identify current and potential barriers and inform positive future growth. Additionally, while the grass - fed beef market is growing, there is little knowledge and literature about the grass - fed beef middle - supply chain, and virtually no literature about the emerging grass - fed beef market in Michigan. As processors, distr ibutors, restaurants, and retail establishments are all essential in the chain of transforming cattle on farm to the products consumers purchase, it is important to explore their role in the local grass - fed beef market, which is the purpose of this researc h. 7 One increasingly popular method of exploring emerging alternative food markets is through the lens of values - based food supply chains (value - chains). Value - chains differ from traditional supply chains due to the equitable, strategic, and mutually benefi cial partnerships between producers and their associated supply - chain partners (Stevenson & Pirog , 2013). United by shared goals and common personal and business values, value - chains typically produce and sell differentiated food products (Stevenson & Piro g , 2013) that attract consumers seeking out unconventional food. Therefore this research sets out to understand how the local grass - fed beef market is developing in Michigan by using a value - chain framework, and will contribute to the literature on grass - f ed beef markets and identify barriers preventing faster market growth. Significance of the Problem Increasing the market share of locally raised grass - fed beef has the potential to increase community and regional economic, environmental, and social susta inability by helping to strengthen local economies, improve environmental stewardship of grasslands, and fulfill the social desire for healthy food products raised with high animal welfare standards. Medium sized farmers can benefit by participating in loc al grass - fed beef markets where they can provide consumers with an increasingly demanded product and potentially receive price premiums. Additionally by adopting a value - chain framework, these medium - sized farms that have been declining throughout the Unit ed States can access new market opportunities. Too large to participate in direct - to - consumer markets and too small and not suited for conventional markets, mid - sized farms that operate within the value - chain framework can find market success in intermedia ted food markets (Stevenson, Clancy, King, Lev, Ostrom & Smith, 2011), where farmers sell their differentiated food products to regional food distributors or directly to retailers such as restaurants and grocery stores (Low & Vogel, 2011). Intermediated ma rkets, which 8 account for three times the local food sales as direct - to - consumer markets (Low & Vogel, 2011), result in large quantities of alternative food products entering the market, increasing the available quantity and accessibility of local, alternat ive food products, and providing the potential for alternative markets to grow. the local grass - fed beef value - chain as the Grand Vision is currently working to expand th e local food system in that region. Concurrently, a USDA SARE (Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education) grant is working to expand local grass - fed beef production and develop a pilot value - chain in the same area. As producers and consumers have been the subject of much research on the development of local food systems and grass - fed beef value - chains (e.g. Gwin, 2009; Lozier, Rayburn, & Shaw, 2004, 2006; Conner & Oppenhein, 2008a, 20008,b; Evans et al., 2011; Gwin et al., 2012), a b etter understanding of the middle value - chain (i.e. processors, distributors, and restaurant and retail outlets) in northwest Lower Michigan will strengthen the local grass - fed beef value - chain, while providing useful information to other developing local meat value - chains t hroughout the country. Research Questions Therefore, the purpose of this study is to assess present state of the local grass - fed beef middle value - chain in northwest Lower Michigan. The grass - fed beef middle value - chain includes processors, distributors, r estaurants, and retail businesses. To fulfill the purpose of the study a mixed - methods approach was implemented to answer the following research questions: 1. What values permeate the local grass - fed beef middle value - chain? 2. What is the nature of the local gr ass - fed beef middle value - chain relationships? 9 3. What are the middle value - - fed beef market? Study Limitations Although this research tried to be as comprehensive as possible, there are a few limitations of t his study. First of all, the breadth of this study was too wide considering the amount of time allocated to complete the study. More detailed results could have been achieved by focusing more narrowly on one or two of the identified research questions or f ocusing on just one of the middle value - chain sectors. Additionally, f or a number of reasons, this study was not able to include all local grass - fed beef middle value - chain members in the study region. Future long - term studies may benefit by identifying an d including all of the local grass - fed beef middle value - chain actors in order to get a more accurate picture of the regional grass - fed beef market evolution. The Grass - fed Beef Belief Survey was not as relevant to all middle value - chain participants as th e researcher originally thought, and perhaps another survey may have been more applicable. The New Ecological Paradigm Survey did not generate any notable results in regards to trends between middle value - A better a pplication of the survey would be to conduct a state or multi - state survey of the grass - fed beef middle value - value uniting or separating the grass - fed beef value - chain sectors . Terms Aggregator ( Day - Farnsworth et al., 2009 p.i) 10 Alternative meat production methods production methods distinguishable from conventional methods that result in a product with differentiated attributes that may encourage price premiums. Alternative production methods in clude natural, organic, and grass or forage fed produc tion (Mathews & Johnson, 2013). Conventional beef production traditional feedlot production of grain - fed beef in which steers and heifers receive feed rations consisting largely of grain - based energy and protein to achieve (Mathews & Johnson, 2013 p.4) Direct - to - consumer marketing farmers marketing their products directly to the consumer (e.g. rkets, on farm stores, and community - supported agriculture arrangeme Grass (forage) fed ruminant animal, with the exception of milk consumed prior to weaning. The diet shall be derived solely from forage consisting of grass (annual and perennial), forbs (e.g., legumes, Brassica), browse, or cereal grain crops in the vegetative (pre - grain) state. Animals cannot be fed grain or grain byproducts and mus t have continuous access to pasture during the growing season. Hay, haylage, baleage, silage, crop residue without grain, and other roughage sources may also be included as acceptable feed sources. Routine mineral and vitamin supplementation may also be in cluded in the feeding regimen. If incidental supplementation occurs due to inadvertent exposure to non - environmental or physical conditions, the producer must fully document (e.g., receipts, 11 ingredients, and tear tags) the supplementation that occurs including the amount, the frequency, Grass - finished - finished cattle have grazed only on grass, pasture land, or other forages and, most importantly, have been fattened only on grass or forages to achieve adequate levels of 2013, p. 8) Intermediated marketing farmers ma rketing their products through a middle party (e.g. & Vogel, 2011, p. i) Local grass - fed beef middle value - chain for the purpose of this research, the local grass - fed be ef middle value - chain is the group of processors, distributors, restaurants, and retailers that process, distribute, and sell grass - fed beef produced within Michigan Mid - sized farms Typically considered farms grossing between $1 - 0,000 and $250,000 a year ( Kirschenmann, Stevenson, Buttel, Lyson, & Duffy, 2005). Natural (meat or poultry) A product containing no artificial ingredient or added color and is only minimally processed. Minimal processing means that the product was processed in a manner that do es not fundamentally alter the product. The label must include a statement explaining the meaning of the term natural (such as "no artificial ingredients; minimally do not apply to how an animal is raised (Mathews & Johnson, 2013). No antibiotics The terms "no antibiotics added" may be used on labels for meat or poultry products if sufficient documentation is provided by the producer to the Agency demonstrating 12 that fety Inspection Service, 2014). No hormones may be approved for use on the label of beef products if sufficient documentation is provided to the Agency by the producer showing no 2014). Organic Livestock welfare standards, did not use antibiotics or growth hormones, used 100% organic feed, and provided animals with access to the outdoors. Pasture - raised - Service, 2012), however Conner & Oppenheim (2008b) distinguish pasture - raised from conventional livestock by animals that spend most of their lives outdoors and primarily consume grass or pasture. Product differentiation distinguishing a product from other products by high lighting uni que characteristics Values - based food supply chains strategic business partnerships between producers of differentiated food products and their supply - chain partners based on mutual benefit, high levels of trust between parties, profit equity, and shared values (related to their food product and business operations) (Stevenson & Pirog , 2013) Traditional supply chain operate under win - lose conditions where business partners try to maximize their individual profit by purchasing for less and selling for mo re. Typically welfare and profits are not distributed equally throughout the supply - chain (Stevenson & Pirog , 2013) 13 Value s For the purpose of this research, particularly regarding research question 1, values are understood in two ways. One definition is that from ethics.com of Core beliefs that guide and A modified definition of the ethics.com definition would be thics and Compliance Initiative, 2015). 14 Chapter 2: Literature Review For the purpose of this study, this literature review is broken down into the following areas: First, a review of value - chain literature, followed by an overview of alternative meat and l ocal food use in the middle value - chain, beginning with small scale meat processing, followed by distribution, restaurants, and retailers. Framing business relationships around a value - chain model can help alternative food markets, such as the local grass - fed beef market in Lower northwest Michigan, find success. Focusing on more than just profit, value - chains possess characteristics that lead to collaborative, long - term, mutually beneficial business relationships. A number of case studies have explored a w ide variety of value - chain scenarios and have identified successful features of value - chains as well as barriers to market success. Additionally, this literature review examines the different components of the middle - value chain in order to better understa nd the current status of, barriers - fed beef, alternative meats, and local foods. Although each sector experiences its own unique challenges to successfully participating in these alternative food markets, many have found success by collaborating, supporting other value - chain partners, developing relationships based on trust and open communication, developing efficient logistical strategies, and adopting crea tive methods for addressing supply and demand inconsistencies. Values - based Food Supply Chains The term values - based food supply chain originated with Agriculture of the Middle, a movement working to support and strengthen the mid - sized farms and ranches t hat have been - chain relationships typically 15 develop around differentiated alternative food products, and are characterized by long - term business commitments based on equity, reciprocity, a nd common values. Value - chains attempt to find a balance between commodity and direct - to - consumer markets, striving scale for and efficiency, while maintaining a connection to the farmers and the values associated with the food products (Stevenson et al., 2011; Stevenson & Pirog , 2013). By focusing on value - chains rather than typical supply chains, parties that are characterized as agriculture of the middle can work together to build successful, synergistic, long lasting business partnerships that lead to s uccess for all players in the value - chain (Agriculture of the Middle, 2012; Stevenson and Pirog , 2013). The value of value - chains. Operating as part of a value - chain offers market opportunities for medium - sized farms and producer networks. As demand for hi gh quality, alternative food products increases, mid - sized farmers, who have the ability to produce larger volumes of specialized food products while maintaining quality, can gain market access through product differentiation (Stevenson et al., 2011). Furt hermore, value - chains offer opportunities for small farmers to form producer networks, allowing them to reach larger markets through product aggregation while also creating opportunities for producers to learn from each other (Flaccavento, 2009), and to po tentially share expenses such as marketing costs (Lerman, 2012). Additionally, because of their collaborative nature, value - chains can positively impact supply - chain relationships. Nyaga, Whipple, and Lynch (2010) examined the effects of collaborative rel ationships on supply chains, as shown in Table 1, and concluded that collaboration in the form of joint relationship effort, dedicated investments, and information sharing can improve trust and relationship commitments between buyers and suppliers. High le vels of trust and commitment within supply - chains can in turn improve satisfaction with supply - chain relationships, performance, and end results (Nyaga, Whipple & Lynch, 2010). This 16 study demonstrates that collaborative relationships, which are common in v alue - chains, can lead to satisfying business relationships and successful results. Table 1 Results of collaborative activities between buyers and suppliers (Nyaga et al., 2010) Collaborative Activity Result Joint relationship effort Improves trust with b uyers and suppliers Dedicated investments Improves relationship commitments Information sharing Improves relationship commitments and trust for buyers and suppliers Commitment Improves satisfaction with relationships Commitment Improves performance for buyers Trust Improves satisfaction with relationships, results, and performance Finally, value - chains can positively impact surrounding communities. Medium - sized farms and cooperating small scale farms are environmental stewards of their farmland, a nd can help drive community and economic development in areas with strong agricultural ties (Stevenson et al., 2011). Additionally, with the capacity to produce larger quantities of food compared to small farms selling direct - to - consumer, mid - sized farms a nd their value - chain partners are able to sell to larger institutions, improving food access (Lerman, 2012). Value - chain characteristics. Value - chains are defined by key characteristics that distinguish them from conventional supply - chains. First, as thei r name suggests, value - chain partners are united by shared values (Conner, Sevoian, Heiss, & Berlin, 2014; Fla ccavento, 2009; Stevenson & Pirog , 2013) associated with both the food product and business practices (Stevenson & Pirog , 2013). Additionally, val ue - chains often sell alternative food products that 17 can be distinguished from commodity foods. Food products can be differentiated a number of ways, for instance by unique characteristics reflecting personal values such as production practices that promote environmental stewardship and animal welfare standards, or food attributes such as high quality or specialty food products (Flaccavento, 2009; Stevenson & Pirog , 2013). Value - chain business relationships differ considerably from those of typical supply c hains. Value - chain partnerships are characterized by long lasting relationships built on trust, open communication, transparency, shared decision making (Lerman, 2012; Stevenson & Pirog , 2013), and success and profit equity for all value - chain participants (Flaccavento, 2009; Lerman, 2012, Stevenson & Pirog , 2013). Although value - chains can have a larger distance between the farmer and consumer compared with direct - to - consumer markets, value - chains aim to maintain a connection to the farmer during every ste p of the supply chain (Stevenson et al., 2011). Additionally many successful value - chains tend to be coordinated by one value - chain partner that facilitates the value - chain relationships and coordinates the movement of product from the farmer to the end us er (Diamond & Barham, 2011; Jablonski, Perez - burgos, Gómez, 2011; Lerman, 2012; Stevenson, 2013; Stevenson & Lev, 2013). Value - chain best practices . Value - chain literature often highlights strategies important to value - chain market success. Although each value - chain operates under a unique set of circumstances, many of the best practices identified in the literature are applicable to most value - chain scenarios. To begin, an essential aspect of all value - chains, and especially meat value - chains, is proper - chain is the infrastructure (and the system) that moves products from farms to markets, in the 18 form required by the buyers. This usually involves some combination of pro cessing, aggregation, supply - chain, such as processing equipment, refrigerators, freezers, and trucks are essential to a successful value - chain. Adequate busine ss experience and skills are necessary for value - chains to thrive. Relevant skills include strategic planning, employee training, and coordination between many parties (Diamond & Barham, 2011; Falat, 2011). Individuals working with value - chains, such as sm all business and economic development agencies, cite business savvy, managerial experience, and displaying attributes that are likely to result in funding (credit, character, ability to repay) as necessary for value - chain success (Hardesty et al., 2014). F inally, many of the value - chain characteristics mentioned in the previous section have been successfully put into practice with various value - chain models. Many value - chains promote their distinguishing attributes, setting them apart from traditional suppl y - chains. Some value - chains differentiate based on geography (Falat, 2011; Gunter, Thilmany, & Sullins, 2012; Hardesty et al., 2014; Jablonski et al, 2011), such as the La Montanita Co - op, a distributor coordinated value - chain selling only food produced wi thin their regional foodshed in New Mexico (Diamond & Barham, 2011). Others promote the quality, freshness, (Falat, 2011; Hardesty et al., 2014), or healthfulness of their products, as well as particular production practices, such as organic (Hardesty et a l., 2014). Additional best practices include commitment to fair pricing (Jablonski et al, 2011; Hardesty et al., 2014), transparency between value - chain partners, (Jablonski et al, 2011), and maintaining product identity throughout the value - chain (Diamon & Barham, 2011). 19 Value - chain barriers. There are many common barriers to establishing and maintaining a productive value - chain. A number of barriers occur within the value - chain as partners struggle to establish and maintain the key value - chain characteri stics. First, it can be difficult for individuals to fulfill the most fundamental step of value - chain creation, finding and maintaining relationships with the right value - chain partners (Stevenson et al., 2011; Stevenson & Pirog , 2013). In a study examinin g farm - to - institution value - chains in Vermont, Conner et al., (2014) found that although values are important motivators for participating in the value - chain, farmers, buyers, and non - profit distributors tend to have the most similar values whereas the val ues of for - profit distributors differ, and are primarily focused on profit, negatively affecting their relationships with farmers (Conner et al., 2014). Additionally value - chain partners can find it difficult to form relationships based on trust, transpare ncy, and shared decision making (Stevenson & Pirog , 2013) and to establish a fair value - chain pricing structure that is also affordable to consumers (Conner et al., 2014; Stevenson et al., 2011; Stevenson & Pirog , 2013). Value - chains also struggle to effec tively differentiate their product and to maintain their brand throughout value - chain (Stevenson et al., 2011; Stevenson & Pirog , 2013). Value - chains also struggle with establishing efficient and consistent internal operations. To begin, value - chains stru ggle establishing effective management structures (Stevenson & Pirog , 2013). Producers also encounter infrastructure difficulties, such as acquiring production equipment and identifying processing, packaging, and distribution partners that are of appropria te scale (Hardesty et al., 2014). Producers sometimes struggle complying with food safety requirements (Falat, 2011; Hardesty et al., 2014), and value - chains as a whole find it difficult to establish quality control systems and to uphold standards and cert ifications throughout the supply chain (Stevenson et al., 2011; Stevenson & Pirog , 2013). 20 Finally, value - chains face external barriers to development and success. Value - chains may struggle to access capital to support existing operations and growth (Harde sty et al., 2014; Stevenson et al. 2011). They may also struggle to find a market for their differentiated product due to lack of demand (Falat, 2011; Hardesty et al. 2014). Meat centric value - chains. A number of studies have focused solely on meat centere d value - chains, two of which focused solely on beef, one on organic grass and pasture - based meat, and another on pasture - raised livestock. These case studies highlight successful business practices as well as the unique challenges faced by these value - chai ns. To begin, all of the value - chains have established and promote distinguishing characteristics which separate them from commodity meat producers, and often serve as the basis of shared values throughout the value - chain. U.S. Premium Beef Ltd., (USPB) a beef producer - (McCann & Montabon, 2012, p. 40), and provides opportunities for small producers to enter larger markets. The two other producer cooperatives, Country N atural Beef and Good Earth Farms, as well as the Michigan pasture - based livestock value - chain, tend to distinguish themselves based on the quality of the product and their production practices (Conner et al. 2008b; McCann & Montabon, 2012; Stevenson, 2013; Stevenson & Lev, 2013). Additionally, Country Natural Beef promotes their environmental stewardship practices (Stevenson & Lev, 2013) and both Country Natural Beef and Good Earth Farms are characterized by their focus on animal welfare (Stevenson, 2013; S tevenson & Lev, 2013). These values are shared and upheld throughout the value - chain by their supply - chain partners (Stevenson, 2013; Stevenson & Lev, 2013). Producers and consumers participating in the Michigan pasture - based livestock value - 21 chain tend to share similar values, such as animal welfare, environmental stewardship, and hormone and antibiotic free production practices (Conner et al. 2008b). Secondly, meat centered value - chains set out to achieve economic fairness between business partners, althou gh how this is achieved varies between models. USPB has focused on equitable sharing of benefits and risks by including all facets of the cattle production process in their membership. For membership, producers must buy one share per head of cattle, and sh ared decision making is achieved by allocating one vote per member regardless of their number of shares (McCann & Montabon, 2012). Country Natural Beef has achieved price equity by reducing the amount of intermediaries involved in the value - chain and ensur ing that profits flow directly to ranchers. Members of the cooperative consult to fulfill production, marketing, and financing operations rather than outsourcing to a third - party, and these consultants hire outside professionals when necessary (McCann & Mo ntabon, 2012; Stevenson & Lev, 2013). Finally, Good Earth Farms ensures that producers receive fair profits through cost - based pricing, determined by adding the cost of production, marketing, transportation, and shipping costs, plus what they consider a fa ir profit to the farmers (Stevenson, 2013). Finally, maintaining good relationships with the consumers of values based products will also result in a higher likelihood of success (McCann & Montabon, 2012; Stevenson, 2013; Stevenson & Lev, 2013). For examp in 3 outreach activities a year (Stevenson & Lev, 2013). Whereas Good Earth Farms focuses on high quality customer service, making a point to respond quickly to emails, sharing food preparation instructions with customers, and ensuring that products arrive solidly frozen at 22 Meat value - chains also encounter a number of barriers. Country Natural Beef has struggled maintaining a mutually supportive relationship with their large retail customer, Whole struggles to carry out business operations while maintaining their farm, and have hopes of growing enough to be able to hire help (Stevenson, 2013). Conner et al., (2008b) interviewed and - based value - chain and found that each sector farmers, processors, buyers, and consumers encounters unique barriers to their operatio ns, which are listed in Table 2. Table 2 - based meat value - chain (Conner et al. 2008b). Value - chain partner Challenges Producer Access to processing Production cost Maintaining consistent supply Communication wi th consumers Land security Pasture management Processor Retaining labor Longer aging time Buyers and Distributors Identifying whole animal markets Seasonality Negative consumer perceptions Farmer to consumer connections Consumers Availability Price A wareness of products Interest in products Social embeddedness in value - chains. Numerous articles have connected the strong values and social motivations associated with value - chains with the concept of social embeddedness (Conner et al., 2014; Falat, 20 11; Hinrichs, 2000; Sage, 2003). Social 23 embeddedness refers to the social connections present in economic transactions (Conner et al., 2014). According to Sage (2003), Social embeddedness conveys principles of social connectivity, reciprocity and trust, c haracteristics which are essential to all economic life in general, but which trading systems (LETS), community development banks, and direct agricultural markets. (p. 4 7) Hinrichs (2000) compares this concept with two additional economic concepts, marketness and instrumentalism. High marketness refers to the motivation to make decisions based purely on price, and high instrumentalism is the propensity towards individual istic decision making (Hinrich, 2000). The lower marketness and instrumentalism, the more non - economic and non - individualistic factors play into decision making (Hinrich, 2000). The value - chain case - studies highlighted in this literature demonstrate adhe rence to social embeddedness principles. The business values upheld by the value - chains (e.g. trust and reciprocal relationships) and the ethical values held by value - chain members (e.g. animal welfare, and environmental stewardship) that drive value - chain operations indicate that non - economic factors can play a large role in value - chain decision making, indicating lower levels of marketness and instrumentalism compared with conventional supply chains. farm - to - institution (FTI) value - chains, price was noted as an important barrier that could impact participant in FTI value - chains. Yet the study determined that principles of social embeddedness could overpower economic based decisions to some extent, con 24 buyers were more likely to engage in FTI when price necessities were offset in part by The Middle Value - chain: Processors, Distributors, Restaurants and Retailers Despite t he fact that demand for locally sourced and alternative meat is rising ( Conner and Oppenheim, 2008a, 2008b; Cox et al. 2006; Martinez et al, 2010; Mathews & Johnson, 2013; McCluskey et al., 2005; National Restaurant Federation, n.d.), market growth has bee n slow. For instance the percentage of livestock operations that participate in direct - to - consumer or direct - to - retailer markets is much smaller than producers of other agricultural products, 6.9% compared to 44.1 percent (Martinez et al., 2010). In order to better understand the local grass - fed beef market, the following review explores characteristics of alternative meat and local food processing, distribution, and restaurant and retail use. Processor s . Although there are many factors that contribute to t he slowly growing local grass - fed beef market, niche meat processing is recognized as a major culprit. There are three facets to this problem. First, conventional meat processing dominates in the United States, and for numerous reasons impedes processing f or smaller meat markets. Secondly, producers have encountered many problems with existing small meat processors. And finally, existing or prospective meat processors constantly combat challenges to their operations. Small - scale niche meat processing is co mplicated, with problems rooted in conventional meat supply chain infrastructure. Although there are a number of small, 549, and medium, 69, sized federally inspected slaughter facilities throughout the United States, 55% of livestock are processed at 14 l arge facilities which process over 1 million head of livestock per year (Johnson, Marti, & Gwin, 2012). Conversely, less than 1% of all U.S. cattle are slaughtered and processed at small facilities, which have a capacity of less than 10,000 cattle processe d per year (Johnson et 25 al., 2012). According to a USDA Economic Research Service article on small - scale meat States are often high - volume, technology - intensive operations and are almost exclusively - scale meat producers were located near large processors, farmers cannot make use of their facilities which are not equipped to handle small scale inputs (Johnson et al., 2012 ). Thus, the conventional United States meat - processing infrastructure is not currently situated to serve the growing small - scale niche meat market. Producer experienced challenges to processing. Processing is often deemed a major bottleneck to the expansi on of niche meat markets. Many small - scale livestock producers cite availability of slaughter and processing facilities as a major impediment to expanding their businesses (Gwin, 2009; Gwin, Thiboumery, & Stillman, 2013; Johnson et al., 2012; Saul et al., 2014). Producers must often travel long distances to the nearest processing facility that meets their processing needs which costs them in time and money (Conner, 2005; Joannides, 2013; Local Food Research Center, 2012). Compounding this problem, existing small - scale processors may not offer needed or desired services, such as the ability to smoke meats or possessing Organic Certification (Joannides, 2013; Local Food Research Center, 2012; Sleeping Lion Associates, 2005). The perceived need for additional processing capacity has spurred a multitude of feasibility studies assessing the practicality of opening new processing facilities (Dickenson, Joseph, & Ward, 2013; eXtension, 2015; Local Food Research Center, 2012; Saul et al., 2014; Sleeping Lion Associa tes, 2005). The results of these studies are generally mixed, with some indication that there is enough demand and capacity to support new processing facilities (Local 26 Food Research Center, 2012; Saul et al., 2014), while others determined that new process ing facilities would not be feasible (Sleeping Lion Associates, 2005; eXtension, 2015). Small - scale alternative meat producers encounter additional problems with their existing processors. Some producers have indicated that their processors produce a poo r quality end product due to inadequate trimming and inconsistent cutting, as well as poor packaging presentation and labeling, which is unacceptable for a market that is paying a premium for such products (Sleeping Lion Associates, 2005). Also, due to the seasonality of some types of alternative meats, producers have difficulty scheduling with their processors during peak season (Conner, 2005; Gwin et al., 2013; Joannides, 2013; Sleeping Lion Associates, 2005). Finally some producers argue that their proce ssors are too expensive, forcing them to charge more for their products (Gwin & Thiboumery, 2013). Processor experienced challenges to processing . Although the many problems producers encounter with small - scale meat processing have received much attention, recent research has explored these problems from the processor perspective, illuminating a disconnect between the experiences of small - scale producers and processers, and indicating the need for increased communication, commitment, and collaboration betwe en these essential value - chain participants. In response to the producer complaint that there are not enough processing facilities, processors claim that there is not enough consistent supply year round to operate as it is, let alone to open more faciliti es or to expand (eXtension, 2015; Gwin, Thiboumery, Garrison, & McCann, 2011; Gwin et al., 2013; Johnson et al., 2012). Small processors need to process at least 400 - 450 head of cattle each year to maintain economic sustainability (Gwin et al., 2011; Gwin et al., 2013). Gwin and Thiboumery (2013) explained: 27 In some parts of the country, access to processing may be very challenging for farmers who market their own meat and need it processed under inspection. Yet even in those places, there may not be enough livestock, enough of the year, at a high enough price, to cover the costs of providing those services to support a new small plant. There are significant barriers to entry because meat processing is a high - risk, thin - margin business, and it is very diff icult for a new plant to get started and survive. (p. 991) Additionally, small - scale meat processors do not have consistent input. Some farmers cannot make their scheduled commitments due to the uncertainty of farming. Because niche meat production is ofte n seasonal, processing demand slows considerably during the winter months, while they have trouble keeping up during busier seasons (Johnson et al., 2012). These issues with supply contribute to the difficulty in retaining a well - trained staff. There is ty pically a high degree of employee turnover at small - scale meat processing facilities, compounded by the shortage of skilled meat processors (Dickenson et al., 2013; Johnson et al., 2012; Local Food Research Center, 2012; Prevatte, 2009). Existing and aspi ring processors often do not possess the necessary skills to operate a successful plant, and are further challenged in accessing capital and maintaining their regulatory knowledge. Many processing plant owners or prospective owners do not have the business and management skills or technical knowledge to efficiently operate a processing facility (Holcomb, Flynn, & Kenkel, 2012; Local Food Research Center, 2012; Prevatte, 2009). Furthermore, existing or proposed processing plants often have difficulty acquiri ng capital to create or expand the size or offerings of their business (Local Food Research Center, 2012; Prevatte, 2009). Finally, processors must comply with many regulations and have cited sustaining knowledge of and following current regulations as a b arrier to business (Prevatte, 2009). 28 Solutions to the processing problem. Clearly the processing problem is experienced differently by producers and processors and indicates a gap in understanding between value - chain partners. Gwin and Thiboumery (2013) su limited processing as the problem, small processors see it differently: they can barely survive, much less expand capacity or services, because they often lack the steady, consistent business required for profit best practices that can alleviate processing problems for niche meat markets. To begin, it is suggested that producers work together to tackle processing problems they may exp erience (Gwin et al., 2011; Johnson et al., 2012; Saul et al., 2014). Groups of producers can coordinate transportation to distant processors in order to save time and money (Gwin et al., 2011). Additionally, producers interested in taking processing into their own hands can collaborate on rehabbing existing plants to meet their collective needs, or work together to establish a mobile slaughtering unit (Gwin et al., 2011; Saul et al., 2014). Finally, as many processers do not have a consistent supply of ani mals, farmers can aggregate their products, increasing the volume and consistency of supply to processors (Gwin et al., 2011; Johnson et al., 2012). Processors can also take action to improve their business. Steps processers can take to increase their succ ess in the marketplace include opening a retail store on site, focusing on marketing and developing a brand, developing a plan to sell more non - primal cuts, and offering various types of product certifications (organic, natural, etc.) (Local Food Research Center, 2012). Additionally, processors can focus on producing a consistently high quality product and can improve their customer service (Joannides, 2013; Gwin et al., 2013). Developing a scheduling plan unique to their operations as well as implementing a seasonal sliding pricing 29 scale could help to rectify issues with supply and other scheduling mishaps (Gwin & Thiboumery, 2013; Gwin et al., 2013). For instance one processor, Lorentz Meats, over schedules to accommodate cancelations and then works overti me if all appointments show (Gwin can either be an outside supplie r, or in some cases, the processor themselves may raise and supply a majority of animals for processing (Gwin et al., 2013). In addition to individual action, producers and processors can work together to develop committed, collaborative relationships (Gw in & Thiboumery, 2013; Gwin et al., 2013). Producers can commit to supplying a certain number of animals, ensuring that processors have adequate business (Dickenson et al., 2013; Gwin & Thiboumery, 2013). With the knowledge that they will have a consistent volume of supply, processors can being to add additional services to their offerings, better meeting the needs of their customers (Dickenson et al., 2013; Gwin & Thiboumery, 2013; Gwin et al., 2013). Many successful processors have recognized the mutual b enefit of providing producers with marketing and distribution assistance, resulting in more successful producers, and thus more business for the processor (Gwin & Thiboumery, 2013; Gwin et al., 2013). In some instances, producers have also made the effort to support their processor, investing financially to help fund improvements that the farmers will then benefit from (Gwin & Thiboumery, 2013; Gwin et al., 2013). Overall, with cooperative efforts producers and processors can commit to reciprocal relationsh ips characterized by trust and loyalty in which both parties invest in the other, benefiting the value - chain as a whole. Finally, an additional suggestion to improving small - scale and niche meat processing given by Johnson et al. (2012) is the use of mobil e slaughtering units (MSU), which are 30 slaughtering facilities that are can travel to different locations to slaughter animals. MSUs can either travel to individual farms or to a centralized location and can slaughter up to 10 cattle or up to 25 hogs per da y. After two days on the road, MSUs must take the carcass to a cut and wrap facility. As of 2012, there were 10 federally inspected MSUs in the country that can slaughter red meat (Johnson et al., 2012). Additional efforts to improve small - scale meat proc essing. A number of efforts have been made by outside actors to improve small - scale and niche meat processing, including the creation of processing guides, and for - profit and non - profit groups that focus on processing assistance. Gwin et al., (2011) and H olcomb et al. (2012) have created a business planning guide and feasibility template to assist aspiring processors. These tools were created in response to the demand for improved processing in the small - scale/niche processing sector and the acknowledgemen t by niche meat processing experts that processors need help with these particular skills. According to Holcomb et al. (2012), Most do not understand the factors that impact plant operations and ownership, nor do they have the skills or experience to make sound financial decisions for a plant. Plant owners must consider the impacts of balancing a variety of potential business activities under one roof: custom packing for multiple species (cattle, hogs, sheep, goats, bison, etc.), handling wild game (e.g., deer, elk and wild hogs), and possibly operating a retail shop. (p. 2) Additionally, groups outside of the value - chain, such as non - profit and for - profit groups, are successfully implementing programs to improve small - scale meat processing (Gwin & 31 Thiboum ery, 2014). The Vermont Meat Processing Working Group, NC Choices, the Northwest Livestock Processing Service Company, and the National Meat Processor Assistance Network demonstrate how outside actors can have widespread positive impacts on the industry. S ome services these groups provide include general processing information, technical assistance to processors, connecting value - chain actors, and bringing together processors as well as other value - chain parties to learn from each other at conferences and s imilar events (Gwin & Thiboumery, 2014). Gwin and Thiboumery (2014) applaud these innovative groups that are greatly influencing meat processing. These efforts, we suggest, are vibrant examples of institutional entrepreneurship: they harness resources, cat alyze collaboration, and spur action that would not have happened. They are also transformative, helping shift not only how producers and processors work together, but also how their own agencies and organizations engage with local meats as a subset of loc al food. (p. 11) Distributor s . Distribution services play an important role in strengthening and growing local and alternative food systems by improving the accessibility of these products and by bridging the gap between producers and end users. Distributo rs aggregate products from small and medium sized producers, making larger volumes available to larger buyers, such as restaurants, retail stores, and other food serving institutions. Additionally, they typically facilitate relationships between value - chai n parties (Day - Farnsworth, McCown, Miller, & Pfeiffer, 2009), helping farmers to find buyers for their products, and assisting restaurants, retailers, and institutions in finding farmers producing the products they desire in the quantities they need. Addit ionally, food distributors have the unique ability to adopt important characteristics of the industrial food system while maintaining the connection to the food product by developing scale 32 and efficiencies while carrying forth the values associated with th e production practices and the food products themselves (Day - Farnsworth et al., 2009). Despite the potential for local and regional food distributors to grow regional food markets Day - Farnsworth et al., (2009), note that this group is often a missing link in the value - chain. Scaling up local and regional food systems requires the development of organizational and production capacity across the local food supply chain. In particular, this supply chain lacks mid - scale, regional aggregation and distribution sy stems that move local food into mainstream markets in an effective and cost efficient manner. (p. i) A number of studies have explored the role of distributors in expanding alternative and local food markets, with a few studies looking primarily at meat di stribution, while the rest focus more generally on local foods. Similar to the other sectors operating in local and alternative food value - chains, distributors face a number of challenges to gaining market foothold, but have also established a number of be st practices that aid in developing more efficient and successful distribution systems. Barriers . Two case - studies discussed in the previous section involve grass - fed beef and pastured livestock distribution (Conner et al., 2008b; Stevenson, 2013), illumin ating specific barriers associated with meat distribution. Good Earth Farms, a grass - fed beef producer, aggregator, and distributor focusing on internet sales has struggled to identify the best insulated material in which to ship their products that will e nsure that customers receive a frozen product (Stevenson, 2013). Additionally, Conner et al. (2008b) identified a number of barriers experienced by Michigan pasture - based livestock distributors and buyers. Their study revealed ecting small producers with small restaurant and retail establishments, finding a market for the entire carcass, selling a seasonal product to businesses 33 that have year - round demand, and finally dealing with negative consumer views of the of quality pastur e - raised meat (Conner et al., 2008b). More generally, local and regional food distributors have found certain logistics associated with food distribution to be challenging. To begin, some must rely on grant funding (Jablonski et al., 2011) indicating a la ck of financial sustainability. Local and regional food distributors also struggle attaining capital, which is essential for developing necessary distribution infrastructure such as storage facilities and vehicles (Day - Farnsworth et al., 2009). Additionall y, distribution organizations that use online platforms to market and sell their products can encounter barriers to growth and distribution related to website maintenance and inadequate web services. For instance a New York based local food distributor, CN Y Bounty, operates an online store which was developed for them by a local university. Yet this website is not set up to take credit card payments, complicating the ordering process and cash flow (Jablonski et al., 2011). Additional distribution challenge s involve connecting and interacting with value - chain partners, as well as maintaining consistent supply. Distributors may have trouble identifying struggle to ma intain clear and open communication as well as transparency about their business practices with their value - chain partners (Day - Farnsworth et al., 2009). In regions where production is seasonal and many products are not available year round, distributors a re unable to meet consumer demands (Day - Farnsworth et al, 2009). Maintaining adequate supply is further complicated by aggregation which may result in quality variations due to farm to farm inconsistency and the potential for lost source traceability (Day - Farnsworth et al., 2009). 34 Best practices . Grass - fed beef and local food distributors have found success fulfilling the important niche of aggregator and facilitator, and provide examples of distribution best practices. Local Foods from Local Farms, a non - profit that focuses on providing marketing and distribution services primarily to grass - fed beef producers and processors, has opened up new markets that individual producers otherwise would not have been able to access, such as private schools and univers ities, and carry out the cumbersome tasks of finding buyers, aggregating local meat products from multiple producers, handling slaughter and processing arrangements and deliveries (Gwin & Thiboumery, 2014). A number of studies have identified operational strategies to improve local food distribution. In order to deal with the problem of inconsistent quality and accountability, Day - Farnsworth et al. (2009) suggest developing food safety plans and using a centralized facility to do all grading and packing. A dditionally, distributors should develop strategies to maintain product differentiation (Diamond & Barham, 2011), develop a strategic plan, and educate employees on the food products they sell (Hardesty et al., 2014). Finally, to address the issue of seaso nality, value - chains can focus on food preservation and season extension practices (Day - Farnsworth et al., 2009). producers and buyers. Some distributors offer business skil ls assistance for producers (Hardesty et al., 2014; Jablonski et al., 2011), indicating their recognition of the mutual benefits associated with producer success. Finally distributors can facilitate producer and buyer relationships by communicating buyer m andated requirements to the producers, as well as overseeing the implementation of said requirements and food safety regulations (Hardesty et al., 2014). 35 Restaurants. With projected restaurant industry sales of 709.2 billion dollars in 2015 and with the i ndustry making up 47% of the food dollar (National Restaurant Association, n.d.), restaurants have the ability to play a large role in local food systems. A number of studies have explored restaurant use of local foods, examining demand and frequency of lo cal food use, motivations behind local food sourcing, and barriers to and best practices of local food sourcing. Most studies focus on direct marketing of local foods from producers to chefs, with little focus on intermediated markets or locally raised mea ts specifically. There is evidence that local foods are growing in popularity and use at restaurants. Strohben and Gregorie (2003) determined that there is a market for local foods in restaurants and larger food serving institutions in Iowa (Strohben & Gre gorie, 2003). A Packaged Facts study (as cited by Martinez et al., 2011) found that 87% of fine dining and 75% of family dining restaurants use locally sourced foods. Restaurant patrons have a growing interest in local foods. According to the National Rest aurant Association (n.d.) over 80% of family, casual, and fine dining restaurant operators believe that customer interest in local foods has increased in the last two years. Restaurant use of local meats is also growing. Maynard, Burdine, and Meyer (2003) receptiveness to local meats by a considerable portion of restaurateurs, particularly in the fine dining segment, where quality is more important than price and che fs often have greater sourcing Values and Motivations. Considering the essential role that restaurants and chefs play in growing local food and alternative meat value - chains, it is important to understand their u and worldviews, such as the desire to support local businesses (Starr et al., 2003), sourcing 36 products from farms practicing environmental stewardship (Curtis & Cowee, 2009; Murphy & Smith, 2011; Starr et al., 2003), and valuing the ability to connect with farmers (Curtis & Cowee, 2009; Inwood, Sharp , Moore , & Stinner , 2009). Other are motivated by characteristics they associate with local food products. Many chef s believe local foods to be superior due to their high quality, freshness, and flavor (Curtis & Cowee, 2009; Curtis, Cowee, Havercamp, Morris, & Gatzke, 2008; Duram & Cawley, 2012; Inwood et al., 2009; Maynard et al., 2011; Murphy & Smith, 2011; Starr et a l., 2003). Although there is evidence that chefs find value in local food products, they experience barriers to consistently sourcing the products. Barriers. Much of the literature on restaurant local food use has explored the perceived barriers to local f ood sourcing, illuminating bottlenecks in the value - chain. One study found that the major barriers to restaurant use of local meats include inconsistent supply and general unreliability of suppliers (Maynard et al. 2003). Studies focused more generally on local foods found similar concerns surrounding supply, including the assumption that desired products are not available locally (Curtis & Cowee, 2009; Curtis et al., 2008; Inwood et al., 2009; Starr et al., 2003; Strohben & Gregorie, 2003) and that for pro ducts that are available, farmers could not consistently produce desired volumes (Curtis & Cowee, 2009; Curtis et al., 2008; Inwood et al., 2009; Reynolds & Fields, 2011; Schmit & Hadcock, 2003). Chefs also worry that the quality of local products cannot b e consistently maintained (Curtis & Cowee, 2009; Curtis et al., 2008; Schmit & Hadcock, 2003; Strohben & Gregorie, 2003). Chefs also face logistical issues related to buying local. For instance, many chefs and restaurants cite inconvenience as a reason for not sourcing locally (Reynolds & Fields, 2011; Schmit & Hadcock, 2003; Starr et al., 2003). Similarly, some chefs only want to deal with one supplier or are worried that local suppliers will not provide refunds for subpar products (Starr et 37 al., 2003). Ma ny corporate owned restaurants cannot make their own sourcing decisions which prevents them from buying local (Curtis & Cowee, 2009, Starr et al, 2003) and others only source from suppliers (Reynolds & Fields, 2011), rather than buying directly from a farm er. Additionally, some restaurants think local products are too expensive (Inwood et al, 2009; Starr et al. 2003). Finally, the literature indicates a lack of communication between producers and restaurants. Specific complaints include chefs not having acc ess to information about what products are available, not knowing where to purchase local products (Curtis & Cowee, 2009; Reynolds & Fields, 2011), and not having access to information on local food prices (Strobhen & Gregorie, 2003). Best Practices . These barriers are not insurmountable, and research suggests solutions to these barriers as well as restaurant best practices to sourcing local food products. One commonly mentioned best practice and suggested solution is to better connect chefs and producers ( Curtis & Cowee, 2009; Duram & Cawley, 2012; Starr et al, 2003). Producers could provide chefs with literature on the type and quantity of products available, and give chefs an opportunity to sample their products (Curtis & Cowee, 2009). Additionally, resta urants that source a large amount of local foods promote their use of local food through their menus and by informing servers about their sourcing practices (Murphy & Smith, 2011), which could be used as a method to explain higher prices, connect consumers to the origin of the foods they serve, and attract consumers looking for food products that align with their particular values. Finally chefs and restaurants want a supplier that is convenient (Strobehn & Gregorie, 2003), that delivers products on time ( Murphy & Smith, 2011; Strobehn & Gregorie, 2003), and that will cater to the needs of the chefs/restaurants (Duram & Cawley, 2012; Murphy & Smith, 2011). Chefs and restaurants also prefer to deal with the least amount of suppliers as possible 38 (Strobehn & G regorie, 2003). Many restaurants and chefs currently using local food products prefer to purchase from distributors or some other intermediary that may be able to provide more consistent services than farmers (Inwood et al., 2009; Schmit & Hadcock, 2011) a nd limit the number of suppliers restaurants must source from Retail ers . Similar to restaurants, retail outlets have the power to bring large quantities of local foods to consumers. According to Martinez et al., (2011), large retailers have begun to tap i nto the local food market. Wal - Mart, Safeway, Publix, Meijer, Weis Markets, and Spartan Stores, all large national or regional retail chains, have recently launched a local or regional food campaign (Martinez et al., 2011). In addition to these large retai lers, Martinez et al., (2011) also suggests that independent grocery stores and food cooperatives are well suited outlets for the local food market. There is evidence that retailers are specifically interested in grass - fed beef and local meat products. A Local Food Research Center study looking at niche meat processing in North Carolina (2012), found that participating retailers already source niche meat products and plan to increase their sourcing of grass - fed beef. Additionally, Minnesota consumers rated grocery stores as the 3 rd most likely place they buy locally raised meat (Joannides, 2013). Values and motivations. Retailers share some of the same motivations to source locally with restaurants, but are also motivated by particular factors specifically related to retail. Some retailers are motivated by environmental concerns (Dunne, Chambers, Giombolini , & Schlegel, 2011) as well as their desire to support local farmers (Local Food Research Center, 2012) and the local economy (Dunne et al. 2011; Local F ood Research Center, 2012). Retailers are also Research Center, 2012). For instance North Carolina consumers desire meat without hormones 39 or antibiotics as well as mea t from animals raised humanely (Local Food Research Center, 2012). Additionally, some retailers value the ability to get specialty meat products (Local Food Research Center, 2012), whereas others choose to buy local for purposes of food safety and food qua lity (Dunne et al. 2011). Barriers. As with the other middle value - chain stakeholders, there are many barriers to retail use of the local foods. Many perceived barriers, similar to restaurants, deal with available supply. Retailers in North Carolina worry that local meat suppliers will not be able to provide consistent volumes or consistently high quality products (Local Food Research Center, 2012). McCallum, conventional nature of the national food system, consumers are used to having al l types of food available at all times. Because local food production is seasonal, local suppliers are unable to provide the same products year round, and are thus unable to meet consumer demands (Dunne et al. 2011; McCallum et al., 2014). Retail outlets a lso struggle marketing their local food products. Studies reveal that et al., 2014). Additionally, many retailers do not inform consumers of their definition of local and have trouble differentiating local and niche products in their stores (Dunne et al. 2011; could potentially confuse and frustrate consumers. Finally, developing beneficial and reciprocal relationships, one of the key components of successful value - chains, is difficult for retailers. In reference to their research on a major 40 s and conditions of trust also create impediments to increasing the volume of local produce available for large Best Practices. Many of the proposed retailer best practices involve mutually beneficial relationships with potential valu e - chain partners. McCallum et al. (2014) suggest that retailers Additionally, one Canadian retailer has found it beneficial to provide food safety support to loc al meat producers (McCallum et al. 2014). And finally, by focusing on building trust within value - chain partnerships, retailers could improve relationships with their partners, thus improving the Conclusion To conc lude, a value - chain framework is useful for understanding the complex business relationships of individuals selling alternative food products, such as locally raised grass - fed beef, and for evaluating how such markets can best evolve to serve growing deman d. For the purpose of this research, this literature review has examined the middle components of the value - chain, including processors, distributors, restaurants, and retailers. The literature offers very little information specifically on the grass - fed b eef middle - value chain, but focuses more broadly on alternative and local meats, as well as local foods. Although many of the insights gained through research on these alternative food markets may be useful for understanding grass - fed beef markets, in orde r to fully understand the local grass - fed beef market in northwest Michigan, additional research is needed. Additionally, although there have been studies specifically looking at grass - fed beef and alternative meat value chains (McCann & Montabon, 2012, St evenson, 2013; Stevenson & Lev, 2013), these studies only focus on producer perspectives, and do not 41 include the valuable experiences of the rest of the value - chain which are needed in order to develop a more holistic perspective of these value - chains, bar riers they face, and successful practices. Therefore, this research explores the values, relationships, and barriers of the grass - fed beef middle value - chain in Lower northwest Michigan. 42 Chapter 3: Methods Methodology This research is grounded in the na turalistic inquiry paradigm ( Lincoln & Guba, 1985 ). Naturalistic inquiry takes a post positivist perspective and is grounded in a number of axioms that differentiate this paradigm from the positivist tradition. Thus in order to make sense of methods and ap proach used in this research it is necessary to explain the underlying assumptions of the naturalistic inquiry methodology . First, naturalistic inquiry takes the ontological perspective that there are multiple constructed realities rather than the positiv ist view that there is one single reality out there to be discovered . Everyone experiences reality differently and therefore constructs their own reality. construc ted realities. ifferent realities, we can piece together these multiple realities in order to gain a fuller understanding of the research subject (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) . Second, naturalistic inquiry takes the epistemological view that the researcher cannot be separated from the res earched. Pure o bjectivity is never possible, r ather the subject of the research and the person conducting the research will i nevitably influence each other (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Third, those practicing naturalistic inquiry believe that research cannot be generalizable. Lincoln and Guba (1985, pp. 112 - 119) pose a number of arguments against the practicality of generalizability. They explain that the generalizability requir es the belief that everything is governed by natural laws , and typically these natural laws are built by aggregating specific cases . However it is impossible for these laws to be tested exhaustively to verify the ir applicability. G eneralizations are also h uman constructed , so who is to say that what has been induced from 43 those specific instances is actually the only generalization fitting the case . As we know, reality is comprised of unlimited constructions, which negates the feasibility of true generalizat ions. Additionally , generalizations are meant to be applicable regardless of when the generalization is being applied (time) and the context of the situation. Yet things change over time and the context of any situation does effect whether or not the gener alization applies. R ather the naturalistic appro a ch is to get as much deep and detailed information as possible which will then allow us to understand whether the knowledge gained through naturalistic inquiry (a working hypothesis ) can be transferred to an d fit the context of other situations (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) . Fourth, the naturalistic paradigm understands that interactions are intertwined and there is no one path that interactions take, what Lincoln and Guba call mutual simultaneous shaping (1985, p. 150). Due to the complex nature of the world and interactions, it is impossible to definitively determine causality we cannot say what is truly a cause or an effect as everything impacts everything else. Finally, the naturalistic inquirer acknowledges that no matter the type of research, inquiry research, and the values that influence how the researcher executes the research. This is an unavoidable fact. Lincoln a nd Guba (1985) explain that the best results will be yielded if one acknowledges that these values are present and if these three sets of values match up. These axioms have had major implications on how this study was designed and carried out. For the pa rticulars of this study, these axioms have influenced the use of the human instrument, qualitative methods, purposive sampling, inductive data analysis, grounded theory (rather than a priori theory), emergent design, negotiated outcomes, and case study rep orting, all of which are described in detail by Lincoln and Guba (1985, pp. 39 - 42). 44 Methods In order to address the purpose of this research and to answer the research questions, a mixed - methods approach has been taken. As little is known about the loca l g rass - fed beef middle value - chain processors, distributors, resta urants, and retail businesses this research has prioritized qualitative methods, using semi - structured in depth interviews, and was enhanced with quantitative surveys and a questionnai re. Stu dy s ite . Peninsula. Participants were located in Benzie, Grand Traverse, Leelanau, Wexford, Emmett, Missaukee, and Isabella counties, generally surrounding or serving businesses surrounding the Grand Traverse Bay, a popular tourist area in Michigan. This region was chosen in order to complement two on - going projects in the same region: the Grand Vision, which has the objective of increasing the amount of food grown and consumed lo cally within six northwest Lower Michigan counties ( The Grand Vision, 2015 ), and a USDA SARE project working to increase the amount of locally sourced grass - fed beef available in northwest Lower Michigan. The research originally set out to focus on the Gra nd Vision counties Antrim, Benzie, Leelanau, Grand Traverse, Wexford, Kalkaska but the grass - fed market does not adhere to county boarders, and in order to include important contributors to the grass - fed beef market in northwest Lower Michigan, the stu dy area was expanded to also include Missaukee, Isabella, and Emmett counties. Additionally, the researcher was unable to identify participants in Kalkaska and Antrim counties. Sample. This research examined the grass - fed beef middle value - chain (see Figur e 1), and therefore included processors , distributors , restaurants , and retail outlets processing, 45 selling, and serving locally sourced grass - fed beef in the study area described above. Participants were identified using purposeful and snowball samplin g. With purposeful sampling, the researcher deliberately includes certain individuals as participants because of their particular knowledge of the subject being studied ( Patton, 1990 ). In this case, the researcher sought out processors, distributors, restaurants, and retailers that were active in the local grass - fed beef value - chain, as they had intimate knowledge of market barriers and the functioning of their value - chain. Potential participants chosen through purposeful sampling were identified by u local food and farm search (Michigan Land Use Institute, n.d.), a database of businesses growing and selling local food products in northwest Michigan. In order to determine which restaurant s and retailers sold local grass - fed beef, the researcher emailed all restaurants and retailers located in the study area. Those that responded and confirmed that they were using local grass - fed beef were invited to participate in the study. Within these i dentified establishments, purposeful sampling was used further to identify individuals that had a high level of interaction with their value - chain partners. For instance, once a restaurant was identified as a participating establishment, the individual in charge of sourcing the grass - fed beef product was chosen as the participant because that individual presumably had the most experience in dealing with other value - chain partners (the distributor and the processor). Figure 1. Middle Value - chain RETAILERS producer s consumer s PROCESSORS DISTRIBUTORS RESTAURANTS The Middle Value - chain. The middle value - chain is depicted in the black boxes and are bookended by producers and consumers, which are part of the whole value - chain but are not included in this study. 46 Snowball sampling was used to identify p articipants based on recommendations made by individuals participating in the research study (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002). For this research, a majority of participants were identified by a regional food distributor that was also a research participant. A s the regional distributor worked with all o ther value - chain participants processo rs, restaurants, and retailers they were an ideal choice for snowball sampling. They identified all of the restaurants and retailers that they sold local grass - fed beef to in the study area, as well as the processors that they used to process their grass - fed beef product. Some restaurant participants identified by purposeful sampling above also assisted in snowball sampling, suggesting their distributors or other restaurants or retailers to include in the study. The researcher contacted all of the suggested participants by phone or email, and all participants that responded and were interested in the study were chosen as research participants. In qualitative research, as results are not meant to be generalized, there is no mathematical method that indicates whether a sample is large enough. Typically, the rule of thumb is that a sample is the right size when the researcher reaches a point where new data is not surprising and does not bring up any drastically new themes (Lindlof & Taylor, 2001). Lindlof researcher originally set out to include 3 processors, 3 retailers, 12 restaurants, and 6 retailers in the study, and was able to meet this goal. At the conclusion of the data collection, the data had reached a point of redundancy (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) , where interviews were no longer generating new, surprising information, therefore fo r the purpose of this study the sample size was adequate for answering the identified research questions. Table 3 describes how participants were identified (purposeful or snowball sampling) and the distribution of participants in the study area. Multiple participants played more than one role 47 in the value - chain. One processor was also a retailer, and another processor was also a producer. Two of the distributors were producers that distributed their own product. One restaurant was also a producer. Table 3 Participant distribution by sampling method and county Participants Sampling method County representation Processors Snowball, 3 Isabella, 1 Missaukee, 1 Wexford, 1 Distributors Purposeful, 1 Snowball, 2 Grand Traverse, 2 Benzie, 1 Restaurants Purpos eful, 5 Snowball, 7 Grand Traverse, 3 Leelanau, 5 Wexford, 1 Emmett, 3 Retailers Snowball, 6 Grand Traverse, 4 Missaukee, 1 Emmett, 1 Data c ollection . A mixed methods approach, carried out with a survey and in - depth interviews, was used to answer the pr eviously outlined research questions (see Tabl e 4) . Understanding value - chains, particularly the nuances surrounding the values of and interactions between value - chain participants, is quite complicated and the researcher determined that combining qualitat ive and quantitative methods would result in the most comprehensive understanding of the research problem. This study had a qualitative focus and was enhanced with quantitative techniques. Other studies examining the complexities of local food systems have 48 used mixed methods approaches, combining qualitative interview techniques with supplemental and confirmatory quantitative surveys to achieve the most comprehensive understanding of the food system (Inwood et al., 2009; Murphy & Smith, 2009; Strobhen & Gre gorie, 2003). The purpose for combining methods in this study was to maximize the strengths and minimize the weaknesses of both qualitative and quantitative methods ( Creswell & Clark, 2011). In examining the many reasons behind mixed methods use, Creswell and Clark (2011) bring attention to two rationales that further explain the purpose for using mixed methods in this study. expansion , in which using mixed range of inquiry by using different methods for completeness , which Creswell can bring together a mor e comprehensive account of the area of inquiry in which he or she is decision to use mixed methods for this research study. Quantitative methods . The first port ion of data collection was carried out using quantitative methods in the form of an online pre - interview survey. The survey comprised 3 parts: two Likert surveys, a Grass - fed Beef Belief Survey and the New Ecological Paradigm Survey (Dunlap, 2000), used to perceptions of market barriers; and a Value - chain Questionnaire used to provide background information on participants and to inform personalized interview questions based on each participa unique value - chain experiences. The survey was only given to individuals participating as interviewees and was not meant to produce generalizable data. 49 The first portion of the survey was a 13 item Likert survey which was pretested on a group of chefs and distributors before being used for this study. The Grass - fed Beef Belief - fed beef and the grass - fed beef market in their region , helping to answer research question 1, W ha t values permeate the local grass - fed beef middle value - chain? , and research question 3, W hat are the middle value - - fed beef value - chain? . As one benefit of grass - fed beef is enhanced environmental well - bei ng and land stewardship, the second portion of the survey was the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) survey (Dunlap, 2000). The New Ecological Paradigm Scale (see Appendix A) is a widely accepted tool that is frequently used to measure and contrast individuals level of environmental concern (Hawcroft & Milton, 2010; Dunlap, 2008). The NEP is a 15 item Likert scale which produces a total score indicating the level to which an individual relates to an environmental or dominant social paradigm. Additionally, the s urvey produces 5 sub - scores indicating the level to wh ich an individual endorses the five hypothesized facets of an ecological worldview: 1) the reality of limits to growth , 2) antianthropocentrism , 3) , 4) rejection of exem ptionalism , 5) and th e possibility of an ecocrisis (Dunlap, 2010, 432). The final component of the survey was a short answer Value - chain Questionnaire (see - chain relationships and their role in the value - chain. The purpose of this questionnaire was to provide the research er with background information on the participant and to provide content used to develop additional interview guide questions relating specifically to the participants experie nces interacting with their value - chain partners. 50 Qualitative Methods . For this research, qualitative methods were prioritized. As qualitative research is used for understanding the subtleties of a particular issue, gaining a deep and detailed understandin g of a topic, understanding processes, and exploring relatively unknown topics (Rubin and Rubin, 2012), qualitative techniques in the form of semi - structured in - depth interviews best addressed the purpose of this research. Each food value - chain differs bas ed on location, business characteristics, personalities of participants, values, goals, and many other variables. Since there is no previous research exploring the unique local grass - fed beef value - chain in northwest Lower Michigan, qualitative research wa s necessary to gain a deep, detailed, and comprehensive understanding of the value - chain relationships and barriers to market success. Additionally, this research was based in the naturalistic inquiry paradigm, which tends to best align with qualitative me thods (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Because this study was based in the naturalistic paradigm, an emergent design was used, allowing for adaptation and flexib ility (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Emergent design is necessary b ecause it i s impossible to anticipate the va rious realities of the participants, what will result due to the researcher/participant interactions, how the many pieces of the research process will influence each other (mutual simultaneous shaping), and how values will come into play during the researc h (Lincoln & Gu ba, 1985). Because of so many unknowns, what the researcher may initially propose as the research design may not fit the actuality of how the research unfolds, necessitating the flexibility of emergent design. Semi - structured in - depth inter views were used to conduct the qualitative portion of this study. Using the human as the instrument both in terms of the researcher using herself as the means for gathering data, and using humans as main source from which data comes from is a major compone nt of naturalistic inquiry (Lincoln & Guba, 1885). Using humans as the data 51 gathering instrument allows for flexibility and adaptability, as one could not predict the content of or direction interviews may go due to the multiple realities of the participan ts . Additionally, humans are the only instrument capable of recognizing, taking account of, and evaluating the effects of the interaction between researcher and the researched, the impact that the research process may have on elements being researched, and the impact of the values impacting the research process (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In - depth interviews encourage opened - ended responses from participants in the form of narratives describing personal experiences (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). According to Hesse - Bib er - depth interview uses individuals as the point of departure for the research - structured interviews were chosen over structured or unstructured interviews becau se they permit flexibility with interview questions. Semi - structured interviews allow the researcher to stray from the interview guide if the conversation goes in an unexpected and interesting direction relative to the research questions (Hesse - Biber & Lea vy, 2006; Rubin and Rubin, 2012). Interview guides (Hesse - Biber & Leavy, 2006; Rubin & Rubin, 2012) were developed before each interview. An overarching interview guide (see Appendix B) was created at the beginning of this research and included general qu estions related to the research questions. This interview guide was updated after the first few interviews based on effectiveness of the interview questions. Individualized interview questions were added to all of the interview guides based on the responde - chain Questionnaire. Additionally, during each interview, the researcher added follow - up questions in order to better ormation learned throughout the interview. The process of restating the 52 understanding of the participants responses during the interview was used as a form of member checks (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) in order to most accurately represent that participant s reality, increasing the credibility of the data. The interviews lasted between 45 minutes and 1.5 hours. During the interview, the interview guide was used to guide the conversation, and the research er took notes while audio - r ecording. Table 4 Research questions and associated data collection methods and process Main Research Question Sub Research Questions Data Collection Methods Process What is the present state of the local grass - fed beef middle value - chain in the northwe st portion of Lower Peninsula? What values permeate the local grass - fed beef middle value - chain? Grass - fed Beef Belief Survey New Ecological Paradigm Survey Semi - structured interviews Survey creation and distribution Audio - recorded, notes, tra nscription What is the nature of the local grass - fed beef middle value - chain relationships? Semi - structured interviews Survey creation and distribution Audio - recorded, notes, transcription What are the middle value - barriers to a via ble local grass - fed beef market? Grass - fed Beef Belief Survey Semi - structured interviews Survey creation and distribution Audio - recorded, notes, transcription Mixed - methods p rocess . The survey portion of this research was carried out before the qualitat ive interviews because part 3 of the survey, the Value - chain Questionnaire, was used to personalize and finalize the interview guides. The survey was emailed each participant after they agreed to participate in the study. Parts 1 and 2 of the survey were u sed to provide supplemental 53 - fed beef market success, and did not influence the interviews. Data analysis. Quantitative analysis . The Grass - fed Beef Attitude Survey and NEP respon ses were aggregated in SPSS. The Grass - fed Beef Attitude Survey questions were analyzed individually. Scores ranged from 1, indicating that respondents strongly disagreed with the statement, to 5 indicating that respondents strongly agreed with the stateme nt. Descriptive statistics were used to - 4, 10 - 12) and perceived barriers of the grass - fed beef market (questions 5 - 9, 13). Questions 1 and 12 were reworded a nd scores were reversed in the results for ease of comparison with other questions. Total NEP scores and sub scores were calculated for each participant. Scores were calculated by summating the odd question scores and the reverse scores of the even questio ns . The higher the score, th e more the individual subscribed to a n environmental worldview or a environmental concern. The Value - chain Questionnaire was not analyzed as its sole purpose was to provide the researcher with background information about each participant and to inform individual ized interview guide questions. Qualitative analysis . Data analysis for the in - depth interviews began as soon as the first intervie w concluded, reflecting the process of analytical induction where data - collection, data - analysis, and theory creation are entangled, with each step informing the others (Hesse - Biber & Leavy, 2006). 54 After each interview, the researcher expanded field notes and created a contact summary sheet (Miles & Huberman, 1994) summarizing information about the interviewee, the interview process, and major themes that emerged throughout the interview. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim by the transcription serv ice, Scribie.com. The researcher captured impressions and early analysis in the form of memos throughout the entire analysis process and memos were dated in order to track the evolution of thinking. The computer software NVIVO was used to aid in the manage ment of data and analysis. All field notes, contact summary sheets, memos , and transcriptions were stored in NVIVO. Next, the researcher began the inductive process of coding the data. Coding is the first step in the process of data condensation which tak es pages of transcripts, extracts important themes, and converts them into manageable chunks. According to Miles, Huberman, and Saldana information compiled during a s exploratory, codes were not predetermined before coding. Rather the researcher read through expanded field notes, contact summary sheets, and transcripts, tagging in NVIVO segments of data that could b e described as a theme or concept that could help answer the research questions. Although many interesting concepts and themes emerged in the data, only concepts and themes that could help answer the research question were coded. The researcher read t hroug h each transcript multiple times, making sure all concepts and themes relevant to the research questions were accounted for, while consolidating similar concepts. As codes solidified, the researcher created an analytic memo in the form of a codeboo k (s ee A ppendix C) which includes the name of the theme or concept, the short hand code used to identify the theme during coding, a 55 definition of the code, a rule of when to apply the code, and examples of when to use the code (Miles, et al., 2014). After coding all of the data collections, all text data associated with a particular code were nested under that particular code name in NVIVO. Summaries were then written for each code that occurred in each transcript, further condensing data (See Appendix D). Creati ng summaries for each code within each data collection is a form of high level data analysis, Next, the researcher used a visual display to summarize codes by sector (processors, distributors, restaurants, and retailers) and to compare the sectors experiences by code (See Appendix E). Displays are used to take data from the summaries and combine them into an easily readable visual that is then used for drawing conclus ions about the data (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Integration (see Figure 2). The qualitative data in the form of the visual display and quantitative data in the form of table summaries were compared. By viewing qualitative and quantitative data alongside eac h other, the researcher drew conclusions to answer each rese arch question. Qualitative and q uantitative data were integrated during writing of the discussions and conclusions. Tables displaying the quantitative results were used alongside descriptions of c odes related to each related research question in order to explain the results of this study. Validity. The naturalistic approach to what is conventional ly termed validity is to dete rmin e the trustworthiness of the data and the results by judging the cred ibility and transferability of the research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) . In this research credibility wash achieved through prolonged engagement, triangulation, peer debriefing, and member checks during 56 interviews (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). According to Lincoln an d Guba (1985), prolonged engagement is Quantitative Data Collection (Questionnaire) Qualitative Data Analysis (NVIVO) Quantitative Data Analysis (SPSS) Mixed Methods Analysis Visual Comparison Interpretation Conclusions Qualitative Data Collection (Interviews) Quantitative Data Collection (Surveys) Figure 2: Mixed Met hods Process (Adapted from Designing and Conduction Mixed Methods Research (Creswell & Clark, 2011). & & 57 r the course of this research, the researcher spent approximately 30 hours talking with participants in interviews and many more hours conversing with participants over email prior to the interviews . Over this amount of time, the researcher developed a str ong sense of culture for each participant /business and of the grass - fed beef market originally proposed by Denzin ( as cited by Lincoln & Guba, 1985 , p. 305 ). The researcher sought out multiple individuals representing the four sector s explored by this research, including as many people from each sector as possible. The researcher also used peer debriefing (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) in order to build credibility. Peer debriefing is e self to a disinterested peer in a manner paralleling an analytic session and for the purpose of exploring aspects of the inquiry that might otherwise remain only implicit within th In this case, the researcher met with a peer multiple times to discuss the development and application of codes in order to get a fresh perspective of the data, and also providing the opportunity for the p eer to question and probe about interpretations, working hypotheses , and potential biases (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Finally a form of member checks (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) was used to verify interpretations of the data. In this case, the researcher used membe r checks during the interview s to clarify the meaning of statements, summarize ideas in order to determine whether the researcher understood , and to test preliminary interpretations. rnal validity. As the naturalistic approach is unable to confirm whether or not results from a particular study could be applied to other contexts, the alternative is to ensure a thick description necessary to enable someone interested in making a transfe r to reach a conclusion about whether transfer can be contemplated as a 58 In the case of this research, the researcher attempted to provide a detailed and deep description of the context of this research. Through in - depth interviews, the research er was able to garner rich descriptions of the particip involvement in the grass - f ed beef market, and the context from which their perspectives were rooted. 59 Chapter 4: Results As there have been very few studies f ocusing on local grass - fed beef markets nationally or in Michigan, this research has set out to understand the current status of the local grass - fed beef middle value - chain in northwest Lower Michigan. Through semi - structured in - depth interviews and supple mental surveys, this study has examined the values of the middle - value chain participants, the nature of their value - chain relationships, and the barriers to growth facing the local grass - fed beef market. The results of this study bring to light aspects of value - chain relationships and the grass - fed beef market in northwest Lower Michigan that need to be addressed , while at the same time highlighting s uccesses within the value - chain, thus reinforcing what is working and identifying strategies for market suc cess that could inform the development of similar markets elsewhere. In summary, r esults show that the grass - fed beef middle value - chain does share a number of personal and business related values such as the importance of local grass - fed bee f product cha racteristics, the importance of relationships, the desire to induce systemic food system and economic change, and the importance of education. Three sectors distributors, restaurants, and retailers described how their personal integrity impacted many b usiness decisions related to their grass - fed beef use , and some distributors and restaurants explained instance s where they operated based on social embeddedness principals. In terms of the nature of the value - chain relationships, in general the relationsh ips were characteri zed by many positive attributes such as long - term commitment, flexibility, equitable profit sharing, value - chain facilitation, mutual benefit, transparency, strong communication, and trust. There were some instances of relationship strug gles such as lack of commitment, inflexibility, inequitable profit sharing, and problems with maintaining transparency and communication, all of which had negative impacts 60 on trust. These struggles occurred on a case - by - case basis and did not exemplify ove rall relationship trends. F inally, results of this study bring to light many value - chain and market - wide barriers to the grass - fed beef market including a number of market and logistical struggles, inconsistent product quality, inconsistent processor perfo rmance, a lack of grass - fed beef related knowledge within the value - chain, insufficient infrastructure, a number of unique processor barriers - . Concurrently, participants have esta blished a number of best practices that have allowed them to continue partaking in the grass - fed beef market, such as developing strategies to manage supply and demand, differentiating the product, using innovative pricing strategies to make up for a highe r cost product, and playing multiple roles in the value - chain. The following results detail survey and interview findings answering the three identified research questions for this study: 1. What values permeate the local grass - fed beef middle value - chain? 2. W hat is the nature of the local grass - fed beef middle value - chain relationships? 3. What are the middle value - - fed beef market in the northwest Lower Peninsula of Michigan? Research Question 1: What Values Per meate the Local Grass - fed Beef Value - chain? Processors. Through careful identification of themes that arose during the in - depth interviews wi th the processor participant s , three major motivating personal and business values emerged : relationships, product characteristics, and systemic change. All three processors were driven by their relationships with key business stakeholders , and all three processors noted product characteristics that distinguished grass - fed beef from other beef products. One 61 involvement in local beef systems was compelled by their desire to change the nature of the local food system in order to increase resiliency at the local level. Relationships . All three processors indicated that they strongly valued their relationships with their customers, employees, and community. They depend on these groups for their business success, and value the positive relationships they have built. To put it simply, these processors care about people and the connection they are able to build wit h them. One processor explained that to strengthen his relationships with his customers, he takes time to include them in the processing procedures if they are interested, making an effort to provide a personalized service to each customer. This processor explained: For this business, it's been very convenient with the small size that we have, being able to work one - on - one with the producer and being able to spend the time with the individual. If need be, the individual can be a part of every step in this c hain. They can be in the back room, they can see that animal, they can come and inspect that one in the cooler. Again, we're small enough that we can give the personal service to the individual. The same processor cares about the farmers he works with and is empathetic to those that are not able to sell all of their product due to a lack of demand for whole carcass es promises. He explained that it is not convenient for restaurants and retailers to buy large pieces of meat or the less desi rable cuts, and after spending months raising the animal the farmer often has no market for 70% of the carcass. into them [the cattle], and at 18 months, now I've got 10 of them ready to go. All you h ave is all 62 Another processor explained how personal and community relationships have motived them to help grow the grass - fed beef market and to be a good steward in the community . A professor at a local university originally brought grass - fed beef to the attention of this processor. relationship with this individual put grass - fed beef on their radar, and the personality, perseverance in growing the grass - fed beef market, and demonstration that it was possi ble to produce high quality grass - fed beef convinced the processor to take part in growing the grass - fed beef market in the region. Additionally, this same processor has the overarching goal to have a positive impact on the people around their business . He explained: Our family business model is for the Lord to make us a blessing in the place where He's that shop here and use our services. Let's try to bless our grea ter community. And just our family members, as well. Finally, another processor that also raises grass - fed beef valued the strong relationships they have with their customers. Their two largest customers buy whole animals from them and provide the farm an d processing plant with as much business as they can handle. Additionally, the processor has worked hard to maintain relationships with their smaller customers. The processor goes out of his way to process unique and ethnic cuts that his customers request. In one instance, a customer requested an ethnic Argentinian cut with which the processor was unfamiliar. The processor researched the cut, and because the customer was purchasing meat est. Reflecting on the experience the farmer remarked: 'Cause you don't just go to a meat market and get that, and even a custom plant, I mean, 63 boy, he was really exci ted. His mother, he says, "Boy, if I can make that for my mom..." So that's satisfying when you can please people like that. Product c haracteristics . All three processors recognized the value of the grass - fed beef product. The processors acknowledged the h ealth benefits of grass - fed beef, such as higher omega - 3 fatty acid ratios . Additionally, they valued the potential for grass - fed producers to raise a high quality product. One processor was excited to share that they have seen some high quality grass - fed product come through their door. Systemic change . Finally, one processor was very motivated to rebuild the local food infrastructure in order to develop a sel f - sustaining food system in the region. He explained that before the 1980s, butchers in retail outlets had the capacity to break down quarters of cattle. Yet retailers have lost those skills as they have become depende nt on conventional distributors from w hich they can order individual boxed cuts that are delivered fresh to their do or whenever they need it. R ebuilding that self - sufficiency is difficult, posing a problem to the sustainability of local protein markets. In the 1980s, most of that went by the w ayside to where the large packers started taking those and making those into convenient muscle groups... into boxes. And the grocery stores would then order just what they wanted, specifically, like rib eyes, and all the boning had been done, all the fat a nd all the waste's gone. They just got that piece, and it's become very convenient for the marketplace to just take those pieces. And we're seeing, even when a producer comes to me with an animal, to get this animal processed, going back to the marketplace the consumer only wants these certain pieces, which they're used to... And it seems to be a shame, it's a lot of waste... For example, the last animal that 64 came [in], we ground up a lot of product and made ground beef outta it, when 30% of that animal sho uld've been more marketable into more desirable cuts. The food system changes that this processor discussed have created a market dependent on convenient, individual, and high quality cuts of meat, resulting in a lot of waste and creating consumer expectat ions that cannot be met by local meat markets. It is important to this processor to help recreate a self - sustaining and resilient food system that is less dependent on unsustainable centralized meat distribution systems. Distributors. Analysis of the qua litative interview data resulted in five emergent themes relating to the three distributors personal and business values as well as motivations for partaking in the local grass - fed beef market. All three distributor participants explained that they value d grass - fed beef product characteristics, and that some of their business decisions related to local grass - fed beef were dr iven by their personal integrity. During the interviews, two of the distributors indicated that they felt strongly about their relatio nships with their grass - fed beef customers. Finally, the interview with the regional distributor showed that their participation in the local grass - fed beef market ha s been strongly influenced by their desire to achieve systemic ch ange within the food syst em as well as social embeddedness . Product characteristics. One of the most common values shared by the three distributors was their recognition and appreciation of local grass - fed beef product characteristics. The animal welfare implications of grass - fed production techniques, such as cattle eating their natural diet of grass and living out their lives in non - confinement, were described as important to all distributors, as were the human health benefits. Additionally, one distributor explained that they g enerally value the higher quality of local and Michigan sourced food products. 65 Integrity . Additionally, all distributors make some of their sourcing and business operations decisions based on their moral principles. o help create a socially just and resilient food system. As part of this they are trying to move away from production practices do not align with values. One farmer - distributor was motivated to raise grass - fed cattle based on organic principles because of his they wanted to give consumers the choice of a healthier product . Finally, the third distributor who also raises his own cattle, d ecided to adopt grass - fed production methods, ending the fami ly tradition of grain - finishing, because he felt it was wrong for the animals to live out their lives unnaturally. He explained: Well, I didn't want to feed a lot of corn or a lot of other produc ts to my livestock, because cattle are naturally, natural selection, or however you want to look at it, for grass, and not grains. But we as Americans figured out how to produce it faster, pump them up faster, so I just didn't want to do that. I just don't think that's right for the livestock to live like that. Relationships. Two distributors strongly valued their relationships with their customers. The regional distributor was largely motivated to source the product because their retail customers requeste d their help to locate and mitigate the risk of sourcing locally raised grass - fed beef, as it requires a lot of storage and coordination. they wanted that quality Additionally, one of t he farmer - distributors valued his relationship with his main retail buyer. He has enjoyed working with them and has offered them price breaks in order to maintain 66 that relationship. They're super nice in there. I really enjoy dealing with them. And I told them, I said "You know what, I'll sell [it] to you [for] less if you take meat, we keep a steady flow." Because I do like dealing with them. Systemic change. The regional distributor was highly motivated by the desire for systemic change, with t he goal o f creating a resilient, sustainable , and decentralized agricultural food system in Michigan. medium sized farms which have disappeared in this country. Specifically in this state very much [ sic] . So we want to be a farm creator. able to make a living producing and growing [food], people being able to access it in their Building on their desire to revive th they want Michigan to become self - sustainable and less dependent on the national food system. little bit in Michigan, where if we had a disruption in service, we still have something here that Social embeddedness . the concept of social embeddedness . Their business decisions have not been driven sol ely by the desire for larger profit margins, but rather by their social values. Although they strive for financial sustainability, the ability to pay farmers fair prices and improve the sustainability of nt to their business. The distributor explained: 67 d living. Restaurants. Data from the 12 restaurant interviews gave rise to seven themes surrounding personal and business values reflecting motivations for using local and grass - fed beef products as well as core operating principles of the businesses. Al l restaurant owners valued product characteristics associated with local and grass - fed beef products. In a majority of the interviews restaurant participants described how business operations surrounding their use of local grass - fed beef were driven by the ir personal integrity, the importance of relationships in their business, their inherent value of the farming tradition and farmers themselves, and their des ire to induce systemic change . Finally, half of restaurant owners were motivated by deep rooted soc ial embeddedness as well as their desire to educate their customers. Product characteristics . Restaurant owners and chefs all strongly valued different attributes of the local grass - fed beef product. First, all restaurant participants valued the quality of local foods and grass - fed beef, particularly enjoying the freshness and flavor of the product. One chef particularly valued the flavor variations between local grass - fed beef farms and described their plan to pair hamburgers po s sessing different character istics with different wines. The restaurant owner explained: s different flavors] from one farm to the other, we know that instinctively in the wine business. It's called Terroir. And when you use the French term, Terroir, you're talking abo ut the unique characteristics of this particular plot of land or region of land, which is determined by the soil, and the land, and the weather, and the Great Lakes. So he's [the chef] saying, "I think that's really cool. What I'm gonna do is we 68 take some of our ground beef and we're gonna do a hamburger; we'll do a cooking class and sampling class and pair it with our wines and spirits with hamburger from four All restaurant participants valued being able to source a local or Michigan ra ised product, while three stated that they valued source traceability. Additionally, most of the participants explained that they use local grass - fed beef because of the associated health benefits, naming GMO - free, antibiotic free, hormone - free, leanness, and higher omega - 3 content as specific health related characteristics. They also believed that grass - fed animals themselves are healthier, and thus are healthier for humans to eat due to improved living conditions and their consumpt ion of high ly nutritional grass . These points connected their desire for a healthful product with their appreciation of high animal welfare standards. So it's better for the cow, it's actually better for the environment. It's better for the health, here [at the rest aurant] , and it doesn't make the cow sick. So one of the things that we try to promote is humane conditions for the animals, like stuffing 'em full of corn just isn't good for em. They're not designed or built to eat that much corn. Finally, three restaura nts participants explained that local grass - fed beef was better for the environment. They believed that all local food products reduce green - house gas emissions by reducing the number of miles the product travels from farm to plate. Additionally, they valu ed the environmental stewardship practiced by local grass - fed beef farmers. One chef explained his understanding of the environmental benefits of grass - fed over factory farmed beef: And I watched Food, Inc. , a couple of years ago, that documentary about th e whole beef production, chicken, and just how bad that is for the environment. Water runoff and the 69 humane raising of the animal, if that makes sense, the rearing of the animal and just the impact that has on the actual cows and the flavor of the product, because of the stresses the cows are on. It just seems to be the animals are happier, so the product is better kind of thing. Integrity . Another strong theme present in most of the restaurant interviews was integrity. A majority of chefs and restaurant o wners described how their sourcing and business practices are driven by their morality. Many restaurants sourced locally raised grass - fed beef because they thought it was the right thing to do because it supports local farmers and high animal welfare stand ards , as well as those using socially and environmentally sustainable production practices. One chef explained: I just learned a lot about factory farms and where our meat comes from. My parents raised us pretty healthy. We always had a big garden, and we always had vegetables on the table. I guess it's an ethical thing. I don't really think there's any real ethical way of killing anything, but I would rather the animals have a happy life while they're alive. Additionally, some chefs wanted to feed their cu stomer a product that they believed in and that they themselves would eat or feed to their family. So we buy it for our own family's consumption. In fact, our first purchase of beef out of that farm I told you about was just for our own family. And that w as, that's a huge motivation. We only, almost only, eat grass - fed as well. One chef and owner chooses to buy the whole animal from his farmer, makin g use of all of the edible cuts out of respect for the farmer and the animal. 70 I really think using the off c uts is critical, critical ... If you're gonna tie in the local farmers, what happens is, usually on a restaurant menu, you'd go to a restaurant and you'd be able to buy... If it's a nice place for dinner and you get a rack of lamb. Or let's say it's beef, i t's a New York strip steak. Well, how many New York strip steaks can you cut out of a cow, out of a steer? Well, I think it shows a lot of creativity, and just a great respect to the animal, to use the whole thing as fruitfully as possible. Social embeddedness . The concept of social embeddedness arose in many of the interviews. Chefs and restaurant owners forwent maximum profit in order to have the greatest social impact they could reasonably afford. They explained that it is better to support local farmers using sound production practices to produce a high quality product tha n to maximize profit. Additionally, it was important to many chefs that their product be affordable, often sacrificing some profit to keep the cost at an appropriate level for the surrou nding community. One chef/owner of a catering business ex plained that they probably over paid for their products, but they think it pays off community. And that was what we started to do in the be ginning, because we knew so many Relationships . Many chefs and restaurant owners valued their relationships with their customers, their farmers, and their distributor. A bout a third of restaurants started to source local and grass - fed products be cause of previous relationships they had with farmers. Restaurants were driven to provide their customer s with a high quality product that the chefs themselves felt comfortable eating. On top of that, many chefs have been loyal to their farmers, choosing t o purchase from them rather than other distributors. Finally, chefs valued their local grass - fed beef 71 distributor because they prefer supporting a company that adheres to shared values. One chef described the distributor his restaurant uses: They just wann values, and I appreciate that and respect that about them. I feel comfortable being involved with them, 'cause I know that they're looking out for me and the farmers, not just themselv es. Farming . Over half of restaurant participants inherently valued farms and farming, which has motivated them to source local and grass - fed beef products. Chefs and restaurant owners valued the pride that farmers take in their work, and were thankful an d respectful of their devotion to growing local food. One restaurant owner described his admiration for his grass - fed beef farmers: And it's just their devotion to it. It's goosebumps. I mean, I think of how hard they work, how much they care for what they do, hugely inspired, and everybody, and not just kids... But, even people my age should go to a farm and see the work that goes into this. Look at the cow, the steers and realize that they're living and that they need respect. Those farmers need our admir ation and support. What they do is heroic. When they talked about 10 years since they could afford a vacation, I'm like, "Oh, man". Because I've heard a little bit of complaining coming out of my own mouth of how hard I work sometimes, like okay it... It's pretty shallow compared to what they... I mean, I take one day off. Most every week, I take Sunday off. Once in a while, I have to go for something, but not often, and I'm like, "They do 7 or 10 years!" Finally, some restaurant owners and chefs simply va lue d the beauty of farmland. While 72 explaining why she started sourcing local grass - fed beef, one restaurant owner described the first incredibly beautiful farm, i t's just gorgeous. And just the kind of care they take with their... Just Systemic change . Over half of restaurant participants believed that buying local or Michigan raised food products keeps money in the local or state economy and supports the development of a strong Michigan agricultural system. Chefs and restaurant owners would rather support a local distributor or farmer than give money to national distributors. Education . Half of re staurant participants valued educating their customers about the local and grass - fed products they serve. Some restaurants simply wanted to help their customers develop better eating habits and reconnect them with the food they eat, while others used educa tion as a way to justify higher prices or to explain the flavor characteristics of grass - fed beef that customers may not immediately appreciate. Restaurants hoped that by educating customers about the importance of the local and grass - fed products, custome rs would begin to value those products. Retailers. The six retailer interviews provided evidence of four motivating value themes . All business stakeholders. Addi tionally, all retailer s found value in a number of characteristics associated with local grass - fed beef. Over half of retailers described how they made food sourcing decisions based on their personal integrity. And finally, half of retailers described food education as an important facet of their business. 73 Relationships . The most salient theme shared by all retailers was the importance of their driven by cus tomer loyalty. A retailer at fresh and specialty foods market described their commitment to their customers: We have sort of a daily priority list that we go by that is ingrained in everyone here from their first day of training and that's the customer co mes first, secondary to anything else you could be doing. Taking care of the customer is the top priority. So, we're customer driven by our purchases. decisions were driven values. They felt a duty to their community of customers to provide them with a quality product from a trusted source that adheres to their morals. Retailers valued their relationships with their farmers. A retailer that just began sourcing local grass - fed beef expla he's a good guy. He's the kind of guy I do business with, and I dream of being a local meat ns. In this way, retailers continued to support their local community by maintaining posi tive relationships with farmers. Product characteristics . Similar to the other three sectors, all retailers valued specific qualities of the local grass - fed beef product. A majority of the retail ers named high quality, freshness, and flavor as important q ualities of local grass - fed beef. Additionally, retailers valued the health benefits of the grass - fed product, such as the potential for non - GMO and organic production practices, and a leaner product higher in omega - 3 fatty - acids and nutrients. A number 74 of retailers also valued the ability to source a local or Michigan raised beef product, and valued the environmental stewardship practiced by grass - fed beef farmers. Finally, retailers preferred to source grass - fed beef due to the resulting improved animal w elfare conditions. Integrity . Some retailers were highly motivated by what they saw as their moral obligations. One retailer felt it was important to be a socially and environmentally responsible community member. Another retailer thought it was importan t to sell products that she felt comfortable eating. Two other retailers exp lained that their customers trusted them to find food sources that align with their values. One explained: Sometimes we have to walk our farmer relationships through the process, so they understand we do set a really high bar for expectations, and because we're trusted, we have this integrity built up in our organization. People look to us and trust that we're doing the right thing. Education . Finally, half of the retail participants strongly valued their ability to educate consumers about the products the y eat, the types food products available, and specifically about local grass - fed beef. Educational techniques used to provide customers with enough information to make an informed sourcing decision often involved signag e to differentiate the product which could include definitions or descriptions of production practices. Some retailers sent out newsletters, held cooking demonstrations, and had community outreach departments focused on food education. One retailer was preparing to run a sale on local grass - f ed beef as a point of departure for attracting customers to that product and educating them of the benefits. 75 So, we're gonna run a sale on it for ground beef, and hopefully just let people know what it is and it'll be an educational opportunity. It's a bu zzword, and that way just to kind of bring people in here and spread the word about why you would want to eat that. Survey Results. The following section summarizes the results of the New Ecological Paradigm Survey and the Grass - fed Beef Belief Survey ques tions relating to participants values. New Ecological Paradigm Survey . Table 5 displays the results of the New Ecological The maximum total NEP score is 75, indicating the str ongest support to an environmental worldview, whereas the lowest possible score is 15, indicating the strongest subscription to a socially dominant paradigm. The maximum subscore for each of the 5 facets of an environmental worldview is 15, and the lowest possible subscore is 5. The scores within and between sectors varied widely. For instance , as can be seen in Table 5, retailer NEP scores ranged from 21 to 59, and restaurant scores ranged from 33 to 68, with lower scores aligning more with a socially domi nant paradigm and higher scores aligning more with a strong environmental worldview . Additionally, for the NEP sub scores for each facet of an environmental worldview (The Reality of Limits to Growth, , The Rejection of Exemptionalism, and the Possibility of an Ecocrisis), in most cases scores within and between sectors varied . See Table 6 for additional descriptive statistics on the four sectors scores. Overall, t hese results show that for this grass - fed beef value - chain and for each sector, individuals have very different levels of environmental concern. In other words, based on the NEP scores, environmental values are not shared throughout the grass - fed beef middle value - chain. Grass - fed Beef Belief Survey . Seven questions on the Grass - fed Beef Belief Survey were - fed and local beef (Table 7). Questions 76 Table 5 Participant total NEP scores and sub - scores Sector Total Score I II III IV V Processors n=3 35 10 4 7 12 5 53 5 12 11 11 13 54 5 14 11 12 12 Distributors n=3 48 8 9 10 9 11 56 7 10 14 13 13 56 8 10 11 12 13 Restaurants n=12 33 8 5 7 9 6 42 9 8 10 8 8 47 8 9 10 10 10 50 10 10 10 11 9 51 8 11 7 12 12 53 8 11 9 9 13 54 6 1 3 9 13 13 54 7 14 10 10 11 54 9 11 11 9 12 59 7 10 13 10 15 62 9 12 12 13 14 68 11 15 14 13 14 Retailers n=6 21 7 3 7 5 3 35 10 4 7 12 5 46 9 9 9 9 9 49 9 10 8 10 12 50 7 11 10 11 11 59 7 10 13 10 15 I, II, II, IV, V indicate the 5 fa cets of an environmental worldview : I = Reality of Limits to e , IV = Rejection of Exemptionalism, V = The Possibility of an Ecocrisis 1, 2, 5, and 6 in Table 7 relate to specific product attributes: health benefits, animal welfare, source traceability, and production practices. The participant responses to questions 1, 5, and 6 indicate general agreement with the statements, with the majority of participants responding agree and strongly agree, demonstrating that the sectors share values relating to human health benefits, source traceability, and knowing the production practices of local grass - fed beef. Responses to statement 2 demonstrate that two out of three of distributors do not feel strongly one way or the other that grass - fed beef has animal welfare benefits over conventionally raised 77 beef, whereas the majority of participants from the other sectors agreed or st rongly agreed with statement 2. Table 6 NEP total score and subscore mean , median, and standard deviation by sector Score/ Subscore Mean Median Standard Deviation Sector P D RS RT P D RS RT P D RS RT Total Score 47.33 53.33 52.25 43.3356 53 56 53.5 47.5 10.69 4.62 9.09 13.40 I 6.67 7.67 8.33 8.17 5 8 8 8 2.89 .58 1.37 1.33 II 10 9.67 10.75 7.83 12 10 11 9.5 5.29 .58 2.70 3.43 III 9.67 11.67 10.08 9 11 11 10 8.5 2.31 2.08 1.98 2.28 IV 11.67 11.33 10.67 9.5 12 12 10 10 .58 2.08 1.92 2.43 V 10 12.33 11.33 9.17 12 13 12 10 4.36 1.15 2.64 4.49 I, II, II, IV, V in the left han d colum n indicate the 5 facets of an environmental worldview : I = e , IV = Rejection of Exemptionalism, V = The Possibility of an Ecocrisis . P, D, RS, and RT in the to p row are abbreviations of Processor (P), Distributor (D), Restaurant (RS), and Retail (RT). Responses to question 3 indicate that the majority of participants from all sectors agreed that serving local beef in restaurants does improve the local economy . Responses to questions 4 and 5 show that all sectors found it important to know and support local beef farmers, indicating their value of farmers in general as well as their relationships with farmers. Finally, question 7 generated mixed responses regardin g the value of educating customers about where their beef is source d r esponses ranged from Strongly Disagree to Neutral in regards to the importance of educating consumer s about where beef is sourced. Yet a majority, 16 out of 24, agreed or s trongly agreed with statement 7. 78 Table 7 Frequencies of responses to Grass - fed Beef Belief survey values questions by sector Question SD D N A SA Sector P D R S R T P D R S R T P D R S R T P D R S R T P D R S R T I 2 2 2 7 3 1 1 3 3 I I 1 2 1 1 1 6 3 1 1 5 2 III 1 1 2 1 6 4 2 5 2 I V 1 1 2 3 5 2 2 6 2 V 1 2 2 4 4 1 2 6 2 VI 1 1 1 1 5 3 1 2 6 3 VII 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 5 2 SD, D, N, A, SA in the top row are abbreviations f or Strongly Disagree (SD), Disagree (D), Neutral (N), Agree (A), and Strongly Agree (SA). P, D, RS, and RT in the second row are abbreviations of Processor (P), Distributor (D), Restaurant (RS), and Retail (RT). Roman numerals I through VII correspond with the following values related questions on the Grass - fed beef Belief Survey (questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12 on the actual survey See Appendix A) : I. Grass - finished beef has health benefits over conventional grain - finished beef. II. Grass - finished beef systems result in improved animal welfare conditions over conventional systems. III. Serving locally raised beef in restaurants improves the local economy. IV. It is important to support local beef farmers by using their beef in my establishment. V. It is important to know w ho raised the beef sold at my establishment. VI. It is important to know the production practices used to raise the beef sold at my establishment. VII. It is important to educate my consumers about where our beef is sourced. These results show that within the loc al grass - fed beef market in northwest Lower Michigan, although there were a few individuals within each sector disagreeing or feeling neutral in regards to the values statements, the majority of participants shared beliefs and values related to the product characteristics of grass - fed and local beef (statements 1, 5, 6), the economic benefits of local beef sourcing (statement 3), the importance of knowing and supporting the famers raising 79 the beef (statements 4, 5), and the importance of understanding beef production practices (statement 6). The majority of processors, restaurants, and retailers agreed or strongly agreed with statement 2 relating to the animal welfare benefits of grass - fed beef, whereas the majority of distributors felt neutral. And finally, although the majority of participants from each sector did agree or strongly agree with statement 7 referring to the value of educating consumers about where beef is sourced, there was much less support for this statement than the other 6 statements, indi cating mixed feelings within the value - chain in regards to the valuing of consumer education. Summary . There were many values permeating the local grass - fed beef middle value - chain. Table 8 summarizes all of the salient values from the interviews and surve y s . All sectors valued product attributes associated with l ocal grass - fed beef (see Table 9 ), their relationships with value - chain partners, and the potential for the local grass - fed beef market to induce systemic change. The surveys and interviews indicat ed that the majority of processors, distributors, restaurants, and retailers all valued some form of consumer and customer education on local food and grass - fed beef products, and make business decisions based on their moral Table 8 Summary of values held by the middle value - chain Value Processor Distributor Restaurant Retailer interview survey interview survey interview survey interview survey Product Characteristics X X X X X X X X Relationships X X X X X X X X Systemic change X X X X X X X Educa tion X X X X X X Integrity X X X Social Embeddedness X X Farm X 80 compass. The concept of social embeddedness interviews, indicating that these sectors tend to take into account the gre ater social good as opposed to solely considering profit when making business and sourcing decisions. And finally, many restaurants inherently valued farms and farming. As is evident in Table 9 , the grass - fed beef middle value - chain valued similar local gr ass - fed beef characteristics, such as the human health benefits, animal welfare practices, and high quality product . Although not a prevalent theme in the interview data, the Grass - fed Beef Belief Survey indicates that all sectors valued the source traceab ility associated with a local beef product. Table 9 Summary of valued product characteristics by sector Finally, restaurants and retailers were the only sectors that spoke of their appreciation of the environmental benefits associated with local grass - fed beef during the interviews . The NEP did not produce any outstanding results in terms of shared environmental values. Each sector had some individuals with scores reflecting a strong environmental worldview and some with a st rong socially dominant worldview, indicating broad ranges of environmental worldviews within the grass - fed beef market in northwest Lowe r Michigan. With this evidence, although environmental values may be a motivating factor for some, such as the 6 partici pants that spoke Product Characteristics Processor Distributor Restaurant Retailer interview survey interview survey interview survey interview survey Human Health X X X X X X X X Animal Welfare X X X X X X Quality X X X X Source Traceability X X X X X Environmental Benefits X X 81 of the environmental benefits of local and grass - f ed beef during their interviews and those with high NEP scores, within and between sectors there is little indication that environmental values are shared or are a major driving factor for the middle value - chain as a whole . Although not prevalent themes in the data, there was some indication that all sectors valued financial sustainability ; th at distributors, processor s , and some retailers also found inhe rent value in farms and farming; an d that restaurants and retailers valued uniting their community around food. Due to the sparseness of these themes, they have not been included in the results above, but do warrant consideration for additional research. Research Question 2: What is the Nat ure of the Local Grass - fed Beef Middle Value - Relationships? relationships with others in the value - chain. Interview data yielded a number of themes describing the se relationships . Value - chain relationships tended to be long - term and committed, flexible, focused on achieving price - equity, facilitated by one or two sectors of the value - chain, based on mutually beneficial partnerships, transparent, communicative, and trusting. However there were occasions of relationship dysfunction where relationships were short - term, inflexible, not able to achieve price equity, non - transparent, featured poor communication, and lacked trust. Long - term. Generally, the local grass - fe d beef middle value - chain is made up of long - term, committed, and loyal relationships. Participants strive to maintain lasting relationships with their customers and their suppliers. Some local grass - fed beef middle value - chain partners have worked togethe r for over seven years, while some partnerships are new, with many partners having worked together for less than a year. These budding partnerships have every intention of continuing into the future. 82 One regional distributor began sourcing local grass - fed beef because one of their long - term customers requested their help sourcing the product. Additionally, the same distributor has their order. Processors strive for r epeat , long - term customers, which has required conscious sensitivity in dealing with farmers that raise a sub - par quality animal. Additionally, one processor explained that his biggest customer offered to help keep them in business using any means possible because they depend on their partnership: In fact, [customer] called us, I don't know when it was, last spring or something, and told us that... I don't know whether they thought I was thinking of retiring or what, but they told us that we were an integra l part of their business, and if they could help us in any way to keep it going, they would. Additionally, many restaurants and retailers described their loyalty to their farmers and distributors by choosing to support these long - term partners over other s supplying the same product. Commitment issues. Although the majority of the local grass - fed beef middle value - chain partners were committed to long - term relationships, some participants have struggled to find committed partners or have actively sought o ut new partners due to dissatisfaction with current relationships. One farmer - distributor had an informal commitment from a retailer. The retailer suggested a price per pound hanging weight and soon after reported back to the fa mer that his price was too h igh and subsequently stopped sourcing his product. In another case, a retailer had been working with a local grass - fed beef farmer - distributor when the farmer suddenly let them s, leaving them with no local grass - fed beef source. In another instance, one restaurant had to stop sourcing local 83 grass - fed beef because the product became too expensive. Finally, one restaurant that has been sourcing loc al grass - fed beef from a farmer - d istributor for seven years wanted to switch suppliers, but could not find another local farmer that could produce enough high quality product to meet their needs. his inflexibilit y in keeping prices reasonable for them. And again, he's pissed me off to the point where I've started looking for other people, but I can't find anybody to give me the quality that we need and somebody that we've got at least some sort of relationship wi th that I know six... 'cause here's the deal, is he's consistent at least. Six months down the road, if I switch, and this person goes, "Hey, we're not gonna do this anymore." I just can't really call [the farmer] up and be like, "Hey. Hi, I'm back." Flex ible . Maintaining flexibility and finding partners who are accommodating is essential to a successful local grass - fed beef market. Being part of a decentralized small - scale market comes with many uncertainties. Business processes and practices are not stan dardized, cattle are not always ready to go to slaughter when the farmer originally planned, and most of the major players are small scale and have therefore not developed efficiencies. Processor participants explained that they must stay flexible in dea ling with their Some customers have requested that their items be packaged in specific boxes, which has required processors to adjust their packing system. Additionally, one processor was willing to learn new or unfamiliar cut The same processor learned to be flexible in dealing with the constant oversight of the USDA inspector. 84 You just gotta have an open mind. You can't fight with them. I mean, you wanna pick your fights, if you are gonna. If they find something dirty, are you gonna argue that it's not? You can clearly see it is . O r if there's condensation on the ceiling, and they'll tell you to get that wiped up, you do it. You don't want it dripping on your food. Distributors have had to maintain flexibility in dealing with their value - chain partners. One distributor often had to make adjustments when their processors made mistakes with orders, requiring them to adapt by crediting their customers, increasing quality control in thei r warehouse, or renaming products that were incorrectly labeled. They did not want take the time to rectify mistakes, but had to in order to maintain their business relationships. The distributor explained how they adapted when they found out from a custom er that an order was cut wrong or incorrectly labeled. So then that turns into a giant debacle of well do you want to keep it, do you get credit? It ju st creates a ton of work to go back through, either rename it , Resta urants were typically adaptable in dealing with their suppliers. Many were able to handle price fluctuations up to a certain amount . Additionally, some restaurants had the flexibility to change their menu or substitute cuts if supply of their usual cuts ra n out. Others adapted when the meat that they ordered was cut poorly. with beef that is covered in unsightly knife marks. 85 When I put tenderloin on the menu, I don't have to grill individual tenderloin steaks. I can gri ll the whole tenderloins and then slice them and as long as I make it look pretty on the plate, I can choose to do whatever I feel like doing, or whatever I see is best for my client's best interests. So if it's not gonna work one way, I just switch it and do it another way and as long as it's consistently good, that's the only kinda consistency that I have to have. So, no, there isn't any ramifications because I just turn it around and do something different with it. Finally, retailers have made accommod ations in order to continue sourcing local grass - fed beef. Some retailers created special order forms because they did not have a consistent supply of grass - fed beef. They explained that this required more work but was worth it to meet eeds. Additionally, retailers were flexible when dealing with their farmer - distributors who were frequently inconsistent when scheduling, delivering, and communicating. ces to account for these inconsistences. One retailer recommended: Be flexible if that's really what you wanna sell. You have to be flexible to work in that environment. It's not a quarter by three o'clock on Tuesday for a delivery on Wednesday morning bef ore you open, it's make that call on Tuesday, hope that you get it in Friday, have a game plan on what to do with it if it doesn't show up till Monday. In addition to their own flexibility, participants appreciated that their value - chain partners were als o flexible. Distributors described that customers often adjusted to product mistakes and inconsistent supply. Additionally, a restaurant was thankful that their producer was understanding when they temporarily stopped sourcing beef due to price. Restaurant s and 86 Inflexibility. Although many local grass - fed beef value - chain partners do what they can to be flexible, many participants recalled past and current frustrations when their partners were not flexible. Processors often struggled with customers who were not flexible in accepting their storage capacity, either leaving animals at the processor for too long, or taking their business somewhere else because they were unsatisfied with the amount of time the processor could age the beef. Distributors sometimes encountered potential customers that were not willing to adjust their practices to incorporate a frozen product or were not willing to adjust their menu prices to accommodate the slightly higher price of local grass - fed beef. Additionally, distributors claimed Some hand wrote all of the cutting instructions and used a wall calendar to schedule customer s. This inflexibility has affected the communication between the processor and distributor. One distributor explained: They have generations of family heritage into the company and they've always done it this way and that's the way but I'll have to ... I gott a follow up with one of them this week like I'm slowing down on Osso bucco, I'm fine, you can put that in the grind. They just keep sending it. just a lot of variables, and that's why I say sophistication, I think it's just business processes a nd technology in processors is still very old school. Finally, some restaurants wished that their processors were more flexible in accommodating their requests for specific cuts, or that their farmers would work with them on 87 finding a mutually agreeable p rice. One chef recounted a time when his farmer priced him out of New York Strip Steaks. God, I would hope he would make at least some sort of effort to keep prices down for us. He is a businessman, and he has, every now and again, not really worked with u s the way I would hope he would. The New Yorks. Prime example. He could have kept them down for us. They just kept going up and up and up. Yeah, he's kinda irked me off every now and again. "Goddamnit, you know you can work with me on this." 'Cause I'm get ting so little from him that it's not gonna affect his bottom line. Equitable profit sharing. The local grass - fed beef middle value - chain strives to ensure that all value - chain partners receive a fair price for their product or service. Processor s were a unique case in the value - chain structure. Two of processors explained that they do not think they are part of the value - chain because they c harging a fixed price for their service. In terms of price equity, processors were most aware of their own financial sustainability. One processor instituted higher costs for more labor intensive costs to cover the extra work and time. Achieving price equity was a major goal for the regional distributor. They felt that it was very impo rtant to pay farmers a fair price for their product so they could make a living wage. They explained: We want this to be something people can make a living at. And so we're doing what we can to pay good rates to things. I mean you can over pay for stuff b ut then it's not really sustainable either because you can't keep it up, so we're not in it to maximize profits as a 88 middle man, we want this stuff to move, we want to pay our bills and make our farmers better. Restaurants and retailers also aimed to pay their farmers a fair price. Even if they felt the price was unreasonably high, they often did not haggle since they knew the farmers were struggling to make ends meet. Many restaurants and retailers also felt that they charged a reasonable price for their local grass - fed beef products. One retailer capped their ground beef price because they believed the prices must stay under a certain dollar amount for their customers to perceive the product as affordable. Some restaurants and retailers took less of a mar k - up on local grass - fed beef than they would have for a conventional beef product, either bearing the extra cost themselves, or adjusting other menu prices. A retailer explained: In supporting our local community, we made it a conscious decision to take a lower margin on our local products versus national. One, to offset some of that higher pricing. Price inequity . Some value - chain participants thought that other va lue - chain participants unfairly charged for their product, and others have simply been priced out of the market. One distributor thought that a local retailer charged a very high and unreasonable price for local grass - fed beef. A few retail participants al so believed that their competition charged an outrageous price for local grass - fed beef. Finally, a couple restaurants could not afford to keep local grass - fed beef on their menu, and one restaurant felt that his farmer unreasonably marked - up certain cuts. Facilitated. Certain participants were value - chain facilitators, easing the burden on their value - chain partners by coordinating the process of moving the product from the farm to the 89 consumer. Distributors were identified by themselves as well as by the ir customers as the main facilitators of the local grass - fed beef market in their region. Distributors explained that it is their job to move the product through the supply - chain by coordinating with their producers and processors, scheduling with partners , delivering the product and connecting their customers to distributor. One farmer - distributor has similarly facilitated the value - chain , aggregating local gra ss - fed beef from multiple producers, coordinating with his processors, filling orders, and delivering the product. A majority of restaurants felt that their distributor s are successful in facilitating the grass - fed beef supply - chain. One restaurant describ ed her satisfaction with her distributor: It's really helpful having [ the distributor] be able to source, that makes it easy. It seems like they're always looking for more sources, too, like more product. There's always new farms showing up and that makes it easy for me. It encourages me and excites me to keep looking for the local product from my sources. They're there to help me. In a few cases, retailers coordinated their own supply - chain. One retailer has bought whole animals directly from farmers, sch eduling and coordinating with producers and purchased from coordinated part of the supply - chain by taking special orders from his customers, communicating the order to the farmer and then coordinating with the processor. Mutually benef icial. Many individuals in the local grass - fed beef value - chain recognized the mutual benefit achieved in supporting their value - 90 In many cases, going out of their way to help out the ir partners also positively impacts that individual. For instance, one distributor started sourcing local grass - take the risk in sourcing it themselves. Sinc e then, protein sales have grown tremendously for the distributor and are now an integral part of their business. Another farmer - distributor has struggled to find enough demand for his product. He recently told his main retailer that if they bought more pr oduct, he would give them a price cut. Additionally, this distributor was not familiar with popular retail cuts, so his retailer and his processor coordinated which cuts to purchase. This has been successful for all parties involved. The retailer received a price cut while being able to build customer demand for a new product, the farmer - distributor sold more product, and the processor essentially bought a repeat customer by providing exceptional customer service. I told [retailer] I really needed them to t ake more meat and they asked me, "Well, what muscles do you recommend?" And I said, "You know that more than I do." So they called [processor] and [processor] set it up and they actually bought a pretty good chunk. And he told me there when I dropped it of f last week that they would like to do that every two or three weeks now. Processors also engaged in mutually beneficial relationships. One processor has included farmers in the processing procedure and has educated them about different cuts. One processor processor recounted that one of their major customers recentl y offered to help them to stay in business because they depend on their beef supply. 91 Many restaurants have taken small steps to support their value - chain partners. Some restaurants have helped their value - chain partners grow by recommending their distribu tor to other restaurants, or naming the producer on the menu as a means of farmer advertisement. Some restaurants have bought excess product from their farmer or distributor, and another has bought the whole animal rather than just buying primals or ground beef. Finally, many retailers also recognized that their business would be better served if they helped their partners grow. One retailer has helped famers attain desired certifications. A n o t her retailer just starting to source local grass - fed beef has d eveloped many ideas to help his farmer - distributor, for instance using fat and trim to create local grass - fed beef hotdogs and Bratwurst. Communicative, transparent, t rusting. Finally, the local grass - fed beef middle value - chain relationships are built on transparency, communication, and trust. Yet breakdown of these relationship building strategies has also occurred within the value - chain. As these three factors are strongly related and often effect one another, they are discussed together. Communicative . The local grass - fed beef value - chain has depended on communication to coordinate the supply - chain, share information about the product, and to navigate problems when they arise. Many participants cited good and open communication as a major factor behind their strong, trusting, and lasting relationships with value - chain partners. Distributors and some retailers that coordinate their market have developed sound communication strategies to coordinate with their farmers, processors, and customers. Restaurant s noted their appreciation of Additionally, all sectors cited communication as the main way they have worked through problems with their value - chain partners. For instance , processors used tactful communication techniques to address the problem of poor quality animals with their farmer customers, and restaurants and retailers 92 used open communication with their distributor to work through product quality problems or incorrec t orders. Restaurants and retailers noted that communication has been essential to providing information about the local grass - fed beef product to staff and customers, as well as informing customers when certain cuts run out. Communication breakdown. Alth ough the participants stressed the importance of communication in relationship development and supply chain management, poor and ineffective communication has been the root of many value - chain problems. For instance, distributors claimed their biggest barr ier has been processing inconsistency. They have tried to communicate their needs and problems with inconsistent labeling and receiving the wrong cuts to their processors, but the processors have not change their behavior . Additionally some restaurants sim One chef explained that she does not like receiving large cuts of meat that she has to break down just let it go, and I don't order it Additionally, restaurants and retailers complained that their farmers do not communicate well, which makes ordering and scheduling difficult. Transparent . As with communication, transparency has been essential to building open, honest, and trusting relationships. Many participants have made efforts to be transparent with their value - chain partners about their business practices. Middle value - chain partners have achieved transparency by openly sharing production practices with their customers. Distributors have provided their customers with information about the farms they source from, and restaurants and retailers have been transparent with their customers about the production practices used to raise the beef th ey sell. One farmer - distributor has provided tours of his farm to his value - chain partners, giving them a firsthand look at his production practices. Additionally, 93 processors have been transparent in their interactions with USDA inspectors in order to main tain a positive relationship. Additionally, one processor has given farmers an opportunity to be a part of the processing process, making his practices transparent. Lack of transparency. Despite this, perceived lack of transparency has damaged relationship s and broken down trust . Some participants felt that their value - chain partners have not been transparent about practices, and many value - chain partners contradicted each other in the interviews, potentially due to transparency issues within the value - chai n. One major Although they claimed that they trust their farmer, many had underlying questions as to whether products were actually 100% grass fed. This could be ro oted in their misunderstanding of the - where grass is inaccessible. One retailer explained, I mean, they all say grass - finished. What is grassed - finished? Anoth er one of those funny words that confuses customers? What are you feeding it? I mean, is it grass? Is it silage? 'Cause there's nobody finding grass right now. So, it's had two cycles of winter, right? Depending on when it's born. Do you know what I mean? I mean, depending on when the cattle's born, it's probably had almost... At least one full cycle of winter. Did it eat grass the whole time or didn't it? On a related note, one distributor and many restaurants and retailers were under the misconception tha t one of their farmers finishes his cattle on grain, although this farmer advertised his product as 100% grass - fed and during an interview for this research confirmed that his cattle were indeed 100% grass - fed. Similarly, some restaurants that were buying a product advertised as grass - fed, GMO - free grain finished believed that they were buying a 100% grass - 94 fed product. It was not clear through the interviews where this confusion was rooted. Potentially the distributor shared misinformation or was not adeq production practices to their customers. Or, it is possible that there is a general lack of understanding regarding words like grass - fed and grass - finished throughout the value - chain. Finally, some value - chain partne rs questioned the motivations of other value - chain participants, particularly in regards to money. A few restaurants believed that a local distributor was profit motivated and therefore less trustworthy. Additionally, many retailers thought that a competit or charged outrageous prices for their local grass - fed beef products. Yet in interviews with both of these value - chain participants, they explained that they have a very low mark - up on their local grass - fed beef product, and their goal is not to maximize p rofit. It appears as though these contradictions are rooted in problems with transparency. The distributor and retailer in question may be able to build back the trust of others in the value - chain by being more transparent about their pricing strategies, g oals, and motivations. Trust . Both open communication and transparency described above have been strategies used by the grass - fed beef middle value - chain to build trust with their partners, and most everyone in the middle value - chain described their relati onships as trusting. One distributor with them, and tell 'em, and talk to 'em, and if there's a problem, you straighten it out right away so it doesn't continu Another distributor explained that when trust. Restaurants explained that trust has been built by learning their value - chain 95 Distrust . Yet cases where communication has failed and value - chain partners are not transparent with each other have resulted in distrust throughout the value - ch ain. For instance, one distributor no longer trusts that their processor will deliver a consistent product, and one restaurant has been burned by his farmer so many times, that he no longer trusts him. Summary. Overall, the local grass - fed beef middle va lue - ationships are strong and possess many characteristics of successful value - chains, such as price equity, mutual benefit, open communication, transparency, and trust (Stevenson & Pirog , 2013). Additionally, like other successful value - chains, the local grass - fed beef middle value - chain relationships tend to be long - term and coordinated by a few key individuals. A major strategy for relationship success has been flexibility. The local grass - fed beef market is new, and efficiencies, structure, s cale, and value - chain relationships are still evolving. By maintaining flexibility, value - chain partners have evolved together, defining productive business strategies and their relationships as they go. However these value - chain relationships are not pe rfect, and many value - chain problems have stemmed from poor or inconsistent communication and lack of transparency. For instance inflexibility of value - chain partners was cited as a major problem. By redefining communication strategies and improving transp arency, the reasons behind apparent inflexibility may become apparent and better understood, or those partners deemed inflexible may be willing to make behavioral changes if they are made aware of the problems they have caused their value - chain partners. A lthough not inconsequential, these relationship deficiencies will have minimal impact on the success of the value - chain. Clearly, the value - chain is committed to resolving - chain partners make a fair wage, and supporting their value - chain partners when they need help. Considering the care 96 and trust that has already developed, it is likely that the relationship problems discussed in this section can be resolved through continued collaborati on. Research question 3: What are the Middle Value - Local Grass - fed Beef Market? Finally, a large portion of the data collection focused on barrier s to the growth and success of northwest Lower local grass - fed beef market. Major themes surrounding barriers identified by the value - chain were pulled from the data, and included high price, inconsistencies between supply and demand, a lack of consumer demand, logistical struggles, poor quality product, processor inconsistencies, a lack of value - chain knowledge, inadequate infrastructure, unique processor barriers, and the assumption th at grass - fed beef is a trend. However, participants have started implementing their own best practices to address some of the barr iers they face such as developing supply and demand strategies, implementing product differentiation, developing pricing strategies to accommodate the high price of local grass - fed beef, and vertical integration. Market barriers. The most notable challeng es to a viable grass - fed beef market recognized by all value - chain sectors and nearly all participants fall into t he category of market barriers: high price, inconsistencies between supply and demand, and a lack of consumer demand. Price. Distributors hav e had trouble attracting new customers because the price point of the local grass - fed beef product is too high. Additionally, many restaurants have struggled with the price of local grass - fed beef. One restaurant was completely priced out of sourcing the p roduct. Furthermore , during the off - tourist season many restaurants have to cut back their 97 sourcing of local grass - fed beef because the locals cannot afford the product. Others said that - fed bee Others have only used certain cuts because some prime cuts are too expensive for their customers. We can't put New York in our menu because we just, food cost - wise, it's prohibitive. 'Cause, we just trim it then we lose about 40%, so we trim it down to the point to where it's prohibitive. Fillet is the same thing. For us to put a fillet on the menu would cost $36, $38, and nobody wants to pay th at, not up here. Finally, retailers also struggled with the high price of local grass - fed beef. One retailer has been hesitant to sell local grass - fed beef because he would make less money selling it compared with the conventional beef he currently sells. He explained the difference between selling a more expensive grass - fed product compared to his conventional beef product from Iowa: Why do I want to sell a [local grass - fed] sirloin tip roast that I make $3 a pound on, a sirloin tip roast at $10.99 a pound . If you do the math, it's about 23% or whatever it might end up being. I can take a sirloin tip roast and sell my Iowa beef, at $7.99 a pound. Right? And I can make 50%. a roast, right? Le t's say you buy a roast everyday, five pound roast. Every week you buy one. And every week you buy a five pound sirloin tip roast. And I can either make $25 off of you, or I can make $15 off of you. At the end of the year I stand to make $520 more off [a c ustomer] by buying Iowa beef. Supply and demand. In addition to price, the inconsistencies between supply and demand have been a major challenge prohibiting the growth of the local grass - fed beef market. This 98 barrier has two sides. First there is a general shortage of local grass - fed beef. The regional distributor has had trouble sourcing the supply of beef they need to satisfy customer demand. One farm that they source from has only been able to supply about half of the product they want e're able to secure like maybe 20, 25 head a year, and every year we ask for 48. grass - fed beef in stock all year. One retailer explained this struggle: T he summer, which is our busiest time and it's the busiest time for other stores in our region, the supply gets really spotty, and it... Usually, at some point, we just can't get it. And that's the ground... I guess I'm talking mostly about ground beef. And it's hard for our customers 'cause they got really attached to something and then suddenly it goes away. - fed beef. Many restaurants and retailers have searched for a local grass - fed beef farmer in th eir area but have come up empty, resorting to sourcing from a regional distributor that gets product from downstate. The second supply and demand issue has resulted from restaurants and retailers preference for primals and ground beef , which has resulted in a shortage of prime cuts and a surplus of less desirable cuts. Farmers selling to this market have struggled to find buyers for the remainder of the animal. Often many usable cuts end up being ground, devaluing the animal. One farmer - distri Because there is such a high demand for prime cuts, farmers and distributors have not been able to maintain a consistent supp ly of high demand cuts, often running out for periods of 99 time. When this happens restaurants and retailers typically substitute for another cut, take that item off the menu temporarily, source the cut from a national distributor, and may even stop sourcing the product locally altogether. One rest aurant explained that he does not source his top ould keep up with demand. We do have beef tenderloin and that is just a commercial grade tenderloin. We do sell a lot of that. Those are... That's the only other beef I know on our menu besides featuring the [local beef] and that's just 'cause people want tenderloin and gotta have a tenderloin on their menu. But they probably wouldn't... I don 't know what the price of that [local farm] tenderloin is. I'd have to look at that. I haven't considered using it 'cause we go through so much volume, I don't know if they'd be able to keep up. Customer demand. Finally, many value - chain partners recognize d a lack of consumer demand for local grass - fed beef product s . In some areas, the population is low - income and - fed beef. Other restaurants explained it would be worth paying the extra cost o f local grass - fed if more of their customers the rotary club that comes in and wants a $12 dinner. All they want is a $12 dinner, and they don't care where... Logistics. The logistics of moving the local grass - fed beef product through the supply - chain has been a challenge for most value - chain participants. P articipants have struggled to coordinate pick - ups and deliveries w ith their customers. For instance, processors claimed that customers are often late picking up their product, backing up their storage rooms. Additionally, restaurants and retailers have struggled with farmers who do not deliver the product on time. 100 In ad dition, p articipating in the local grass - fed beef market is time consuming and complicated. Farmer - distributors have struggled to find time to farm, market their product, keep books, coordinate with customers, and deliver the product. One farmer - distributo stretched thin... In the summer I work from daylight until dark, you know. And neither one of us Additionally, it takes more time for restaurants and retailers to participate in a local market because they have to coo rdinate with multiple suppliers, often chasing down operations in on time or frequently enough. Finally, one restaurant serving primarily breakfast and lunch uses a lot of lunch meat which he has not been able to find locally or make consistently himself. If I roast my own is it's hard to slice if it's thin... It's hard to have the grain going the right way, and the roasting... 'Cause there's so many different types of c uts. It's hard for me to make a sandwich that is gonna be the same every time. And, when it's on my core menu, you come in and you always get this Chipotle Roast Beef sandwich or whatever. Knowing that it's gonna be the same every time is a huge positive. Quality . Another barrier that many value - chain participants have experienced is inconsistent animal quality. - fed is not created Some farmers do not properly finish the animal, producing a very lean, small, and tough carcass, which is difficult to cut . animal get processed: This has been a difficult topic to breach with farmers, yet it is often necessary for processors to explain to farmers that they cannot produce quality cuts from their animal 101 ha ndling this, give them love, so to speak. So as not to offend the producer, because we want to Additionally, the quality has been so poor at times that processors did not w ant to put their name on the packaging, worrying that the poor quality would discredit their name. Distributors have also struggled selling products that differ in quality. Some of the meat they sell has graded better while others have been leaner, makin g substitution difficult when cuts run out. Finally, participants worried that poor quality animals would give grass - fed beef a bad name and discourage consumers from eating the product. Processor i nconsistencies . Distributors, restaurants and retailers h ave all struggled to get a consistent product from their processor. Distributors have received products that were poorly cut, mislabeled, or completely wrong. Additionally, their three processors have often processed s one herd here and another herd here and we may get the sirloins for both but we are not getting the Restaurants and retailers have also struggled to get a high quality consistent product from their processors. They recalled instances where products were the wrong weight, or processor s did not follow their cutting instructions. Knowledge . Each part of the value - chain lacks important knowledge that is necessary for the grass - fed beef market to be successful. Distributors wor ried that processors were not familiar with North American Meat Processors Association (NAMP) standards, which they presume could be why they do not process animals consistently. Additionally, distributors themselves recognized that their sales reps do not have adequate knowledge of different beef cuts. Furthermore, many participants explained that their f armer - distributors do not have adequate 102 business knowledge or skills to operate efficiently in a wholesale market or to market their product. Interviews with distributors, restaurants, and retailers all indicated that participants were tion practices. Many restaurants and retailers, and even one distributor seemed unclear about what beef they were selling. Many mis takenly thought that the farmer they bought from finished on grain, whereas that farm produced 100% grass - fed beef. Others mistakenly thought that they were buying grass - fed beef when really they were buying GMO - free grain finished beef. Moreover, partici pants often misused or misunderstood grass - fed terminology. One - fed, does it have to be grass - fed from birth to slaughter? Or can there just be some grass feeding along the way with other stuff, and now you can just stamp gr ass - participants - fed GMO - - Others mistakenly thought that grass - finished products were raised on grain their whole life and then finished on grass kind of recently learned about that, that's where they're probably raised conventionally and then the last... Probably a period of time, I don't know. A couple, few weeks they're finis hed on the Finally all sectors believ ed that consumers do not have adequate know ledge about grass - fed products such as their value, how to cook the products, and what cuts to buy. One retailer - fed. They don't know what it means, they don't know where to get it, and they don't know why they should eat it. It's just a term that's hanging out Additionally, consumers have been raised on conventional beef and thus have unrealistic expectations when it comes to local grass - fed beef products. Many hav e dema n ded fresh 103 products all year and expect all beef to taste like grain - fed products. else and thus are often turned off by local grass - fed beef. Infrastructure . Many participants perceived the dearth of necessary infrastructu re as a major barrier to market expansion. Participants recognized the difficulty in expanding grass - fed beef production due to the expense of buying or expanding farmland and raising cattle, and the lack of adequate space for farmers to raise cattle on gr ass. Additionally, all of the sectors unanimously agreed that the region needs more processing capacity. they need more. USDA plants, there's just not enough of them. We're getting cattle from quite a One restaurant s - fed beef would be on every menu here, if we had a a kill facility for the farmers to access where it's fair for them, and they can get it done re ally the Unique processor barriers . P rocessors have faced many unique challenges to participating in the local grass - fed beef market. Processors have struggled to accommodate d providing desired cuts. For one, customers want to dry age animals longer than processors can afford to store them. Additionally, many grass - fed carcasses do not have the adequate fat cover to be dry aged for the amount of time that customers request. Al so, many customers have wanted specific marketing claims on - USDA certification process. This has strained relations between processors and farmers because many far mers were unaware of this law, and the certification process takes a long time to complete. Additionally, some processors could not process certain cuts that customers asked for due to USDA regulations ; for instance the USDA considers the pancreas inedible . 104 Finally, one processor indicated that finding reliable employees has been quite difficult. tell, they could have a resume that looks great. You can't tell un Many of the employees he has hired were unreliable, not showing up for work, not having a ride work, and letting personal problems get in the way of daily duties . Additionally, the same processor He has looked for someone willing and dependable to take over plant management, but has had no luck thus far. The g rass - fed t rend. - buzzword and will order the product because they associate it w ith being because they assume it i s the highest quality product. Some c hefs and restaurant owners would rather have customers eat the product without preconceived notions of what the product is, and appreciate the value and quality of the product rather than just conforming to a trend. Therefore - the product. Additionally, many restaurants compared the word grass - to overuse and what they see as inadequate regulation of marketing claims. They worry that the same thing will happen to grass - fed , which is another reason why some choose not to advertise their products as such. Survey r esults. Table 10 displays the results of the barrier questions on the Grass - fed Beef Belief Survey. Questions 1 and 2 referred to the difficultly of sourcing grass - fed beef in the region, and the ad equacy of infrastructure to support a local beef market. For question 1, all processors and a majority of retailers agreed or strongly agreed that grass - finished beef i s difficult to source, whereas two distributors felt neutral about this statement and on ly one agreed . 105 Restaurants were mixed in their responses, with hal f agreeing with the statement, two feeling neutral, and four disagreeing or strongly disagreeing. Statement 2 stating that infrastructure in their region cannot support a grass - fed beef mark et produced mixed results within all the sectors. Two processors responded Strongly Disagree or Disagree while one responded that they did agree, and one distributor disagreed whereas two agreed. Retailers were relatively split, with three responding that they st rongly disagreed or disagreed, one feeling neutral, and two agreeing. Finally res taurants were also split, with four strongly disa greeing or disagreeing, three feeling neutral, and five agreeing. The mixed responses to questions 1 and 2 from the sec tors indicate that each individual has experienced different levels of difficultly sourcing local grass - fed beef and thus have different views on the ability of their region to accommodate the market. Questions 3, 4, and 6 dealt with usability and sensory aspects of grass - fed and frozen beef that consumers often take issue with . In general the sectors do not think that grass - fed beef is more difficult to cook than grain - fed beef, with two processors d isagreeing with the statement, one distributor disagreei ng and two feeling neutral, and a majority of restaurants and retailers strongly disagreeing or disagreeing. The majority of processors and retailers do not think that frozen beef (a typical storage method for local beef) or, whereas distributors and res taurants were more mixed, with one distributor d isagreeing with the statement, one feeling neutral and one agreeing, four restaurants strong ly disagreeing or disagreeing, five feeling neutral, and three agreeing. In general, as a m ajority of restaurants disagree or feel neutral, for this group it appears using frozen beef is not an issue. In general, the sectors do not think grass - finished beef has an off flavor, with a majority of processors disagreeing with statement 6, a m ajority of distributors feeling neutral, all retailers strongly disagreeing or disagreeing, and half of restaurants disagreeing or strongly disagreei ng and half 106 feeling neutral. Finally, a majority of processors, distributors, and restaurants disagreed or strongly disagreed with statement 5, that grass - finished beef is too expensive, and half of retailers also disagreed, with one other feeling neutral and two agreeing. Table 10 Frequencies of resp onses to Grass - fed Beef Belief S urvey barriers questions by sector Question SD D N A SA Sector P D R S R T P D R S R T P D R S R T P D R S R T P D R S R T I 1 3 2 2 2 3 1 6 2 2 I I 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 3 1 1 2 5 2 III 5 1 2 1 3 4 2 2 1 1 2 I V 2 2 2 1 1 2 3 1 5 1 3 1 V 1 2 2 7 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 VI 1 3 3 2 3 3 2 6 1 SD, D, N, A, SA in the top row are abbreviations for Strongly Disagree (SD), Disagree (D), Neutral (N), Agree (A), and Strongly Agree (SA). P, D, RS, and RT in the second row are abbreviations of Processor (P), Dis tributor (D), Restaurant (RS), and Retail (RT). Roman numerals I through VI correspond with the following values related questions on the Grass - fed beef Belief Survey (questions 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13 on the actual survey See Appendix A): I. Grass - finished beef is difficult to source in my region. II. Infrastructure in my region cannot adequately support a local beef market. III. Grass - finished beef is more difficult to cook than grain - fed beef. IV. Using frozen beef negatively impacts the flavor of the meat. V. Using grass - fini shed beef is too expensive. VI. Grass - finished beef tends to have an off flavor when compared to conventionally raised beef. Solutions. Although the grass - fed beef market in northwest Lower Michigan faces a number of barriers to growth and success, many stud y participants have developed solutions and their own means of dealing with these barriers. 107 Supply and demand strategies. In order to cope with inconsistent supply and demand, the middle value - chain has developed many strategies that have allowed them to continue using local grass - fed beef. First, ordering ahead, using a frozen product, and substituting for available cuts has allowed restaurants and retailer s to stock up and mitigate problems caused by product scarcity. Some restaurants have put products o n special in order to highlight the local product, but also as a way to use local grass - fed beef without having to depend on consistent supply. Additionally, some restaurants have adapted their menu when their cuts run out. One restaurant buys whole animal s and uses odd, less popular cuts in order to ensure consistent supply. Another restaurant has started raising their own cattle, giving them control over supply for months out of the year. Finally, some retailers that only source a small amount of local gr ass - fed beef have used special order forms since their farmer cannot produce constant supply. Differentiate . Many value - chain partners have distinguished their product, highlighting the farm that raised the animals and the grass - fed production method. Th is has helped to maintain communication with customers, build demand, and educate customers about the value of local grass - fed beef. Value - chain partners have used a number of strategies to differentiate their product, such as educating their staff, listin g product information in menus or on walls, posting information about the farms they source from on their website, or posting brochures in the store or restaurant. One restauranteur has taken differentiation to the next level by raising cattle on site. The restaurant, which is part of a larger complex including an event space, a winery, and a bed and breakfast, has capitalized on reconnecting people to the food that As people eat products grown or raised on site, they can look outside into the gardens or on to the pasture where cattle are grazing. 108 Pricing strategies. The grass - fed beef middle value - chain has developed a number of pricing strategies in order to maintain financial sustainab ility while selling a local grass - fed product and to make their product affordable to their customers. One distributor has used a cost calculator to show potential customers that the price difference between a local grass - fed product and a conventional pro duct is minimal. One processor has determined that they must charge extra for more difficult and time consuming cuts that high - end chefs order. Some restaurants and retailers have bought whole animals or purchased directly from farmers in order to keep the ir costs down. One restaurant has adjusted the prices of other menu items in order to charge a reasonable price for their local grass - fed beef product. Finally, restaurants and retailers have marked - up their local grass - fed beef product less than other ite ms in order to make them affordable to their customers. Vertical i ntegration. Finally, in order to have control and to grow their business, some value - chain members have taken on multiple roles in the value - chain. This study included two farmers that also distribute their product, one processor that also raises cattle, another processor that is also a grocery store, and finally one restaurant that is also a producer. These business es have found that best way for them to grow is to take control of multiple parts of their supply - chain. Summary. The grass - fed beef market faces many barriers to growth and success, although middle - value chain participants have started to implement their own best practices to mitigate the effects of these barriers. Market barrie rs (price, supply and demand inconsistencies, and consumer demand), logistical struggles, quality inconsistencies, processing inconsistencies, lack of grass - fed beef knowledge, infrastructure development, a number of barriers unique to processors , and the lack of grass - fed beef advertising due to the assumption that grass - fed beef is 109 a trend have all been factors working against a viable local grass - fed beef market. The Grass - fed Beef Belief Survey confirms that grass - fed beef has been difficult to source i n the region. Yet the survey indicates that the middle value - chain sectors do not feel strongly as to whether there is infrastructure to adequately support a local beef market, and participants generally disagree that grass - fed beef is expensive, responses that are inconsistent with the interview results. These responses could be explained by the fact that participants have been able to work around these potential barriers and still source the product. Furthermore , common beliefs that grass - fed beef is more difficult to cook, that freezing beef negatively effects the flavor of beef, and that the flavor of grass - fed beef is less desirable than that of grain fed were not upheld by value - chain participants. This is hopeful, for if individuals working within the grass - fed beef sector have perceptions of grass - fed beef. Finally, many middle value - chain participants have developed innovative ways to minimize the negative effects of i nconsistencies between supply and demand, differentiate their product, work around the high price of grass - fed beef, and vertically integrate in order to maximize control of their business. 110 Chapter 5: Conclusions This research set out to assess the midd le value - chain development and subsequent barriers of the grass - fed beef market in northwest Lower Michigan. Despite linear growth and the known health benefits , the national grass - fed beef market still makes up a very sma ll portion of total beef sales . Fu rthermore, there is a dearth of literature examining emerging grass - fed beef markets, particularly the middle part of the value - chain which includes processors, distributors, restaurants, and retailers. Because of this and due to its recent development, th e local and grass - fed beef middle value - chain in northwest Lower Michigan provides an excellent framework for our research objectives. The three research objectives are: 1. What values permeate the local grass - fed beef middle value - chain? 2. What is the nature o f the local grass - fed beef middle value - chain relationships? 3. What are the middle value - - fed beef market? The main findings of this research were laid out in the previous chapter, Chapter 4: Results. This se ction synthesizes these findings in relation to the research questions and the existing literature , highlights the major conclusions, and provides recommendations for practice. Discussion Research Question 1: What Values Permeate the Local Grass - fed Beef Middle Value - chain? This research provides evidence that the local grass - fed beef middle value - chain does indeed share many personal and motivating values. All sectors valued relationships, product characteristics, systemic change , and the value of educati ng customers and consumers about food products . Furthermore, d istributors, restaurants, and retailers discussed how they made business 111 decisions related to local grass - fed beef based on their personal integrity. A key component defining value - chains is the uniting feature of shared personal and business values (Conner et al., 2014; Flaccavento, 200 9; Stevenson & Pirog , 2013). Shared values are an indication of congruity of motivations, goals , and business principals within the value - chain (Diamond , Tropp, B arham, Frain, Kiraly, & Cantrell, 2014) . T hrough value - chain wide recognition and promotion of the distinguishing characteristics of a particular product, in this case local grass - fed beef, the value - chain can successfully build a c ohesive story and bra nd of the product that can be carried on to the consumer (Diamond et al., 2014 ; Lerman, 2012 ) . As the grass - fed beef market is driven by the distinguishing features of the product, shared values between value - chain participants will likely result in a more un ified market force and stronger partners hips as the market continues to develop . Many of the values discerned in this research support past research on values and motivations within the value - chain and alternative food market literature . This research fou nd that product characteristics of grass - fed beef were major motivators for use of the product. Conner et al. (2008b.) , Conner et al. (201 4), Stevenson (2013) and Stevenson and Lev ( 2013) also all identified product characteristics as strong motivating val ues for the value - chain actors that took part in their studies . Additionally, this study has identified a number of restaurant and retailer values motivating their use of local grass - fed beef that align with findings in past studies , such as the desire for systemic change (Dunne et al., 2011; Local Food Research Center, 2012) the desire to support existing relationship s (Curtis & Cowee, 2009; Dunne et al., 2011; Inwood et al., 2009) , an appreciation of product characteristics (Curtis & Cowee, 2009; Curtis e t al., 2008; Duram & Cawley, 2012 ) , and education (Conner et al., 2014) . 112 Many restaurants and the regional distributor displayed evidence of social embeddedness , a theme that has been identified in other value - chain and alternative food market case - studie s (Conner et al., 2014; Falat, 2011; Hinrich, 2000; Sage, 2003). By incorporating their social values into their market decisions, it is likely that some businesses participating in the local grass - fed beef market are able to overcome the price barriers th at many identified as being present in the grass - fed beef market, allowing them to help expand the market. Conner et al. (2014) came to a similar conclusion ab out the Vermont FTI value - chain which was able to overcome some price barriers by placing more va lue on community goals. However, social embeddedness can only go so far in balancing out value and price . With the grass - fed beef middle value - chain , m any restaurants and some retailers value d the local grass - fed beef product and the associated social benef its, yet they admit that they would buy more if the product were less expensive. Although restaurants were the only sector to discuss their reverence for farms and farming, it is important to note the relevance of this finding in relation to the tourism based region where this study was conducted. A number of the counties included in this study are situated on Lake Michigan and featur e tourist attracting landscapes such as Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore and rolling hills of wineries and cherry far ms . A s regional food systems continue to grow, these landscapes are increasingly including bucolic agricultural land . Chefs and restaurant owners in this study have indicated an appreciation for the farming tradition associated with raising grass - fed beef and the resulting beautiful farmland. Thus it is important to note the potential aesthetic contribution and desirability of pastureland in this heavy tourist region over the alternative of confined animal feeding operations. 113 Despite the similarities betwe en this research and the value - chain literature , other studies on local meat and local food r ecognize environmental stewardship as a motivating value for producers (Conner et al., 2008b; Stevenson & Lev, 2013), as well as retailers and restaurants (Curtis & Cowee, 2009; Dunne et al., 2001; Murphy & Smith, 2011; Starr et al., 2003). In the case of the local grass - fed beef middle - value chain examined in this study, environmental values were widely spread, with some possessing a strong environmental worldview and others with much lower NEP scores signifying acceptance of a socially dominant worldview . Additionally, only 3 restaurants and 3 retailers mention ed environm ental stewardship in relation to grass - fed and local food during their interviews . Thus althoug h environmental motivations may be present for some in the value - chain, this was not a commonly shared value within or across sectors. Considering the strong potential for environmental stewardship to be upheld by grass - fed beef producers, it is surprising that this theme was not more prevalent in the findings. This may be due to a lack of knowledge of the environme ntal benefits of grass - fed beef, indicating the need for market wide education on the topic. In addition, this research extends beyond past res earch on meat centric value - chains by evaluating the values and motivations of processors. Although the processors do share some values with the rest of the value - chain , such as acknowledging unique grass - fed beef product characteristics and valuing their relationships with their stakeholders , the processors in this study described themselves as being less involved than the other sectors or disconnected from the value - chain framework. T hey see themselves as simply providing a service at a fixed cost that th ey would continue providing with or without local grass - fed beef customers. In a sense, p rocessing is a detour in the route of the grass - fed beef product from farm to table . Yet processing is essential to the grass - fed beef system, and the entire market re lies on a successful 114 processing operation, making processing a lynchpin in the system. As the results of this study indicate, a lack of processing infrastructure and poor quality processed products are noted barriers to achieving a successful grass - fed bee f market in the region. Therefore although the processors themselves may not be as invested in the grass - fed beef market or feel as personally connected to the value - chain as the other sectors , ensuri ng that the processing sector can accommodate a growing grass - fed beef market in terms of processing capacity and maintaining a high quality, consistent processed product is necessary for market success. Research Question 2: What is the Nature of the Local Grass - Fed Beef Middle Value - Chain Relationships? In ex amining the nature of the local grass - fed beef value - chain relationships, this research identified value - chain relationships as long - term, flexible, equitable, facilitated, mutually beneficial, transparent, communicative, and trusting. Although these posit ive relationship traits were prominent throughout this research, participants also identified instances where these traits were not present, causing problems between value - chain partners. There was evidence that some relationships were short - lived rather t han long - term; that some value - chain partners were inflexible; that price equity was not always achieved; and that value - chain partners struggled to maintain open communication, transparency, and trust. Similarities between this research and the existing l iterature on value - chains and alternative food markets indicate that the local grass - fed beef market in northwest Lower Michigan does operate with in a value - chain framework and has found success by adopting key value - chain characteristics. Further more, the literature indicates that the local grass - fed beef middle value - chain is not alone in their struggles to build successful partnerships. Most importantly, recognizing the particular relationship weaknesses within this value - chain presents opportunities to strengthen value - chain relationships, thus strengthening the market. 115 R elationship characteristics present in this value - chain align with the value - chain literature as well as examples of best practices identified in alternative food market literature . Th is research identified most value - chain relationships as being long - term and committed, characterized by open communication, transparency about business practices , and trust, which have also been identified in key value - chain literature as defining value - c hain traits (Stevenson & Pirog , 2013). Additionally, participants in this study described their attempts at profit fairness by keeping prices reasonable for consumers and by paying fair prices to farmers for the product. This finding supports a number of v alue - chain case - studies that identify the achievement of price equity as a major component of successful value - chains (Stevenson, 2013; Stevenson & Lev, 2013; Stevenson & Pirog, 2013). A number of participants also described their relationships as mutually supportive and beneficial , where business partners went out of their way to help each other when needed, ensuring not only further success of their business partners but also of themselves. Actions of mutual benefit indicating the interconnectedness and c ollaborative nature of value - chains have been acknowledged as a major characteristic of value - chains explored in the literature (Hardest et al., 2014; Jablonski et al., 2011; McCallum et al., 2014). Finally, many case studies acknowledge the need for value - chains and alternative food markets to be facilitated by one key partner (Day - Farnsworth et al ., 2009; Diamond & Barham, 2011 ; Stevenson, 2013; Stevenson & Lev, 2013) . The necessity of these key partners was also exhibited in this research. The local gras s - fed beef middle value - chain was typically facilitated by either d istributors and/or retailers , who were active in securing the grass - fed beef product from farmers, coordinating with processors, and handling the logistics of transportation and storage. I n contrast , this research identified many relationship challenges between value - chain partners. Although not the norm, these challenges have caused tensions between value - chain 116 partners and pose a threat to further development of the value - chain. Instances of i nadequate and ineffective communication between value - chain partners has caused dissatisfaction of relationships and has decreased the effectiveness of the value - chain. In addition, interview data suggests some l ack of transparency between value - chain partners, particularly regarding grass - fed beef production practices and the pricing of products by others in the value - chain. A number of individuals in the value - chain could not accurately identify the production practices of their farmers, mistaking a 100% grass - fed product for a grain - finished product and vice - versa. This phenomena was identified by the research er after talking t o many restaurants and retailers that bought grass - fed beef , and distributors and producers selling the product. W ithout expl icitly asking each value - chain partner about the nature of this discrepancy (which could not be done in this research in order to maintain confidentiality) , the root cause behind this misunderstanding cannot be fully known. Yet through extensive conversati ons with the research participants it has been concluded that this problem can partially be attributed to a lack of transparency between value - chain partners (whether purposeful or not) about the practices used to raise the grass - fed beef. There was additi onal evidence of inadequate transparency regarding the pricing practices of certain value - mistrust within the grass - fed beef market. These findings support the value - chain li terature regarding challenges m aintaining communication (Conner et al., 2008b.; Curtis & Cowee, 2009; Day - Farnsworth et al., 2009 ), transparency, trust (Stevenson & Pirog , 2013). Some participants in this study felt that price equity was not being achiev ed within the value - chain, referring to their inability to afford certain local grass - fed beef products and the feeling that others in the value - chain were charging unfair prices. This finding aligns with the literature that identifies achieving profit equ ity as a challenge when establishing value - chains 117 ( Conner et al., 2014; Stevenson et al., 2011; Stevenson & Pirog , 2013). Additionally, this research identified inflexibility as hindering market growth, terminating value - chain partnerships, or causing tens ions between current value - chain partners. A lthough not directly described as inflexibility in the literature , it can be deduced that some problems in emerging alternative food markets derive from the inflexibility of restaurants to alter their current pra ctices (Reynolds & Fields, 2011; Schmit & Ha dock, 2003; Star et al., 2003). Finally, due to the previously mentioned relationship struggles, some value - chain partnerships were not committed, but rather short - term. Research Question 3: What are the Middle V alue - Viable Local Grass - Fed Beef Market? This researched uncovered a number of barriers experienced by the local grass - fed beef middle value - chain in northwest Lower Michigan . The major barriers to market expansion identifie d in this research were high prices , inconsistencies between supply and demand, lack of customer demand, logistical problems, inconsistent and poor quality product, processor inconsistencies, lack of knowledge about the product, lack of necessary infrastru cture, a number of barriers unique to the processing sector , and a lack of promotion of the grass - fed product due to the belief that grass - fed beef is seen as a trend . As previously mentioned, although this research indicates that social embeddedness influ ences some participants in the middle value - chain to source local grass - fed beef, price is still a factor to many. High prices of grass - fed beef have made it difficult for distributors to expand their customer base, and some restaurants and retailers find certain cuts cost prohibitive , preventing them from expanding their grass - fed beef sourcing . In addition to high prices, participant s have acknowledged inconsistent supply and availability of the local grass - fed beef product. It is likely that this barrier has a number of causes. Many indicate the need for 118 additional grass - fed beef producers in the region. The deficit in producers may also be influenced by another barrier, a lack of processing infrastructure, which may deter some farmers from expanding prod uction and others from entering the market. Additionally, due to the conventional nature of our food system, there is high demand for some cuts while farmers and distributors have trouble selling less popular cuts, resulting in inadequate supply of some cu ts and a surplus of others. The barriers of high price (Conner et al., 2008; Inwood et al., 2009; Star et al., 2003) and inadequate supply (Conner et al., 2008; Curtis & Cowee, 2009; Dunne et al., 2011) are echoed in the literature on alternative food mark ets which cite these challenges as deterrents from entering alternative markets and struggles of those participating in such markets. This research found that many individuals in the local grass - fed beef value - chain struggled with logistical challenges re lating to coordination of the supply chain, such as sched uling with value - chain partners and finding the time to participate in a local market which requires more time than sourc ing from conventional markets. This finding supports existing literature on al ternative food market challenges which also cite logistical challenges as a barrier to market success (Reynolds & Fields, 2011; Schmit & Haddock, 2003; Stevenson, 2013). Some logistical problems may be reflective of poor communication and a lack of flexibi lity within the value - chain . B ecause this is an emerging market, it is likely t hat current supply chain processes have not reached desirable levels of efficiency. A unique logistical problem not accounted for in the literature indicates that certain types of restaurants may have more difficulty using local meat than others. This finding comes from one restaurant that is highly dependent on lunch meat which is logistic ally challenging to fabricate at a local level. This challenge could potentially be an oppo rtunity for small processing plants to expand business by offer ing services such as processing lunch meat . 119 A number of barriers identified by participants revolved around the processing sector including a lack of processing infrastructure, inconsistencies in the processed product, and specific processor experienced barriers. All sectors participating in this study acknowledged the need for additional processing capacity in the region, which supports findings in other evolving niche meat market studies (Conn er et al., 2008b; Gwi n et al., 2013; Joannides, 2013 ). The market cannot continue to expand without processing facilities within a reasonable distance of farmers. A lack of grass - fed beef producers in certain counties included in this study could be partia lly reflective of the long distances pro ducers would have to travel to the nearest processing facility. Additionally, distributors, restaurants, and retailers have all struggled to get a consistent ly high quality product from their processors , with some cu ts poorly trimmed or sloppily cut, other s incorrectly labeled, or with processors delivering a completely wrong cut . Although not a common finding among the niche meat literature, Sleeping Lion Associates (2005) does find a similar result in their study. I t was also speculated by one participant that processors lack knowledge of the NAMP processing guidelines, resulting in wrong or inconsistent cuts. Finally, processors themselves have identified their own unique barriers to participating in the local grass - fed beef market. In one case, a processor has struggled to maintain a consistent workforce, a finding that supports other literature on niche meat processing (Conner et al., 2008b; Dickenson et al., 2013; Johnson et al., 2012). Additionally, processors ha ve found it difficult to fulfill certain customer requests for d ry aging time, carcass storag e , and processing specific cuts. The previously mentioned findings all effect the development of the market and support evidence from the literature on barriers to alternative food markets. However a number of findings differed from barriers described in the literature or have not been noted in the literature. First previous research shows that processors struggle to maintain consistent supply of animals 120 from loca l farmers, which hinders their business growth (eXtension, 2015; Gwin et al., 2011; Gwin et al., 2013; Johnson et al., 2012 ) . Inconsistent supply was not menti oned as a barrier for processor participants during this research . This could be because the proc essors interviewed as part of this study are well established and all process many different types of locally raised animals. Additional challenges identified by this research that are not present in other studies include l ow customer demand, problems cau sed by inconsistent animal quality , inconsistencies between processors, lack of knowledge about the product within the value - chain , and problems with labeling marketing claims. Certain restaurants and retailers that participated in this study said that the y would source more local grass - fed beef if there was more demand from their consumer base. Additionally, processors and distributors particularly struggle with the inconsistent quality between different fa rms, with some farms producing very high quality a nimals and others producing low quality, very lean animals. This prevents substitutability of products when farms run out of certain cuts , and can result in mixed consumer perceptions of grass - fed beef. Quality differences could be the result of different production practices, different land characteristics, and in some cases a lack of production knowledge. In addition to inconsistencies in animal quality, a number of participants noted inconsistencies in the processed product. T he same cuts from different processors are not consistent, again preventing substitutability. Although the source behind these inconsistencies is unclear, it is possible that different qualities of the grass - fed animals themselves could adversely affect the end product coming from th e processor. Surprisingly , there was a dearth of knowledge about local grass - fed beef and the market throughout the entire value - chain. There were speculations that processors did not know the 121 NAMP standards, some distributors were unfamiliar with differe nt beef cuts, and farmer - distributors often did not have adequate business experience. In addition a large proportion of participants were unsure of the definitions and variations of grass - fed beef and did not know or misunderstood the production practices used to raise the beef they sold. P rocessors explained a number of difficulties involved in labeling grass - fed beef with marketing claims. The process for applying for the use of marketing claims is cumbersome for the farmers and processors to execute, a nd many producers do not have adequate knowledge of such regulations which results in unrealistic labeling expectation s . One final barrier not explored in the literature is the belief that grass - fed beef is a trend and the subsequent lack of advertising o f the grass - fed production practice. Chefs were worried that customers would see th - and choose to purchase the item due to its name value, to show off for friends , or in order to be trendy. Chefs wanted customers to buy their product because of the value and the quality rather than blindly purchasing something due to empty name recognition. Additionally, chefs were worried that by playing into the grass - fed trend, they would perpetuate overuse of the term, which would eventual ly contribute to the decline of grass - fed beef popularity. Therefore, some chefs choose not to promote grass - fed, with some focusing only on the local characteristic of the product. This was an unexpected finding, as the term grass - fed is a way to inform c ustomers of the many benefits of that product. One may think that to grow the grass - fed beef market it would be necessary to inform consumers that the product is grass - fed. Potentially these chefs assumed that their customers more highly valued the localn ess of the product and were not worried about losing customers by not advertising grass - fed. Or, perhaps chefs without financial woes can afford not to promote such products and rather rely on their customers discerning pallets to grow the market. Regardl ess, this lack of advertising 122 could be a barrier to growing the grass - fed beef market by downplaying the importance of grass - feeding as a production practice. Customer s that may be looking for a grass - fed product may not order beef on menus that do not pro mote their product as grass - fed. Or, customers that really enjoy a beef product at a restaurant serving grass - fed beef may not realize the product is grass - fed and therefore may not realize their appreciation of grass - fed beef. Many of these previously unr ecognized barriers could be unique to the local grass - fed beef value - chain participants in northwest Lower Michigan. Or, they may not have been previously identified because there have been very few comprehensive studies examining more than one sector with in a value - chain, i.e. many previous studies have looked at value - chains and alternative meat markets from the perspective of only one sector. Although the barriers experienced by the value - chain certainly effect ability to participate fully in the market , participants described cases of innovation that have allowed them to overcome some of these barriers. Many have developed their own means of dealing with inconsistent supply , such as buying large quantities of beef in advance and freezing p roduct, using off cuts, altering menus when cuts run out, putting grass - fed beef on special rather than on their base menu, using special order forms for retail grass - fed beef, and in one case a restaurant has begun raising their own beef . Additionally, ma ny use product differentiation to educate their consumers about grass - fed beef and to explain the higher prices of local grass - fed beef product s . Differentiation has been a successful practice for other value - chains and alternative food markets ( Conner et al. 2008b; McCann & Montabon, 2012; Murphy & Smith, 2011; Stevenson, 2013; Stevenson & Lev, 2013). Value - chain actors have developed their own pricing strategies to make their local grass - fed beef product affordable while still making what they need to sur vive , with processors charging more for more difficult cuts, distributors using a cost calculator to compare 123 grass - fed to conventional prices, restaurants and retailers buying whole animals rather than more expensive individual cuts, and restaurants and re tailers marking up local grass - fed beef less than they would conventional beef . And finally, many businesses played multiple roles in the value - chain in order t o have more control over the supply chain. This is a common practice within the value - chain lite rature, with alternative meat producers often also distributing or retailing their product (Stevenson, 2013; Stevenson & Lev, 2013). Although these best practices may not be directly transferable to others in the value - chain or to other alternative meat va lue - c hains, they may be adapted to other circumstances and used as a jumping off point for value - chain improvements. Conclusions and Recommendations The following summarizes the key findings from this research and provides recommendations to address these findings. This research presents evidence that the local grass - fed beef middle value - chain in Lower northwest Michigan possess a number of characteristics also found in successful value - chains identified in the literature . The grass - fed beef middle value - chain explored in this study shares a number of values indicating similar motivations for participating in the local grass - fed beef market and similar business philosophies. Additi onally, the middle value - chain is generally comprised of long - term, committe d, mutually beneficial relationships characterized by flexibility, the desire for profit equity, transparency, communication, and trust. did not adhere to a value - chain framework. Cases of short - term relationships, inflexibility, the feeling that price equity was not being achieved, poor communication, lack of transparency, and resulting distrust indicate that the value - chain needs to be strengthened in some areas . It is recommended that the value - chain further explore what it means to operate as a value - chain and 124 the benefits of collaborating with a value - chain so that processors, distributors, restaurants, and retailers can further capitalize on their shared values and positive relation ship characteristics, and work together to further identify wea knesses within the value - chain. Strengthening of the value - chain structure a nd relationship ties could also help to alleviate logistical issues through improved awareness and communication. Thi s can be done through the initiation of value - chain meetings. Partners should meet regularly to discuss their current business strategies, collaboration (including what is working and what is not working), and to brainstorm barriers the partners are curren tly facing. One area of discordance in the middle value - chain was variations in environmental motivations and environmental worldviews . Participants within and between sectors had widely varying NEP scores indicating environmental worldviews of various st rengths. Moreover only 3 restaurants and 3 retailers mentioned the environment as a motivation for sourcing local grass - fed beef. Because grass - fed beef has the potential to be a more ecologically sound method of producing beef over conventional practices, it is surprising that this was not a more common theme throughout the interviews. It is possible that the other product characteristics of grass - fed beef and other shared values are more important to these participants than environmental impact, and thus regardless of dichotomous environmental worldviews, participants are united by other factors. This result indicates that there is a need for value - chain wide education on the environmental benefits of grass - fed beef. The relationship between the processi ng sector and the rest of the value - chain is important to take note of as the value - chain and market contin ue to develop. Although the processors do share some of the same values as the rest of the value - chain, during interviews they explained that they di d not feel as though they were part of the value - chain, rather they 125 provide a necessary service and are not specifically invested in grass - fed beef. Despite this feeling of separation, the processing sector plays an essential role in the growth of the gras s - fed beef market and as the previous results show a number of barriers to market growth cent er around processing. There is general consensus that there is a need for additional processing facilities in northwest Michigan in order to exp and the market. Als o, there are reports of inconsistency in the quality of the processed product, with different processors producing different versions of the same cut and processors cutting poorly. Finally, processors themselves have unique struggles with the grass - fed bee f market, with customers requesting unreasonable storage and aging times , and with marketing claims. There is a need to better connect processors to the value - chain in order to invest t hem in the future of the grass - fed beef market. Additionally, considering the imperative role that processors play in making the product available to consumers, it is necessary for the value - chain to mitigate the barriers associated with processing includi ng : working to increase the capacity of current pr ocessing facilities and/ or encouraging new proc essing facilities to open; working with processors to determine the root cause of the cut inconsistencies and quality issues that distributors, restaurants, an d retailers have encountered; and encourag ing communication between processors and their customers to alleviate the unique processor experienced barriers. The most notable and potentially impactful barriers experienced by the local grass - fed beef value - ch ain are inconsiste ncies between supply and demand, value - chain knowledge , and the lack of processing infrastructure mentioned in the previous paragraph . A lack of adequate supply will literally prevent market growth, and if restaurants and retailers contin ue to only demand prime cuts and ground beef, farmers will lose money and valuable cuts will be wasted. Furthermore the conventional mindset that end - users can get the cuts they want in whatever 126 quantity they want will be perpetuated, resulting in an unsus tainable market. One possible solution to s upply quantity and consistency problems would be to institute farmer cooperatives. Cooperatives would allow farmers to combine resources such as marketing, financial management, or equipment costs , and share valua ble knowledge. Furthermore if farmers created a cooperative, they could align production practices and follow cooperative defined standards, which woul d improve product consistency. This would alleviate problems of substitutability, as the cooperative woul d likely produce more product than single farms and the product would have a more uniform quality. Additionally, s ome restaurants in this study have already started using off cuts and other restaurants and retailers are buying whole animals from their loca l farmers. Yet this is not the norm. Education is necessary to educate chefs and retailers about how to prepare and sell the less desirable primal s , and for consumers to inform them about the culinary benefits of less familiar cuts. Preliminary e fforts are already being made to promote the use of value - added beef cuts to culinary, retail, and distribution professional s by Michigan State University and Michigan State University Extension. Further work on this front could increase carcass utilization and redu ce dependency on traditionally popular prime cuts. T he lack of market knowledge about grass - fed beef and associated terminology will hurt market development. How can the middle value - chain know what they are selling? C urrently some distributors, restaurants, and retailers are misrepresenting the product they are selling because they do not know the actual production practices of their farmer, confusing grass - fed beef with grain - fed, and grain - finished for grass - fed. Man y participants in the study did not know the definition of grass - fed or of other associated terms such as grass - finished. Because grass - fed beef markets are dependent on the distinguishing characteristics of the product, such as health benefits and improve d animal welfare, it is 127 important that the product is advertise d accurately. E ducation about grass - fed beef is needed throughout the middle value - chain. Michigan State University Extension is a knowledge able resource on grass - fed beef, and the program has potential to lead an educational campaign for the local grass - fed beef middle value - chain, creating documentation defining grass - fed beef, describing production practices, and explaining associated marketing claims and regulations . Additionally, grass - fed beef farmers can make efforts to better educate their customers and consumer s about grass - fed beef . For instance, they could organize educational demons trations about grass - fed beef which could include information about production techniques, benefits of t he product, and environmental stewardship practices. Finally , based on comments made during the interviews, additional value - chain training may be beneficial. Farmer education about marketing and business skills could improve many of the logistical proble ms encountered by participants, and could help to grow the grass - fed beef market by giving farmers the tools necessary to advertise . Business and marketing schoo ls in local universities could partner with E xtension to provide this important training. Addit ionally, based on comments regarding processor inconsistencies, NAMP training for processors may be useful. One distributor explained that they hoped to find grant funding to implement such training for their processor partners. Future Research Two them es arose during this research which were not discussed in the results because they did not directly answer any of the research questions. Yet if explored further these themes could provide valuable information about developing grass - fed beef markets. 128 Firs t, most value - - based food supply the definition they agreed that their relationships with their grass - fed be ef partners fit the description. The fact that these businesses had never heard the term before indicates a potential disconnect between academic research on value - - experiences. I t would be interesting for future research to explore this disconnect and the potential ramifications. In addition , some participants assumed that others in the market were falsely advertising local and grass - fed products. One farmer - distributor claimed that another beef producer in the area was falsely advertising his product as natural when he uses antibiotics and that another claim s his products are grass - fed when actually his cattle have never seen grass. Also, a s one restaurant - owner shared, they are aware of a few local restaurants that fals ely advertise that they are selling local food products. Although there was not enough evidence in this research to claim dishonesty in the market, future research could explore the effects that false advertising could have on market success. Our understan ding of evolving grass - fed beef and other alternative food markets could be expanded through further research. First, this research indicated that environmental values were not strong motivators for the local grass - fed beef middle value - chain, despite the potential for grass - fed beef to improve environmental sustainability. Future research could more directly explore the environmental beliefs and motivations of the grass - fed beef value - chain in order to better understand the role of environmental values in the market. Furthermore, future studies may benefit by understanding the perceptions of non - value - chain participants, potentially illuminating market entry barriers. Additional research could explore the choice not to market 129 g ras s - fed beef products due to the assumption that grass - fed beef is a trend. Such research could explore whether or not restaurants in other grass - fed beef value - chains feel similarly, and whether this lack of advertising could harm the development of the grass - fed beef market. This ex ploratory study could serve as a baseline for more standardized research by using the findings to create surveys specifically focused on personal and motivating values, relationship characteristics, and market barriers. Finally, as mentioned in Chapter 4, the themes of financial sustainability with all sectors, inherent value of farms and farming with distributors, processors, and retailers, and community unity with restaurants were mentioned in interviews in regards to values, but were too space to include in the results. Future studies may want to explore these themes in relation to shared values further. Overall, this research found that the local grass - fed beef middle value - chain in northwest Lower Michigan shares values and has developed committed and productive working relationships. This research also identifies suggestions for relationship improvements and the need for market improve ments in order to further grow the local grass - fed beef market. This research contributes to the broader literature of values - based food supply - chains and alternative meat food systems by identifying general value - chain and alternative food market barriers that are likely relevant to other evolving markets. Further it lays way to additional studies concerning potential ba rriers to local grass - fed beef markets, such as the desire to withhold marketing claims so as not to perpetuate trends , which will in turn deepen our understanding of evolving local and alternative food systems, contributing to a more sustainable grass - fed be ef market and local food system. 130 APPENDIC ES 131 APPENDIX A Survey 132 Informed Consent Study Title : Exploration of the Local Grass - fed Beef Middle Value - chain in Northwest Lower Michigan Researcher and Title : Emma Strong, Graduate Research Assistant Depa rtment and Institution : Department of Community Sustainability, Michigan State University Research Project and Participant Involvement: purpose of understan ding the grass - fed beef value - chain in northwest Lower Michigan. You must be at least 18 years old to participate in this research. - on - one interview. The research er may ask that you participate in a follow - up interview that could take the form of email, a telephone call, or an in person interview. The initial interview will take approximately 45 minutes to 1 hour and will be digitally recorded. If requested, the re cording and the findings of this research will be shared with participants. At the end of this study, the audio files from the interview will be destroyed. Potential benefits and risks: Participation in this study and study results could positively impact the local food supply chain. There are minimal professional and social risks for participants if they share sensitive information during the interview or in the survey if this information is seen by others, however, the researcher will do everything they can to safeguard the confidentiality of these data. Confidentiality: To protect your privacy, to reduce any possible risks, and to ensure confidentiality, identifiers from the interview and surveys will be removed once data is recorded. An alias will be used on all discussion notes and in any other documents resulting from this research. Additionally, all documents relating to the participant will be stored in a locked filing cabinet and a password protected computer. Information about you will be kept co nfidential to the maximum extent allowable by law. Surveys and audio - recordings will be destroyed at the end of this study. 133 Rights: Participation in this research project is completely voluntary. You have the right to say no. You may change your mind at a ny time and withdraw. You may choose not to answer specific questions or to stop participating at any time. You will not receive money or any other form of compensation for participating in this study. If you have concerns or questions about this study, s uch as scientific issues, how to do any part of it, or to report an injury, please contact the researcher, Emma Strong at: Emma Strong 310 Natural Resources Building East Lansing, MI 48824 412 - 901 - 6150 stronge3@msu.ed u If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan Sta Protection Program at 517 - 355 - 2180, Fax 517 - 432 - 4503, or e - mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail at Olds Hall, 408 West Circle Drive #207, MSU, East Lansing, MI, 48824. You indicate your agreement by participating in this study. 134 Part I: Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following belief statements about locally produced grass - finished beef (Please select one response for each question): Table 11: Grass - fed beef Belief Survey given to participants Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Grass - finished beef has no health benefits over conventional grain - finished beef. Grass - finished beef systems result in improved animal welfare conditions over conventional systems. Serving locally rai sed beef in restaurants improves the local economy. It is important to support local beef farmers by using their beef in my establishment. Grass - finished beef is difficult to source in my region. Infrastructure in my region cannot adequat ely support a local beef market. Grass - finished beef is more difficult to cook than grain - finished beef. Using frozen beef negatively impacts the flavor of the meat. Using grass - finished beef is too expensive. 135 Ta ble 1 1 (cont d) It is important to kno w who raised the beef sold at my establishment. It is important to know the production practices used to raise the beef sold at my establishment. It is not important to educate my consumers about where our beef is sourced. Grass - finished beef tends to have an off flavor when compared to conventionally raised beef. 136 Part II: Based on your own attitudes, please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements. (Please select one response for each question): Tab le 12: New Ecological Paradigm Survey given to participants Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support. Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs. When humans interfere with nature, it often produces disastrous consequences. Human ingenuity will insure that we do not make the earth unlivable. Humans are severely abusing the earth. The earth has plenty of n atural resources if we just learn how to develop them. Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist. The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations. Despite our special abilities, humans are still subject to the laws of nature. 137 Table 12 (cont d) The so - called "ecological crisis" facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated. The earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources. Humans were meant to rule over the rest o f nature. The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset. Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it. If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major environmen tal catastrophe. 138 Part III: Please answer all of the following short answer questions. Provide as much detail as you need to explain your answer. Do not skip any questions. please try, and then explain what you had trouble with. 1. Are you familiar with the term value - chain? a. If yes, how would you describe what a value - chain is? b. If no, proceed to the next question. The Agriculture of the Middle provides the following definition for value - chains: Values b ased food supply chains are strategic business alliances among farms/ranches of the middle ( midsized farms) and other agrifood enterprises that: (a) handle significant volumes of high - quality, differentiated food products, (b) operate effectively at multi - state, regional levels, and (c) distribute profits equitably among the strategic partners. Values - based supply chain business models place emphasis on both the values associated with the food and on the values associated with the business relationships wit hin the food supply chain. The literature on values based food supply chains distinguishes value - chains from traditional supply chains. Conventional supply chains tend to operate under win - lose conditions where business partners try to maximize their i ndividual profit by purchasing for less and selling for more. Typically welfare and profits are not distributed equally throughout the supply chain. 2. After reading this definition, would you describe the relationships you have with your local grass - fed bee - a. If yes, why? b. If no, why not? 3. Who are your value - chain partners and what role do they play in the value - chain? a. How did you and your value - chain partners begin working together? b. Is there one individual or business tha t coordinates your value - chain? c. How often do you communicate/interact with your value - chain partners? i. In general, what is the purpose of these interactions? ii. What methods do you and your value - chain partners use to communicate (e.g. phone, email, in person meetings)? 4. Is trust a dominant feature in your relationships with your value - chain partners? i. If yes, please explain, giving details. ii. If no, please explain why not. 5. How are prices determined for your local grass - fed beef product? a. Do you make pricing decisi ons alone or with your value - chain partners? Please explain. 6. Do you and your value - chain partners make attempts to differentiate your product (distinguish it from other products)? a. How? 139 b. Is this something that only you do, or is differentiation upheld throu ghout the value - chain? 7. Do you maintain a connection to the farmer that raised the local grass - fed beef you sell? a. If so, how? b. Is this connection maintained throughout the entire value - chain? 8. What is the biggest challenge in working/conducting business wit h your value - chain partners? 140 APPENDIX B Interview Guide 141 Interview Guide Can you tell me about when you started using locally raised grass - fed beef? Influences, reasons, goals? How was/is your experience? What do you think of your local grass - fed be ef use? (is it working/not working? Why purchase local grass - fed beef?) Does _______________ have core values - listed in your business plan? What role do your core values play? How would you describe customer demand for this product? Customer reaction to your selling of this product? Thinking about your use of local grass - fed beef, what is working? (Relationships, sourcing, selling, etc). Was it always successful? what are the biggest hurdles to selling local grass - fed beef? How do you think these can be overcome? What do you see as the biggest barrier regionally (not just things you have experienced) to a successful local grass - fed beef market? What do you think is most successful about the local grass - fed beef movemen t in this region? If you were to advise other (distributors, processors, restaurants, retailers) beginning to use local grass - fed beef, what advice would you give them? Is there any kind of outside support you would want for your business in dealing with l ocal grass - fed beef? 142 APPENDIX C Codebook Sample 143 Table 13: Codebook RQ1 What values permeate the local grass - fed beef value - chain Theme Code Definition Rule for applying code Example of when to Apply Code Decentralizatio n of Food System Decentralize Value - chain participants want to grow regional food systems to aid in decentralizing the national food system and to establish a food secure Michigan Apply to data referring to value - chain participants desire to create a more resilient MI food system that is self - reliant and insulted from national food crises. - a distributor wants to strengthen the Michigan food system while decreasing dependence on the national food system Growing MI Ag economy Economy Value - chain participants are motivated to help impro ve and economy in order to support MI farmers and grow the MI economy Apply to data referring to value - chain participants valuing the impact of local food can have in improving the MI economy. - desire to be an incubator for lo cal food - desire to support struggling MI farmers Education Ed Value - chain participants value the opportunity to educate consumers/customers about the food they eat and agriculture Apply to data that references a participants desire to educate their custo mers, the actual practice of educating their customers, and claims that food or agricultural education is an important feature of their business. - a retailer values the ability to educate customers about the food they eat Financial Sustainability Finance Value - chain participants value stability and consider this when making purchasing decisions, making sure the cost is not more than the benefits Apply to data referring to value - chain participants making purchasing decisions based on price, comparing the economic value of the product they are buying - is the quality worth the price? - comparing the quality they get for the price Relationships Relationship Value - chain participants are motivated to source local and grass - fed due to pr evious relationships and/or find value in particular relationships Apply to data which talks about value - chain participants drive to participate in the market due to some prior relationships of importance and their general valuing of relationships such as their desire to maintain good relationships with customer, which can lead to repeat customers - started sourcing g - f because one doing themselves - having a connection with a distributor - being friends with farmers - being a t rusted source for consumers 144 APPENDIX D Summary Statement Sample 145 RQ1: What values permeate the local grass - fed beef value - chain DECENTRALIZE: Value - chain participants want to grow regional food systems to aid in decentralizing the national food system an d to establish a food secure Michigan D1 (and his distribution company) wants Michigan to have a self - sustaining and resilient food system that is not dependent on the national, centralized food economy and production system. This gives D1 a different pers pective on processor inconsistencies they are trying to get away from the mass - produced identical products. II , Strength strong (clearly impt part of their business philosophy) ECONOMY: Value - agricultural scene and economy in order to support MI farmers and grow the MI economy D1 (and company) want to support and regrow mid - sized farming agricultural base in MI and wants MI grown food to be available for consumption by MI consumers. 20% by 202 0 IIII, Strength very strong (focus on growing that farming community more focused on the supporting the ag and farmers than the economy in general) EDUCATION: Value - chain participants value the opportunity to educate consumers/customers about the food they eat and agriculture FINANCE: Value - when making purchasing decisions, making sure the cost is not more than the benefits D1 notes that while they want to pay the best rates they can while still making enough to survive as a business. I, Strength, somewhat weak (only mentioned once basically must make enough to stay afloat) RELATIONSHIPS: Value - chain participants are motivated to source local and grass - fed due to previous r elationships and/or find value in particular relationships D1 (and company) started sourcing local grass - fed because their customers had been asking for the product. They were particularly driven by their relationships with co - ops who wanted to have the pr oduct but could not handle the risk of dealing with local meat (storage and other logistics). II, Strength, strong (values their relationships with their customers and started sourcing to support them). FARM: Value - chain participants inherently value farme rs/farming. COMMUNITY: Buying local helps to create a unified community PRODUCT: Value - chain participants value particular characteristics about the grass - fed or local food product. 146 D1values values animal welfare (ensuring a high quality of life for the an imals), the human health benefits of grass - fed (vs. conventional) products, and the higher quality of local (MI) sourced food products. more so the ECONOMY code, but he still finds value here) 147 APPENDIX E Visual display 148 strong Ok weak RQ1: What values permeate the local grass - fed beef value - chain Table 14: Visual Display Distributor Processor Restaurant Retail DECENTRALIZE: Value - chain participants want to gro w regional food systems to aid in decentralizing the national food system and to establish a food secure Michigan D1, 2: Mission is to build a self - sustaining, resilient, and socially just food system. They want to increase the ability to provide food wit hin the state and decrease dependence on the national food system. 2 P1: values developing sustainable food system in region 1 RT5, wants to there to be food within the state for people to eat 1 ECONOMY - Value - chain participants are motivated to help i mprove agricultural scene and economy in order to support MI farmers and grow the MI economy D1, 2: Support growth of MI agricultural system /productivity by supporting MI mid - sized farmers; 20% by 2020 3 P1: wants to rebuild local food infrast ructure 1 Buying a local or MI food product helps money stay in the local or MI economy and supports local farmers and the development of a MI ag system RS1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11 9 RT5, buying local supports the development of MI agriculture 2 149 Table 14 (c Many restaurants value being able to educate their customers about the value of their food products (local or grass - fed) and many want to do more education with their customers and the public. (Rt3,4,9,10,11,12) (in some cases education seems more a method to explain prices or different flavor of grass - fed) 15 Values the opportunity to educate consumers about the food products they eat and what food products are available. (staff ed, newsletters, demonstrations, outreach, informational signag e) (RT2,3,5) 1 1 FINANCE - Value - chain participants value economic stability and consider this when making purchasing decisions, making sure the cost is not more than the benefits D: Must make enough to maintain business. 1 Desire to fina ncial sustainability: Everyone has to make money for the value - chain to work (P2); Market opening for organic and grass - fed (P3) 2 Product must be affordable to them and/or ownership (value must be worth extra cost) RS1,2,5 Many will do as much local as po ssible within their price range RS1,2,5 Some choose between grass - fed products based on most reasonable price (RS12 8 Financial sustainability is at the forefront for some retailers. Everyone in value - chain must make money to succeed (RT1), it is necessary to make money to be financially sustainable and to compete (RT4) 6 D3, 4: Recognize the financial value of the grass - fed beef product (market potential) 2 RELATIONSHIP S - Value - chain participants are D1: Decision to start sourcing local grass - fed beef was 2 Important to maint ain good relationships with 6 Many restaurants value their customers in general and wanting to provide 20 Str ongly value relationships with customers , staff, 2 2 150 Table 14 (c motivated to source local and grass - fed due to previous relationships and/or find value in particular relationships strongly influenced by their relationship with their retailers and their request for help souring the product customers, community, and employees. them with a good quality product (RS1,5,6) Some source local(in general, some specifically grass - fed) because they know farmers and the area and wants to support them and value buying from a real person (RS2,5,6,12) Many value their relationship with their grass - fed beef farmer (RS5,7,10) and their distributor (who encouraged them to source the product) (RS11) community, and the farmers they work with. Want to source products their customers want and fulfill expectations in terms of quality and production practices. D3: values the relationship with main retai l buyer and processor. Simply enjoys working with them. 2 FARM - Value - chain participants inherently value farmers/farming. D2: Important to have a positive impact on their farmer partners. 1 P3 is a farmer x Restaurants value farms and the work th at famers do. Values their pride in their work (RS1,11), the beauty of their famers farm (RS5), family owned nature of small farms (RS9), is thankful and respectful of farmers work and devotion to growing foodRS10,12). Business model built on the value of farms and farming RS3 13 Must support farms for them to exist (RT5) 1 D3, 4: They are farmers x 151 Table 14 (c COMMUNITY - Buying local helps to create a unified community Buying local gives back to the community and builds a stronger community (RS2, 8) W ants to buy from people in his community rather than elsewhere (RS7) 3 Buying local and promoting local farm builds and connects people around an agricultural community (RT3) 1 PRODUCT - Value - chain participants value particular characteristics about the grass - fed or local food product. D1, 2:Animal welfare, human health benefits (including GMO free), higher quality of local products 2 Recognizes potential health benefits (higher omegas) (P1, P3), high quality product (P2, P3) 3 Flavor, freshness, quality of local and grass - fed (all) Health benefits (non - GMO, antibiotics, healthier animal eating healthier natural food, less fat, omega 3, hormone free) RS1, RS2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 Animal welfare RS1, RS2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12 Environmental stewardship ( grass - fed)/carbon footprint (local) RS3, 6, 11 Source traceability RS3, rs6, 11 all value local 50 Values high quality (RT1, 2, 3,4) fresh, flavorful, humane animal treatment (RT2), local or MI raised (RT2,3,4, 6), organic (RT3,4) , non - GMO, health (leaner , higher omega content, more nutrients) (RT3, 4, 5, 6), environmental stewardship (RT2, 3, 5) 2 0 D3, 4: health (D3, organic) D4: animal welfare (diet, confinement) 3 SOCIAL EMBEDDEDNE SS - Value - chain sourcing decisions are D1, 2: Although it is important to be financially sustainable, profit is not the goal. Their ability to pay 1 Better for farmers and community to pay more (plus get high quality in return) RS2 Values high quality product that aligns with 11 152 Table 14 (c influenced by non - economic decisions particularly relating to social connections farmers fair prices and improve sustainability of MI agricultural system is m ost important values and supporting farmers over making max profit RS4, RS5, RS10, RS11, RS12 INTEGRITY - Value - chain sourcing decisions and general operations are tied tightly to moral principles. D1, 2: Sourcing decisions are motivated by their desire to help develop a resilient - MI food system and make good food available to all; greatly dislike the fac t that they occasionally have to source from the neighborhood 2 Social responsibility: Important to be a responsible business member in their community (handling waste water and rendering material) (P2) 1 protect customer RS1 Moral obligation to support local farmers, buy products with high animal welfare standards and products raised in socially and environmentally sustainable ways (RS2,5,8,11,12) Wants customer to eat food he feels good about and that they would eat themselves RS4,9, 10 Feeds hungry people for whatever they can pay RS4 Use whole animal out of respect for farmer and animal RS10) 20 Driven by their integrity in how they conduct business and source products. Want to be a responsible business membe r (RT1); customers depend on them for sourcing high quality products that align with their values so must be diligent in sourcing those products maintain integrity (RT3,6); wants to sell products they would eat themselves (RT5); 7 D3, 4: part of dec ision to raise grass - fed is because of (D4) the belief that it is healthier for the animal and wrong to raise them live unnatural lifestyles 1 153 Table 14 (c and (D3) this own health problems desire to have organic available. RQ2 What is the nature of the value - chain relationships? LONG - TERM - Participants are committed to their value - chain partners for the long run D1, 2: Want to maintain long - term relationships with customers the motivation to start sourcing the product; makes things right when orders go wr ong 2 Long - term customer relationships are important: Desire to maintain good relationship with customers (repeat customers) (P1) and evidence of long - term support by distributor customers (P3) 4 Restaurants are loyal to their farmers and distributors (RS2 , 5, 7, 8, 10, 11) Wont source from others unless they sell their farmers product or product is unavailable through their farmer RS5, 7 9 Committed to the farmers they currently source from their go to for sourcing (RT3,5 3 D3: relationship with main r etail has been long term and committed 1 year, takes meat anytime an animal is ready 1 SHORT - TERM - Participants have encountered partners that make relationship commitments they cannot keep D3: One retailer made false promises about sourcing his product 2 RS1 was using the product but had to stop sourcing it when it got too expensive RS8 would change producers if he could find another dependable high quality producer (not 100% satisfied with producer relationship) 3 Their farmer distributor wen t out of business out of nowhere, leaving them with no local grass - fed beef farmer (RT6) 3 154 Table 14 (c FLEXIBITLIY (+, - ) - Willingness or unwillingness of partners to adjust to changing conditions, and adapt to needs of their partners D1, 2: ( - ) Chefs and processors can be inflexible (chefs, adapting to frozen, stop buying due to price increases or incontinent cuts) (processors modernizing their business operations/adjustin g to buyer demands) (+) customers flexible (adjust to frozen, price increases, inconsistent cut s) and D1/2 flexible when processors produce inconsistent cuts (figure out what to do w product) 5 Processors must be flexible in business relationships although some partners are not: (+) Must be flexible in dealing with their customer needs/demands (use customers boxes/coordinate, willing to offer unusual cuts) and their USDA inspector. ( - ) Some customers are not flexible/unwilling to adjust to processors storage capacity. 5 (+)Restaurants must be flexible when buying locally source grass - fed beef. Addit ionally, they have good relationships with their farmers and distributors who are flexible in meeting their needs ( - )some farmers and processors are not as flexible as restaurants would like them to be in terms of services offered. (+)Flexible with price up until a cut off point (RS1); RS2, 7 flexible in dealing with poorly cut meat or wrong product; Flexible when products run out by substituting (RS4) or changing menu (RS12); Producer flexible when restaurant stops sourcing due to price (RS7); Distributo r flexible in accommodating (RS2, 7, 9) ( - )Farmer not as flexible as they think he should be in terms of keeping prices 1 9 R etailers must be flexible in dealing with farmers who often do not have the best business practices also business partners can be flexible in trying to meet needs. Flexible in processing orders to accommodate farmers abilities (wait list) (RT 2); flexible in dealing with farmers inconsistent schedules, deliveries and communicatio n (RT2,3); distributor 5 D3, 4: (+) customers flexible (buy more product, adjust to product mistakes and 4 155 Table 14 (c inconsiste nt supply) ( - ) potential customers will not adjust to make product work for them (cost) reasonable (RS8) and communicating( RS10) Processor not flexible in terms of cutting like they ask or what they ask for( RS 8, 10) flexible in trying to find desired products (RT5) CONTRADICTIONS - Value - chain partners do not share an understanding of particular interactions or aspects of their relationships with one another D1, 2: profi t not major goal; thinks organic producer is not 100% grass - fed P2: distributor/produc er claims they do not value grass - fed when they claim they do esp potential for high quality. P3: claim they feed 100% grass, contradictor to others (D2, RS2) RS1 remem bers the source of grass - fed being from a certain farm distributed by the regional distributor whereas the regional distributor never used that farm. RS2 thinks their organic product is not grass - fed RS8 wants meat to be aged longer, whereas P1 thinks it quality RT2 confident that processors know NAMP standards (compared with D1); RT3 claims they have very low mark - up on local grass - fed products (compared with D3, RT4 and comments of other about their high price); RT5 describ es distributors prices as volatile whereas they claim to try to D3: different understanding of what happened when retailer that stopped selling product as well as t he fairness of their product prices: thinks one care about grass - fed 156 Table 14 (c keep prices as reasonable as possible; RT6 thinks organic producer is not 100% grass - fed VALUE - CHAIN INVOLVEMENT - Value - chain partners describe their role in (or absence from) the - D1,2: academic term heard before but aligns with what they stand for Processors do not think they are much of a link in the value - chain. Simply offer a service with fixed costs. Do not use that term to describe their business (P1,2) Many have not heard value - chain terminology but think their busin ess fits in with the description (RS2,5,11,12) 4 RT3 heard term before but connect the dots fits with their business operations 1 D4: Current relationships with customers value - chain difficult establishing value - chain relationships with pot ential customers who value of product TRUST (+, - ) Trust is an integral aspect of value - chain relationships is present in some value - chain relationships, but not others D1,2: ( - ) some level of distrust with processor due to their inconsistencies; (+) Building relationships and 3 Processors work to build and maintain trust with customers: Build trust by allowing customers to be part of the process (P1) and by 1 (+)High level of trust between restaurants and their farmers/distributorsRS2,5, 7, 8 10, 11 Developed by learning each Giving heads up about price increases (RS8), being 1 4 (+)Very important to have trust between partners when sourcing proteins; trust their farmers are raising 1 3 157 Table 14 (c maintaining customers trust. maintainin g communicative and honest relationships (P2) honest about p roduction methods (RS8, 10) and because their values align (RS11) Customers trust the chef to provide good high quality product (RS6) ( - )Do not trust that farmer will be dependable in delivering right product; distributors price inc entives RS8 animals humanely and according to the retailers expected standards; more trust between retailer and farmer than retailer and distributor (RT3) ; due to some negative interactions do not trust distributor as much (RT6) D3, 4: (D3) ( - ) retailer that broke commitment. (+) Trust current buyers (no contract, not paid right away) (D4) (+) consistency and communication builds trust with customers 3 PRICE EQUITY (+, - ) - Price equity is either present or not present in value - chain relationships. When present, effort is made to ensure that all value - chain partners are receiving a fair D1, 2: (+) paying farmers a fair price/living wage is important to their business; important to make go od food - 3 Price Equity is important to processors: Must charge extra for more difficult cuts in order to maintain financial sustainability (P2); believes they 4 ( - )Price too high charge customers an outrageous cost (RS1); producer seems to unfairly raise prices since his costs are not increasing (RS8) (+)Make sure to pay farmers well/fairly (good 1 3 (+)Retailers feel as though they charge the most reasonable price possible for their products and it is important to 1 5 158 Table 14 (c price for the product. When absent, val ue - chain partners do not consider the monetary needs of their partners or assume parts of the grass - fed beef market in the region are pricing unfairly. D3, 4: D3, ( - ) retailer that dropped him price for whole carcass or charging fair price for consumers; D4, (+) pays farms he buys from fair price, he makes b est price by selling direct (rather than through distributor) 3 charge very reasonable price for their product charge a lot just because there is demand (P3) return on invest ment) (RS2, 10, 11) (RS8 pays what he sees as high prices - haggle) Believes the prices they charge are reasonable/fair - some make accommodations to make sure their price is affordable (RS4, 5, 12) them to pay the farmer fairly (all); marks up local beef less so it can stay affordable (cap on ground price) (RT3);others in value - chain are not seen as being price equitable (charging t oo much other retailers, distributor/thei r farmers) (RT2, RT4, RT5, RT6) TRANSPARENCY (+, - ) Transparency about business practices within value - chain relationships and throughout the market is either present or not present. D1,2: ( - ) lack of transparency w ith organic farm about their production practices; potential lack of transparency about farms by not putting whole name on invoice; 3 Are transparent with their customers and their USDA inspectors: Customers can be part of the processing process (P1); labels must adhere to USDA 4 ( - )Producers not always transparent about where they get product (RS8 su spects that his farmer is know for Sure) (RS12 she sources from finishes with GMO free grain) 5 ( - )Question whether farms are really producing grass - fed (are they telling the whole story about their production practices?) 1 5 159 Table 14 (c (+) attempts to be transparent by providing customer w info about farm practices regs; must maintain good relationship with USDA which requires transparency ( - )Worry that farmers are not transparent about sourcing practices (not 100% grass - fed) (RS2). (+)While some farmers are transparent about all of their production practices (RS8, 10) (RT2, 5); are transparent about the production pract ices used to raise product to customers (RT3) and their farmers seem transparent about t heir practices (RT4,5); word grass - fed in general causes transparency and confusion(RT4 ); potential that distributor is not transparent about price increases (RT5) or availability or product (RT6) D3,4: ( - ) D3 due to contradiction, lack of transparency between him and retailer that dropped him; (+) D4 tours people around his farm, transparent about production practices, and the potential price increases 3 COMMUNICATION (+, - ) The presence or absence of open D1,2: (+) use communication to deal with value - 1 0 (+) use communication to navigate potential 6 (+)Restaurants use communication to work through problems and to 3 1 Important to communicate with 1 4 160 Table 14 (c communication between value - chain partners and the effect on value - chain relationships chain problems and to plan with producer/processor ( - ) communication with processor does not typically result in desired changes/fixes; not always good internal communication between buyer and reps; processor does not communicate when changes to order adequately communicate ability to do farm tours w cust omers problems (hang time expectations, poor quality product, unsatisfied customers) maintain strong relationships with farmers, distributors, and customers)(RS2, 3, 5,7, 8, 9, 11) Some farmers/distributors text and email, making ordering easy (RS2, 7, 9, 11); communicates problems which usually solves issues (RS2), worked out scheduling and delivery through communication (RS5); Communicate sou rce of products to customers (RS3) ( - )Communication does not always solve problems and does not always occur RS1 communication communicate problems with orders to distributor due to lack of time; S ometimes difficult to communicate with distributor (they go out of town, holidays(RS7); consumers and suppliers to keep business flowing seems to be working (+) communicates about product to staff; communicate to producers production practice expectations; communicate to consumers when product runs out; communicate problems to value - chain partner; ( - ) lack of communicatio n between grass - fed beef produc er that shut down business (RT6) and between them and their D3,4: (+) communication with customers about ordering/product availability good: communication builds trust; ( - ) communication with past processor 7 161 Table 14 (c t result in changes; trying to communication with regional distributor but no response Potential lack of communication with distributor about production practices of farmer (RS12); Assumption that producer restaurant complaints to proc essor (RS8); RS10 communicate problems with processing because he has relationships with this processors; Farmers could communicate better RS10 distributor about product supply (RT6) FACILITATION A value - chain partner plays a facilitating role in some aspect of the supply chain, making it easier to get the product from producer to consume D1,2: their job is to facilitate moving the product through the supply chain: coordinating w producer, deal w processor, scheduling, delivery, connecting consumers to farms). 4 The regional distributor does a great job at facilitating the supply chain pr ocess (RS1, RS2, RS4, 9, 10, 11, 12 as does one farm (RS5). RS6 believes her distributor does not do a good job facilitating a connection between a farmer that will meet her needs. 2 4 Sometimes retailers must facilitate the process of getting the product; RT2 takes special orders, communicates desired cuts to producer, coordinates cuts with processor; RT3 plans with producers and processors a D4 facilitates valu e - chain by aggregating, coordinating 4 162 Table 14 (c processing, fills orders, delivers year in advance coordinate all aspects when buying directly from farmer (vs. distributor) SUPPORT Participants offer support to their value - chain partners in order to help them succeed/the relationship is reciprocal I help you, you help me D1,2: started sourci ng product to help their customer win win 2 Teachers customers about processing and educates them about the cuts (P1); distributor has offered to help them in any way to keep them open (P3) 2 Restaurants try to support their value - chain partners in orde r to help their business (and their own business) RS2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 11 Overpay staff; distributor fixes any problem with order (RS2); processor will do whatever they ask for Some retailers realize that their business will be better served if they help their par tners; RT2 coordinates with the processor; RT3 8 1 63 Table 14 (c D3,4: supportive value - chain partnerships processor coordinates with retailer about cuts; will discount product for retailer if they buy more; new retailer many innovative ideas to help; buyer that will buy excess product 5 (RS3); has helped grow distributor who they depend on for local products (RS3); p uts farm name on menu to generate business for them (RS5); takes extra product from farmer or distributor if they can (RS7, 11); buys whole animal from farmers (RS10). helps farmers attain desired certifications; RT4 has many ideas for his new grass - fed beef farmer including how to get rid of unwanted product and to move slow products; RT5 helps out farmer buy ordering in la rger amounts have to go to the processor as much. RQ3 What are perceived barriers? MARKET Price, inconsistencies between supply and demand, and level of consumer demand are barriers to market growth D1,2: not enough supply to meet demand + seasonal supply i nconsistencies (summer lack of supply, fall surplus 1 0 Demand for certain cuts does not equal supply (devalues car cass and puts farmers in bad place; unable to keep up 7 price can be/is too high (RS1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12) usually a cut - off or have to choose less expensive cuts) 40 Some retailers experience a lack of consumer demand (RT1,2) and often times retailers have trouble getting 2 6 164 Table 14 (c of meat) disparity between cut available on animal (^ground and primals = devalue animal); price too high or some customers with demand lack of supply and producers (P3) not enough supply of desired cuts/products run out/ or ability to get desired specialty cuts (including lunch meats) (RS1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) not enough marketing by farmers (RS2) not enough consumer demand (RS2, 3, 10) (otherwise they may spend the ex tra to source) Cannot find a farmer (or enough farmers ) nearby to fulfill needs of them/market (RS2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12) the needed supply (RT2,3,5,6 ) ; retailers typically buy primals and ground (not using rest of animal); Sometimes prices are too high (all); In other cases, their retail market is saturated (RT3 too many producers want to sell there). D3,4: high demand for ground and primals le aves a lot of the animal; lack of consumer demand; occasionally runs out of certain cuts 8 TRENDS The trendiness of the - may encourage customers to buy for the name, rather than for the quality or value of the product Many ch efs assume that customers see the word or - marketing claim and will order in order to be trendy, showy, or because they assume it is the highest quality product. Restaurants would rather have customers eat the product without preconce ived notions of what the product is, and appreciate the value and 11 165 Table 14 (c quality of the product rather than just buy to fit the trend. (RS1,2,5,8). Additionally, many compare the word grass - fed to Kobe, Angus, and organic, words that were buzz words that have los t their meaning due to overuse and what they see as inadequate monitoring of the use of the worlds worry this will happen with grass - fed. Additionally, one restaurant does not what to advertise his beef as want to seem pretenti ous (RS4) LOGISTICS The logistics of moving the product through the supply chain and the time it takes to carry out related tasks is a challenge. D1,2 planning meat distribution is complicated and takes a lot of time to plan 1 Distribution needs t o become more convenient for the market to grow (P1); difficulty carrying out coordination with their distributor customer (timely pickup of goods, having enough 3 Using the local grass - fed product can cause logistical issues in terms of ordering, deliveries, storage, ability to get needed cuts, and expense of hauling cattle. Expensive to haul cattle(RS3) Purchasing through small distributor is more time consuming and less 9 The biggest logistical issue retailers deal with is s ourcing from farmers who are not always the best at communicating or catering to the needs of the retailers 1 2 D3,4: distribution of own product takes a lot of time; farming, marketing, keeping books, scheduling , 6 166 Table 14 (c driving (not time to do everything well); cannot fulfill sch eduling demand in terms of frequency boxes on hand (P2) convenient than national distributor/cuts come in inconvenient siz e (RS6) Local farmers do not believe enough and/or are not dependable in terms of when they will deliver (RS7, RS8) Difficult to create local lunch meat cuts (RS10) Difficult to have storage, (RS6,10) (delivering on time, communicating). Additionally, it is quite time consuming to deal with multiple suppliers (RT2,3,4), and some retailers (RT4) ar e so have time to devote to working with new farmers. STRUCTURE There are system - wide structural or systematic barriers to growing the grass - fed market, particularly in terms of access to capital, space, and manpower. D1, 2: small meat processing has all but di sappeared +decentralization of small meat processing = inconsistencies; assumption farmers are burdened by expense of raising cattle 3 Conventional market has destroyed infrastructure necessary to carry out local market (P1); lack of storage to age (P1); c annot expand easily (P2 processing, P3, farm); lack of capital for budding 11 High price of land (farmers ) (RS1, 12), large amount of space required /lack of pasture (RS 1, 3, 4) Unable to get beef aged as long as he wants (may be due to processing capacity) (RS8) Lack of processing facility barrier to market expansion (RS3, 5,7) 11 Many retailers recognize the lack of a processing facility in the area as a major barrier to the market. (Rt3,4,6) (RT3 says the on e big processor is like a monolopy - not enough competition) 5 167 Table 14 (c producers; not enough USDA plants in state DISHONESTY There is a perceived lack of transparency and honesty of competitors D3 believes competitors are not honestly marketing product not transparent about their production practices. 2 truthful in market, esp when it comes to trendy names think people use more for marketing (RS2, 10); - worried might happen with grass - fed Some restaurants in neighborhood falsely advertise their use of local ingredients (R S8) 4 The term grass - fed can be misleading (pelletized grass) RT4 1 PROCESSOR Processing local and grass - fed beef products poses additional challenges/work for processors Customer want carcass dry aged too long (less fat cover, not enough space P 1); more manure stuck to grass - fed makes harder to butcher; special orders (value - cuts) take more time; time to have good packaging and presentation for restaurants/retail buyers (P2); cannot find 8 168 Table 14 (c someone to take over management + hard to find reliable emp loyees (P3) QUALITY Different farmers produce different quality grass - fed beef. Poor quality product is hard to work with and gives grass - fed a bad name. D1,2: potential that inconsistent processing is partially due to inconsistent animal quality ; some product more lean whereas others higher quality and more focus on grading out 3 Grass - Many producers produce a poor quality product that may give grass - fed a bad name; also may affect customer relationship with processor or work 8 Grass - fed beef is either very good or very bad (their farmer originally brought them some really low quality product, which he has since corrected) RS8; locals may not be able to afford the product (when they a re the only 1 D3: some producers do not raise a high quality product, giving grass - fed bad name 2 GEOGRPHY The demographic base of certain businesses and the heavy tourist season in some locales makes year round sales of grass - fed beef diffic ult D4: business slower in winter due to tourist focused economy 1 Seasonal tourism is a barrier to market growth because there is very high demand in busy season (cannot keep up) and then demand drops considerably in the winter (RS5); locals cannot aff ord product (so have to stop buying in winter) (RS7) In certain parts of the region, customers cannot afford the grass - fed product; demographic not well suited for the grass - fed market where the 3 169 Table 14 (c price point is high. (RT1, RT6) RISK DISTRIBUTOR Usin g a regional distributor poses risks and uncertainties for restaurants D2 recognizes that using a regional distributor is risky for some of their partners 1 Uses term monopoly to describe distributor although they use them, they think farmers make les s when selling through them and distributor of the product (RS2); additionally with local distributor, cannot know quality of product or what will be available (RS6) 6 CONVENTIONAL The status - quo, conventional market has shif ted the infrastructure and consumer expectations of meat products D1,2: large demand for ground, which devalues carcass; dependence on fresh/quality/flavor of grain; inappropriate regulations for small scale meat; expectation for constant availability of all cuts 6 Conventional has destroyed local food system infrastructure; created demand for only small portion of the animal; unwilling to use frozen; customers used to convenience; large USDA plants not held to same standards in terms of regs 8 Conventiona l system has destroyed infrastructure for raising proteins (RS3) and has caused restaurants and consumers to have unrealistic expectations: restaurant belief that fresh is higher quality than frozen (RS6); some customers will not like the leanness or flavo r of grass - fed (RS3, 10, 11) 6 Some customers are accustomed to the flavor and pricing of conventional (Rt2,3) 2 170 Table 14 (c KNOWLEDGE Each part of the value - chain lacks important knowledge necessary for a successful grass - fed local beef market D1,2: lack of consu mer understanding of the local protein market; processors/NAMP standards; distributor/sales reps lack of knowledge about cuts, producer practices; uses - fed, GMO free grain incorrect???? 6 Lack of retail knowledge for breaking down c uts; lack of understanding about dry aging; lack of consumer knowledge about labeling regs; 6 Knoweldge about which farmer they bought from in know farmers practices (RS2, RS6, RS12); Restaurants do not understand Terminology (gr ass - fed, grass - finished) (RS1, RS8, 9,10, 11, ) or that fresh is not better than frozen (RS6); Customers do not understand terminology (grass - fed) or value of local or grass - fed (RS1, RS4, 6); Lack of farmer business/marketing knowledge (RS2, RS10 18 Lack of farmer business savvy and organization (not knowing what to charge; not knowing NAMP standards; how to sell to wholesaler) RT2,4) Customers may not know enough about the product or how to cook it (RT5,6) Finally, the retailer themselves seem to be lack ing in knowledge about terminology (calling grain - understanding grass - finishing, understanding marketing claims and labels; knowing their 1 7 D3,4: D 3 no understanding of what cuts are good for retail, no marketing or business knowledge; recognized lack of knowledge within the market about what grass - fed means, (D4) and the value of the product 5 171 Table 14 (c producers production practices (assuming they are not 100% grass - fed) PROCESSOR INCONSISTENT Processors produce incon sistent products in terms of quality D1,2 Processor outcomes inconsistent: what different processors call same cuts, how cuts are labeled and packaged, inconsistent cutting; receiving wrong cuts 7 The processed product is not consistent random knife c uts (RS2), wrong weights (RS7);carry out cutting instructions wrong (RS8); will not provide desired cuts (RS10) 6 The local processors do not produce a quality product lack of skills (RT4) 2 D3: one processor had hard chunks in ground 1 REGULATI ONS - Regulations are a barrier to the market since some were made for conventional markets and some are simply time consuming to comply with Processing regulations are often designed for large scale processors; labeling laws cause problems at processing end that result in inconsistent product labeling 2 Labeling laws are time consuming and complicated and can potentially strain processor relationship with farmers (P1,2); cannot sell certain cuts due to regs; some non - food 7 Organic regulations and similar things do a disservice to producers as they are lax and are confusing the public (RT4) 1 172 Table 14 (c and cut terminiology safety regul ations are arbitrary and wastes time (P3) D3: getting organic certification requires paperwork time for 1 Best practices STOCK By taking stock of the market, the product, and their motivations for entering the market, value - chain participants can better position themselves for success D1,2: before you start distributing, make sure that you have customers t hat will buy different parts of the animal 1 Educate yourself about the product and quality (good vs. bad) 2 Only buy the grass - fed product if it fits the profile of your customer (RS1); must understand your selling proposition how will you sell it and t o whom (RS3) and why you want to sell (RS10); educate yourself about the product before sourcing (RS6, 9,11) 8 Retailers make sure to know the products they are selling (does research) and knows the farms they are buying from and their practices. (RT2,3) 3 S/D STRATEGIES - Value - chain participants have developed many strategies for managing the inconsistencies in supply and demand of the product D1,2: encourage retailers to substitute for other products when things ru5n out; freeze product; plan quarterly ; have customers that want different cuts; sell larger 6 Expanding herd to produce more; distributors buy whole animal (P3) 2 Only buy when they know they can get all the cuts they need (RS1) Order ahead (RS2) Use odd cuts (RS2) Raise own cattle to ensure supply or buy whole animal (RS3, RS10) Freeze extra (RS3, RS5, RS10) 25 Some retailers manage supply and demand by using special order forms (usually when low demand and low supply) (RT1,2); others plan out their 1 0 173 Table 14 (c cuts to restaurants; buy whole animal Substitute for other cuts/rotating menu/ (RS4, RS8, RS12) Work with producer to share schedules (RS5) Buys from other distributors when product runs out (RS7) Adjust to farmers delivery schedule (RS8) Put things on special, (RS9, RS10, RS11) entire buying and processing schedule a year in advance and buying whole aniamls (Rt3), while others buy from a producer that aggregates product (rt5). Finally some retailers substitute products when they cannot get their usual and buy in large quantities and store frozen ( RT5,5) D3, 4: (D3) sell product for less to encourage retailer to buy more; (D4) aggregate product from other producers; encourages advanced ordering; plans based on selling history; uses multiple processors; buyer who will take excess product 8 DIFFERENTIATE - Value - chain participants use different strategies for distinguishing their product from other products D1,2: list where products come from and production practices in sales literature; reps communicate this as well; code to farm on invoi ces; farm tours 5 Educate servers (RS1, RS6, RS8, RS9) List name of farm and how product was raised on menu (RS2, RS3, RS5, RS7, RS9, RS11 (source and if room grass - fed) List of farms on wall (RS8, 12) 50 So me retailers differentiate their product by using ads, posting the farmers brochures and other information about the product; list information 1 8 174 Table 14 (c D3,4 (D3) brochure that describes produc t; (D4) tells customers story of farm, does farm tours 3 See entire production system outside (RS3) Word of m outh (RS3, RS4) Poster of a local food affiliation (RS4) Advertise in local food mag (RS6) Uses the name of the cut to sell odd cuts (tongue) RS10) Feature on special, RS11) Seems like a lot of time differentiation is done to justify extra cost/price about the farms on their website; have demonstrations. Rt1,2,3,4,5 PARTNERS - Value - chain partners benefit when working with partners that align with their values and/or which best can meet their needs D1,2: partners that take different cuts; seek out partne rs that sell local products 2 Important to maintain good relationship with USDA inspectors (P2,3) has 3 reliable distributor customers (P3) 5 Most restaurants have found partners that they are happy with and that suit their needs. Most farmers are happy w ith their value - chain partners (farmer/distributor/process or) RS1, RS2, RS3, Rs4, RS5,R s7, RS9, RS10, Rs11 , RS12 Suggests getting to know farmer and developing relationship (Rs8) 22 Some retailers work hard to make sure they find farmers that meet the ir needs (farmer surveys, farm visits, ensuring direct access to product) (RT3,5); additionally sourcing from a distributor makes sourcing easy (RT3) D3,4: retail customers and processors good partner that are helpful; understanding partners (when thing s go wrong); customer that takes excess product 3 175 Table 14 (c VERTICAL - Some value - chain participants have found that playing multiple roles within the value - chain benefits their business D3, 4 are producers and distributors. Strategy for selling product. D4 aggregates to have more product available. 3 P2 is processor/retailer with grass - fed sales); P3 is producer/processo r and had to processor to keep organic certification 2 RS3 is a multifaceted business that raises food and also serves it at a restaurant and as an event venue. This helps with marketing and providing consistent supply of product RT1 is a processor and retailer (but much grass - fed) PRICING - Value - chain participants must use smart pricing strategies in order to maintain financial sustainability selling a local grass - fed product D1,2: have to price things in order to make sure they make money since ground is a majority of product sales; use cost calculator to communicate cost differences between their product an d conventional 2 Charge more for difficult cuts (P2); market based pricing (P3) 2 Restaurants try to keep prices affordable for up the product as much (RS4, RS5, RS12) and sometimes have to raise prices on other items to make up fo r it (RS12) Buying directly from farmer is cheaper (S8) Buy whole animal (RS10) 6 Retailers must use strategies to keep the product affordable: lower markup on local/MI grass - fed (Rt3,4) and working with the farmer is less expensive (rt5); cap on ground ( RT3) 5 D4, market based pricing 1 176 REFERENCE S 177 R EFERENCES Agriculture of the Middle. (2012). Characterizing Ag of the Middle and Values - Based Food Supply Chains. Retrieved from http://www.agofthemiddle.org/archives/2012/01/characterizing.html#more Anfara, V., Brown, K., & Mangione, T. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31 (7) , 28 - 38. doi: 10.3102/0013189X031007028 Beukes, P. C., & Cowling, R. M. (2003). Non - selective grazing impacts on soil - properties of the Nama Karoo. Journal of Range Management , 56 (5) 547 - 552. http://www.jstor.org/stab le/4003849 Cantrell, P. (2009). See the local difference Regional food systems become essential ingredient Retrieved from http://www.mlui.org/userfiles/filemanager/276/ . Centner, T. J. (2010). Limitations on the confinement of food animals in the United States. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics , 23 (5), 469 - 486. doi 10.1007/s10806 - 009 - 9225 - y Conner, D. (2005) Current Status of Organic Meat Processing in Michigan. [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://foodsystems.msu.edu/uploads/files/organic_meat_processing.pdf Conner, D. S., Campbell - Arvai, V., & Hamm, M. W. (2008a ). Consumer preferences for pasture - raised animal Products: Results from Michigan. Journal of Food Distribution Research , 39 (2), 12 - 25. Conner, D. S., Campbell - Arvai, V., Hamm, M. W. (2008b). Value in the values: pasture - raised livestock products offer op portunities for reconnecting producers and consumers. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 23 (1), 62 - 69. Conner, D. S., & Oppenheim, D. (2008a). Demand for pasture - raised livestock products in Michigan: Results of consumer surveys and experimental auct ions. Journal of Food Distribution Research , 39 (1), 45 - 50. Conner, D. S. & Oppenheim, D. (2008b). Demand for pasture - raised livestock products: Results from Michigan retail surveys. Journal of Agribusiness , 26 (1), 1 - 20. Conner, D. S., Sevoian, N., Heiss, S. N., & Berlin, L. (2014). The diverse values and motivations of Vermont farm to institution supply chain actors. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics , 27 (5), 695 - 713 . doi 10.1007/s10806 - 013 - 9485 - 4 178 Cox, R. B., Kerth, C. R., Gentry, J. G., Pr evatt, J. W., Braden, K. W., & Jones, W. R. (2006). Determining acceptance of domestic forage or grain finished beef by consumers from three southeastern U.S. states. Journal of Food Science , 71 (7), S542 - S546. doi: 10.1111/j.1750 - 3841.2006.00124.x Creswell, J.W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2 nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Curtis , K. R., & Cowee, M. W. (2009). Direct marketing local food to chefs: Chef preferences and perceived obstacles. Journal of Food Distribution Research , 40 (2), 26 - 36. Curtis , K. R., Cowee, M. W., Havercamp, M., Morris, R., & Gatzke, H. (2008). Marketing local foods to gourmet restaurants: A multi - method assessment. Journal of Extension , 46 (6), 16 - 24. Daley, C. A., Abbott, A., Doyle, P. S., Nader, G. A., & Larson, S. (2010). A review of fatty acid profiles and antioxidant c ontent in grass - fed and grain - fed beef. Nutrition Journal , 9 (10), 1 - 12. doi:10.1186/1475 - 2891 - 9 - 10 Day - Farnsworth, L., McCown, B., Miller, M., & Pfeiffer, A. (2009). Scaling Up: Meeting the Demand for Local Food . University of Wisconsin - Extension Agricult ural Innovation Center, University of Wisconsin Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems. Retrieved from http://community - wealth.o rg/sites/clone.community - wealth.org/files/downloads/report - day_farnsworth - et - al.pdf Diamond, A., & Barham, J. (2011). Money and mission: Moving food with value and values. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development , 1 (4), 101 - 117. Diamond, A., Tropp, D., Barham, J., Frain, M., Kiraly, S., & Cantrell, P. (2014). Food Value Chains: Creating Shared Val ue To Enhance Marketing Success. http://dx.doi.org/10.9752/MS141.05 - 2014 Dickenson, E., Joseph, S., & Ward, J. (2013). Confronting chal lenges in the local meat industry: Focus on the Pioneer Valley of Western Massachusetts. Retrieved from http://www.buylocalfood.org/wp - content/uploads/2013/08/CI SA_MeatReport_2013.pdf Duckett, S. K., Neel, J. P. S., Lewis, R. M., Fontenot, J. P., & Clapham, W. M. (2013). Effects of forage species or concentrate finishing on animal performance, carcass and meat quality. Journal of Animal Science , 91 (3), 1454 - 1467 . doi:10.2527/jas.2012 - 5914 Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues , 56 (3) , 425 - 442. doi 10.1111/0022 - 4537.00176 179 Dunne mean in the grocery store? Multiplicity in food retailers' perspectives on sourcing and marketing local foods. Renewable A griculture and Food Systems , 26 (01), 46 - 59. doi 10.1017/S1742170510000402 value - chains. The Open Geography Journal , 5, 16 - 25. doi: 10.2174/1874923201205010016 Evans, J. R., D'Souza, G. E., Collins, A., Brown, C., & Sperow, M. (2011). Determining consumer perceptions of and willingness to pay for Appalachian grass - fed beef: An experimental economics approach. Ag ricultural and Resource Economics Review , 40 (2), 233 - 250. eXtension. (2015). Meat Processing Feasibility Studies . Retrieved from https://www.extension.org/pages/27357/ meat - processing - feasibility - studies Ethics and Compliance Initiative. (2015). Definitions of Values. Retrieved from http://www.ethics.org/resource/definitions - values Falat , S. M. (2011). Scaling up" buy local, sell fresh:" Lessons from Michigan growers, suppliers and Sysco. Masters Abstracts International , (49) 5. Ferguson, B. G., Diemont, S. A., Alfaro - Arguello, R., Martin, J. F., Nahed - Toral, J., Álvarez - Solís, D., & Pinto - Ruíz, R. (2013 ). Sustainability of holistic and conventional cattle ranching in the seasonally dry tropics of Chiapas, Mexico. Agricultural Systems , 120 , 38 - 48. doi:10.1016/j.agsy .2013.05.005 Flaccavento , A. (2009). Healthy food systems: A toolkit for building value - chains. Retrieved from http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC50914 99 Food and Farming Network. (n.d.). Goals and Objectives. Retrieved from http://www.foodandfarmingnetwork.org/content/goals - and - objectives Gwin , L. (2009). Scaling - up sus tainable livestock production: Innovation and challenges for grass - fed beef in the US. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture , 33 (2), 189 - 209. doi 10.1080/10440040802660095 Gwin , L. & Thiboumery, A. (2013). From convenience to commitment: Securing the long - ter m viability of local meat and poultry processing . Oregon State University: NMPAN Technical Report. Retrieved from http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/38213/Local%20Meat%20a nd%20Poultry%20Processing%20Report%20LGwin%20June%202013.pdf?sequence=4 Gwin, L., & Thiboumery, A. (2014). Beyond the farmer and the butcher: Institutional entrepreneurship and local meat. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community 180 Development . Advance online publication. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2014.0 42.007 Gwin, L., Durham, C. A., Miller, J. D., & Colonna, A. (2012). Understanding markets for grass - fed beef: Taste, price, and purchase preferences. Journal of Food Distribution Research , 43 (2), 91 - 111. http://purl.umn.edu/145331 Gwin, L., Thiboumery, A., Garrison, D., McCann, N. (2011). Small Meat Processors Business Planning Guidebook . Retrieved from https://www.extension.org/sites/default/ files/w/9/91/NMPAN1_Business_Planning_Guid e_May_2011.pdf Gwin, L., Thiboumery, A., & Stillman, R. (2013). Local meat and poultry processing: The importance of business commitments for long - term viability (Economic Research Report 150). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1131316/err - 150.pdf Gunter , A., Thilmany, D., Sullins, M. (2012). What is the new ver sion of scale efficient: A values - based supply chain approach. Food Distribution Research Society, (43) 1, 24 - 31. http://purl.umn.edu/ 139447 Hardesty , S., Feenstra, G., Visher, D., Lerman, T., Thilmany - McFadden, D., Bauman, A., . . . Rainbolt, G. N. (2014). Values - based supply chains: Supporting regional food and farms. Economic Development Quarterly , 28 (7), 17 - 27. doi 10.1177/08912424 13507103 Hesse - Biber, Sharlene Nagy and Leavey, Patricia. 2006. The Practice of Qualiative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hinrichs , C.C. (2000). Embeddedness and local food systems: Notes on two types of direct agricultural market. Journ al of Rural Studies 16 (3), 295 - 303. doi:10.1016/S0743 - 0167(99)00063 - 7 Holcomb, R. B., Flynn, K., & Kenkel, P. (2012). A feasibility template for small, mult i - species meat processing plants. Journal of Extension , 50 (5),. Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/2012october/pdf/JOE_v50_5tt11.pdf Inwood , S. M., Sharp, J. S., Moore, R. H., & S tinner, D. H. (2009). Restaurants, chefs and local foods: Insights drawn from application of a diffusion of innovation framework. Agriculture and Human Values , 26 (3), 177 - 191. doi 10.1007/s10460 - 008 - 9165 - 6 Jablonski, B. B., Perez - burgos, J., & Gómez, M. I . (2011). Food value - chain development in central New York: CNY Bounty. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development , 1 (4), 129 - 141. http://dx.doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2011.014.015 181 Jacobo, E. J., Rodríguez, A. M., Bartoloni, N., & Deregib us, V. A. (2006). Rotational grazing effects on rangeland vegetation at a farm scale. Rangeland Ecology & Management , 59 (3), 249 - 257. http://dx.doi.org/10.2111/05 - 129R1.1 Joannides, J. (2013). Research in support of a strong meat sector. [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://foodsystems.msu.edu/uploads/files/mn - local - meat - webinar - slides.pdf Johnson, R., Marti, D., & Gwin, L. (2012). Slaughter and Processing Options and Issues for Locally Sourced Meat (No. LDPM - 216 - 01). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/ldpm - livestock, - dairy, - and - poultry - outlook/ldpm216 - 01.aspx#.UyncUIXNm2U Kirschenmann, F., Stevenson, S., Buttel, F., Lyson, T., & Duffy, M. (2005). Why worry about the agriculture of the middle? White paper. Agriculture of the Middle Project . Retrievd from http://www.agofthemiddle.org/papers/whitepaper2.pdf Lerman , Tracy. (20 12). A Review of Scholarly Literature on Values - Based Supply Chains. Retrieved from http://nitrogen.ucdavis.edu/sarep/sfs/VBSCLiteratureReview.Lerman.5. 31.12_compresse d.pdf Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry . Newbury Park, California. Sage. Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods (2 nd ed.) . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Local Food Research Center. (2012). Large Animal Meat Processing Feasibility in Western North Carolina . Asheville, NC: Appalachian Sustainable Agriculture Project. Retrieved from http://asapconnections.org/downloads/asap - large - animal - meat - processing - feasibility - in - wnc.pdf Low, S. A., & Vogel, S. (2011). Direct and intermediated marketing of local foods in the United States . US Department of Agriculture, Economic Resea rch Service. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/138324/err128_2_.pdf Lozier, J., Rayburn, E., Shaw, J. (2004). Growing and selling pasture - finished beef: Results of a nationwide survey. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 25 (2), 93 - 112. doi 10.1300/J064v25n02_08 Lozier, J., Rayburn, E., Shaw, J. (2006). The decision to finish cattle on pasture: An ethnographic approach. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 28 (3), 5 - 23. doi 10.1300 /J064v28n03_03 (2010). Local food systems: concepts, impacts, and issues (ERR 97). U.S. Department of 182 Agriculture, Economic Research Service. R etrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/122868/err97_1_.pdf Mathews, K., & Johnson, R. (2013). Alternative Beef Production Systems: Issues and Implications (No. LDPM - 21801). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Depa rtment of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1071057/ldpm - 218 - 01.pdf Maxwell, J. (1996). Qualitative research design. An interactive ap proach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Maynard, L. J., Burdine, K. H., & Meyer, A. L. (2003). Market potential for locally produced meat products. Journal of Food Distribution Research , 34 (2), 26 - 37. http://purl.umn.edu/27321 McCallum, D., Campbell, A. M., & MacRae, R. (2014). Can large retailers localize supply chains? A case analysis of the challenges facing one Canadian reta iler. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 4 (2), 163 176. http://dx.doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2014.042.015 McCann, N. & Montabon, F. (2012). Strategies for accessing vo lume markets in the beef industry: A review of three cooperative business models. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 2 (2), 37 - 49. 10.5304/jafscd.2012.022.014 McCluskey, J. J., Wahl, T. I., Li, Q., & Wandschneider, P. R. (200 5). U.S. grass - fed beef: Marketing health benefits. Journal of Food Distribution Research , 36 (3), 1 - 8. Michigan Farmers Market Association. (2015). About us . Retrieved from http://mifma.org/aboutus/ Michigan Good Food Charter. (2014). The vision and goals of the Michigan Good Food Charter. Retrieved from http://www.michiganfood.org/about Michigan Land Use Institute (n.d.). Local food and farm search. Retrieved from http://www.mlui.org/food - farming/projects/local - food - directory/#.VSlMc5PivVJ Miles M. & Huberman A.M. (1994.) Qualitative Data Analysis, 2 nd Edition. Thousa nd Oaks: Sage Publications Miles. M., Huberman A.M., & Saldaña. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis (3 rd ed.) . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Murphy , J., & Smith, S. (2009). Chefs and suppliers: An exploratory look at supply chain issues in an upsc ale restaurant alliance. International Journal of Hospitality Management , 28 (2), 212 - 220. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2008.07.003 183 National Restaurant Association. (n.d.). 2015 Restaurant Industry Forecast . Retrieved from http://www.restaurant.org/Downloads/PDFs/News - Research/research/ForecastExecSummary2015 - FINAL.pdf Nyaga, G. N., Whipple, J. M., & Lynch, D. F. (2010). Examining supply chain relations hips: Do buyer and supplier perspectives on collaborative relationships differ?. Journal of Operations Management , 28 (2), 101 - 114. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2009.07.005 Pat ton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. SAGE Publications. Pirog, R., Miller, C., Way, L., Hazekamp, C., & Kim, E. 2014. The local food movement: Setting the stage for good food. MSU Center for Regional Food Systems. Prevatte, T. (2009). From farm to fork: An empirical investigation of the challenges faced by . Retrieved from http://www. firsthandfoods.com/files/misc/Master%27s%20Project - Tina%20Prevatte.pdf Reynolds - Allie, K., & Fields, D. (2011). Alabama restaurant preferences and willingness to pay for local food: A choice based approach. In Selected Paper at the Southern agricultural Economics Association Annum Meeting, Corpus Christi, Texas, February (pp. 5 - 8). Retrieved from http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/98822/2/Restaurant%20Preferences. pdf Robinson, J. (2015). Pastured Products Directory - Michigan. Retrieved from http://www.eatwild.com/products/michigan.html Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: Th e art of hearing data . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Sage, C. (2003). Social embeddedness and relations of regard: in south - west Ireland. Journal of Rural Studies, 19 (1), 47 - 60. doi:10.1016/S0743 - 0167(02)00044 - X Saja, K. (2012). The moral footprint of animal products. Agriculture and Human Values , 30 (2), 1 - 10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10460 - 012 - 9402 - x Saul, D. A., Newman, S. M., Lee, T., Peterson, S., Devadoss, S, Shrestha, D. S, & Sanyal, N. (2014). Increasing prosperity for small farms through sustainable livestock production, processing, and marketing. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Developme nt, 5 (1), 21 37. http://dx.doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2014.051.004 Schmit, T. M., & Hadcock, S. E. (2012). Assessing barriers to expansion of farm - to - chef sales: A case study from upstate New York . Journal of Food Research , 1 (1). doi: 10.5539/jfr.v1n1p117 Sleeping Lion Associates. (2005). Slaughterhouse Feasibility Report. Montpelier, VT. Retrieved from http://www .uvm.edu/~susagctr/Documents/SlaughterhouseFINALREPORT.pdf 184 Starr , A., Card, A., Benepe, C., Auld, G., Lamm, D., Smith, K., & Wilken, K. (2003). Sustaining local agriculture barriers and opportunities to direct marketing between farms and restaurants in C olorado. Agriculture and Human Values , 20 (3), 301 - 321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A%3A1026169122326 Stevenson, G.W. (2013). Values - based food supply chain case study: Good earth farms. Retrieved from http://www.cias.wisc.edu/wp - content/uploads/2013/04/goodearthfarmsfinal061313.pdf Stevenson, G. W., Clancy, K., King, R., Lev, L., Ostrom, M., & Smith, S. (2011). Midscale food value - chains: An introduction. Journ al of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development , 1 (4), 27 - 34. Stevenson, G.W. & Lev, L. (2013). Values - based food supply chain case study: Country natural beef. Retrieved from http://www.cias.wisc.edu/wp - content/uploads/2013/06/countrynaturalbeeffinal071613.pdf Stevenson, G.W. & Pirog , R. (2013). Values - based food supply chains: Strategies for agri - food enterprises - of - the - middle . Retrieved from http://www.cias.wisc.edu/wp - content/uploads/2013/04/valuechainstrategiesfinal072513.pdf Strohbehn , C. H., & Gregoire, M. B. (2003). Case studies of lo cal food purchasing by central Iowa restaurants and institutions. Foodservice Research International , 14 (1), 53 - 64. doi: 10.1111/j.1745 - 4506.2003.tb00177.x Tansawat, R., Maughan, C. A., Ward, R. E., Martini, S., & Cornforth, D. P. (2013). Chemical charact erisation of pasture and grain fed beef related to meat quality and flavour attributes. International Journal of Food Science & Technology , 48 (3), 484 - 495. doi: 10.1111/j.1365 - 2621.2012.03209.x Teague, W. R., Dowhower, S. L., Baker, S. A., Haile, N., DeLaune, P. B., & Conove r, D. M. (2011). Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment , 141 (3), 310 - 322. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2011.03.009 The Grand Vision. (2015). Grand vision overview . Retrieved from http://www.thegrandvision.org/quick - overview Umberger, W. J., Boxall, P. C., & Lacy, R. C. (2009). Role of credence an d health information in to pay for grass finished beef. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics , 53 (4), 603 - 623. doi: 10.1111/j.1467 - 8489.2009.00466.x USDA. (2012). Selected Practices:2012. Retriev ed from http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_U S_State_Level/st99_2_043_043.pdf 185 Umberger, W. J., Thilmany McFadden, D. D., & Smith, A. R. (2009). Does altruism play a role in determining U.S. consumer preferences a nd willingness to pay for natural and regionally produced beef?. Agribusiness , 25 (2), 268 - 285. doi: 10.1002/agr.20194 USDA Agricultural Marketing Service. (2012). National Organic Program. Retrieved from http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateC&le ftNav=NationalOrganicProgram&page=NOPConsumers&description=Consumer s USDA Agricultural Marketing Service. (2013). National Organic Program. Retrieved from http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/NOPOrganicStandards USDA Agricultural Marketing Service. (2007). United States standards for livestock and meat marketing claims, grass (forage) fed claim for ruminant livestock and meat products derived from such livestock (Federal Register 72 - 199). Retrieved from http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5063842 USDA Agricultural Marketing Service. (2014). Farmers markets and local food marketing. Retrieved from http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateS&le ftNav=WholesaleandFarmersMarkets&page=WFMFarmersMark etGrowth&description= Farmers+Market+Growth USDA Food and Safety Inspection Service. (2014). Meat and Poultry Labeling Terms. Retrieved from http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food - safety - educ ation/get - answers/food - safety - fact - sheets/food - labeling/meat - and - poultry - labeling - terms/meat - and - poultry - labeling - terms/!ut/p/a1/jZFRb4IwEMc_DY - lx3AG90ZIFmUTZsxm5WUpehSS0pK2jrhPP9wyExed9p569_vn7v5HC8poofhHI7hrtO Ly8C_G77CAcTBJIM0nwSPMsrdF_pQkEC3vB2D9D5CFN - o vvBiu6dMbGtyZeTIXtOi4q0mjKk2ZQEe4sj0aS1ml9ZZYXqHbk4pvHLE1ovstSF6ibJ SgrEV - UG1Jp3fSmf2xRBya1l4HVrQ4HReCIWZZuBxN0yyEfPQXOOPnD3DZsMERIXX5fbx 1rMowGlY3WKFB4 - _MkK6d6 - yDBx70fe8LrYVEf6NbD85Jam0dZack7dpX9vkcT6F5aVeRjb8Ay - NlYw!!/#14 USDA Food and Nutrition Service. (n.d.a). Michigan is bringing the farm to the school. Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/farmtoschool/census#/state/mi USDA Food and Nutrition Service. (n.d.b). The farm to sc hool census. Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/farmtoschool/census#/ USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. (2014). Farmers Marketing (ACH12 - 7). Retrieved from http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resources/Highlights/Farmers_ Marketing/Highlights_Farmers_Marketing.pdf 186 Web er, K. T., & Gokhale, B. S. (2011). Effect of grazing on soil - water content in semiarid rangelands of southeast Idaho. Journal of Arid Environments , 75 (5), 464 - 470. doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2010.12.009 Williams, A.R. (2014, December 11). Major events sure to alter landscape of grass fed beef. [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.grassfedexc hange.com/article - category/17/ Williams, A.R. (2015, February 16). Sysco goes grass - fed with Irish supplier. [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.grassfedexchange.com/article - catego ry/17/ Xue, H., Mainville, D., You, W., & Nayga, R. M. (2010). Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for grass - fed beef: Empirical evidence from in - store experiments. Food Quality and Preference , 21 (7), 857 - 866. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.05.004