Networking Across the Supply Chain: Transportation 

Innovations in Local and Regional Food Systems

La Crosse, WI

February 20-21, 2013

Final Report: June 2014

Lindsey Day-Farnsworth, Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies

Michelle Miller, Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems

Author Contacts: Lindsey Day-Farnsworth, Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, 

University of Wisconsin- Madison, ldfarnsworth@wisc.edu, 608-890-2433

Michelle Miller, Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 

mmmille6@wisc.edu, 608-262-7135

USDA Contact: Marina R. Denicoff, Marina.Denicoff@ams.usda.gov, 202-690-3244 

Recommended Citation: Day-Farnsworth, L., and M. Miller. Networking Across the Supply 

Chain: Transportation innovations in local and regional food systems. June, 2014. University of 

Wisconsin, Madison, WI. Web. <http://dx.doi.org/10.9752/TS202.06-2014>

Acknowledgements: This work was supported by Cooperative Agreement Number 12-25-A5639 with the Agricultural Marketing Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Disclaimer: The opinions and conclusions expressed do not necessarily represent the views of 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture or the Agricultural Marketing Service.
1

Table of Contents

Executive Summary........................................................................................................................ 2

What Is the Issue? ....................................................................................................................... 2

What Did the Study Find?........................................................................................................... 2

How Was the Study Conducted?................................................................................................. 3

Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 4

Background..................................................................................................................................... 5

Conference Overview ..................................................................................................................... 6

Key Themes.................................................................................................................................... 8

Key Findings................................................................................................................................. 10

Emergent Strategies and Solutions to Deliver Regional Food to Regional Markets.................... 17

Post-event Feedback ..................................................................................................................... 22

Appendix A: Presentations about “Networking Across the Supply Chain” conference .............. 24

Appendix B: Meeting Agenda ...................................................................................................... 25

Appendix C: Participants and Affiliation ..................................................................................... 27

Appendix D: Sponsors................................................................................................................. 31
2

Executive Summary

What Is the Issue?

Until recently, local and regional food system development efforts have emphasized small scale 

direct marketing activities, while food freight transportation policy and planning have primarily 

focused on distribution infrastructure for large-scale commodity products. As the demand for 

local food continues to increase, innovative and scale-appropriate infrastructure and expertise are 

needed to respond to the market pull. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) identified a need to direct applied research

resources to focus on transportation and distribution issues in order to facilitate effective growth 

in local and regional food systems. Through collaboration between USDA’s Agricultural 

Marketing Service (AMS) and the University of Wisconsin-Madison Center for Integrated 

Agricultural Systems (CIAS) a new approach emerged. The USDA and CIAS researchers saw a 

great need for providing an opportunity for networking and sharing of perspectives among the 

diverse groups of regional food suppliers and the established freight transportation providers. 

The collaboration led to the Networking Across the Supply Chain (NASC) conference that 

served as the venue to accomplish the objectives of fostering information exchange, networking, 

and collaboration between the participants of the food supply chain. This report presents the 

conference overview with its key themes and findings as well as emergent strategies and

innovative solutions to help bring regional food to regional markets.

What Did the Study Find?

The result of the conference was to bring clarity to several themes identified by the participants 

as key to developing regional food transportation networks, including defining the meaning of 

“local” and the resulting market differentiation strategies; fostering relationships to improve 

logistics; identifying first and last mile issues; and, addressing supply chain scale and 

infrastructure. 

The key findings of the conference centered on:

• Developing values-based supply chains in response to consumer demand

• Identifying measures of sustainable food distribution

• Developing relational infrastructure between national and regional food logistics

Understanding the transportation barriers and complexity of food distribution in the Upper 

Midwest, with a focus on the four-state Driftless region in Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin and 

Illinois. Emergent strategies and innovative solutions identified by conference participants 

to bring regional food to regional markets included:
3

• Strengthening supply chain relationships

• Improving logistics at the regional level to address inefficiencies through multi-farm 

aggregation and back-hauling opportunities

• Investigating multi-modal and dual purpose opportunities for food freight transportation. 

An indication of the interest in the NASC outcomes is the ongoing attention to the subject matter 

since the event took place. Presentations of the NASC results at multiple other conferences have

stimulated discussion in the research community to address the issues raised at the conference.

How Was the Study Conducted?

The first-of-its kind conference brought together supply chain participants that have not had an 

opportunity in the past to interact and share their perspectives. Presentations by practitioners and 

researchers combined with guided small group discussions by participants produced an 

exceptionally clear set of issues, conclusions, and strategies for developing efficient local food 

distribution. 
4

Introduction

Agriculture is the largest user of freight transportation in the United States, claiming 31 percent 

of all ton-miles transported in the United Stated in 2007, according to USDA1

. Trucking alone 

carries 70 percent of the tonnage of agricultural products. And with over 80 percent of the 

nation’s cities and communities served solely by trucks, highway freight infrastructure plays a 

critical role in provisioning the U.S. population with a stable food supply. 

In recent years, consumer demand for local food has grown in the United States.2 Grocery

retailers, institutional food service operators, and broadline distributors, who serve high volume 

product lines, have recognized new market opportunities. This has resulted in increased 

purchases of local food products. Yet the types of production, marketing and distribution 

practices appropriate for low-volume, direct sales are often poorly suited for higher volume 

markets. 

The physical infrastructure developed to facilitate high volume transactions through national and 

global supply chains – washing, cooling, packing and storage facilities, and transportation 

vehicles – is inefficient and impractical when applied to regional food distribution. While capital 

and physical infrastructure are important, it is difficult to increase local and regional food supply 

and distribution by pursuing improvements in these alone. Social relationships, economic risk 

and opportunity and information flow must also be addressed.

Until recently, local and regional food system development efforts have emphasized small scale 

direct marketing activities while food freight transportation policy and planning have primarily 

focused on distribution infrastructure and efficiencies for large-scale commodity products. As 

the demand for local food continues to increase, scale-appropriate infrastructure and expertise 

are needed to respond to the market pull, especially from metropolitan regions. Input and 

collaboration from freight transportation and logistics organizations has been critical to 

understanding and overcoming barriers associated with moving larger volumes of product 

through increasingly sophisticated regional food supply chains. 

USDA identified a need to direct applied research resources to focus on transportation and 

distribution issues in order to facilitate effective growth in local and regional food systems. The 

collaboration between USDA-AMS and the University of Wisconsin-Madison CIAS resulted in 

the NASC conference. 

 1 Casavant, Ken, Marina Denicoff, Eric Jessup, April Taylor, Daniel Nibarger, David Sears, Hayk

 Khachatryan,Vicki McCracken, Marvin Prater, Jeanne O’Leary, Nick Marathon, Brian McGregor, and Surajudeen 

Olowolayemo. Study of Rural Transportation Issues, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing 

Service, April 2010. Web.http://dx.doi.org/10.9752/TS041.04-2010 p. v 2 Tropp, Debra “Why Local Food Matters: The rising importance of locally-grown food in the U.S. food system, a 

national perspective.

 http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5105706
5

The goal of the NASC conference was to foster information exchange, networking, and 

collaboration between the distinct but converging groups of regional food suppliers and the 

established freight transportation providers. The conference fulfilled its objectives by providing

an environment where business leaders shared perspectives and showcased new approaches to 

regional food distribution.

Background

Since 1989, faculty, staff and students with the University of Wisconsin-Madison CIAS have 

been working with private, nonprofit and public sector partners in the Upper Midwest to increase 

sustainable regional food production. The Center has a central commitment to participatory 

research, developing research projects based on business observations, needs, and insight. The 

Center meets formally and informally with small to mid-scale farmers and regional food supply 

chain participants to build agreement between businesses or identify business uncertainties that 

could be addressed.

Farmers made it increasingly clear to the Center that moving local food to wholesale markets 

presented distinct challenges to current transportation systems, many of which were specific to 

product categories. For example:

• Organic Valley, a certified organic cooperative, (Viroqua, WI) built their 

business around differentiating regional dairy products by partnering with 

existing processing and transportation resources and was facing transportation 

challenges, especially in the Chicago region. 

• Regional apple growers need to maintain the cold chain (safe temperatures 

throughout distribution) so that they may pack their product efficiently for 

regional markets. 

• Emerging local food aggregators were struggling to find transportation 

opportunities for their products. 

As the grocery industry has consolidated, much of the supply chain infrastructure that had served

regional markets has withered. In the Upper Midwest, moving local food into wholesale markets 

is more difficult with some products than others. This is the case when production volume falls

below the threshold required to participate in the increasingly consolidated retail and institutional 

food markets. Farmers resort to filling small trucks to supply restaurants and retails in distant 

urban markets, but incur higher unit costs to do so. Farmers supplying school districts are also 

challenged to do so in a cost-effective way. Similarly, farmers selling into wholesale markets 

encounter challenges when moving food into Chicago because of congestion, warehousing 

patterns and historical relationships between markets.
6

A systemic change is needed to resolve these obstacles. Systems change is difficult to plan, but 

can emerge when conditions are favorable.3 The private sector voiced the need for a neutral 

meeting place to deliberate and discuss the contradictory views and opinions regarding regional 

food distribution, a place where representatives from the full supply chain could share their 

perspectives. The NASC conference provided such an opportunity to a wide variety of

businesses, facilitated networking, and resulted in a clear new goal: to simultaneously support

sustainability values and improve regional supply chain efficiencies.

Conference Overview

On February 20-21, 2013, in LaCrosse, WI, more than 105 food supply chain businesses and 

public sector transportation and local food specialists convened to explore business innovations 

in supply chains that move food from producer to buyer within regional markets. This 

conference convened farmers, food distributors, retailers, transportation researchers, urban and 

regional planners, and public sector officials for two days of panel presentations, roundtable 

discussions and informal networking opportunities focusing on regional food transportation. 

The Upper Midwest—especially the Driftless region in Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin and 

Illinois—has distinct food production regions shaped by landscape and weather. As a result, 

regional production for wholesale markets includes a diversity of vegetables, fruit, beef, and 

dairy products reflected in the conference agenda. This production region serves more than 20 

million people in the Upper Midwest, which includes two major metropolitan market – the 

Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN (Twin Cities) and the Chicago, IL-Milwaukee,WI, urban corridor. 

This creates a set of distinct transportation opportunities and challenges. 

The meeting featured leaders in the field of regional transportation and distribution discussing 

their businesses. The full supply chain was represented – buyers, distributors, carriers, and 

farmers. Presentations were followed by roundtable discussions on perspectives held by 

participants. Throughout the meeting, research specialists listened closely for emergent themes 

and ideas, and subsequently shared them in a final panel discussion for all participants. 

 3 Parsons, B. A. 2007. “The state of methods and tools for social systems change,” the American Journal of 

Community Psychology. DOI 10.1007/s10464-007-9118-z

Choi, T., Dooley, K. and Rungtusanatham, M. 2001. “Supply networks and complex adaptive systems: control 

versus emergence,” Journal of Operations Management 19 (2001) 351-366

Li, G., Yang, H., Sun, L., Ji, P., and Feng, L. 2006. “The evolutionary complexity of complex adaptive supply 

networks: a simulation and case study,” International Journal of Production Economics 124 (2010) 310-330. Doi: 

10.1016/j.ijpe.2009.11.027

Kim, Y., Choi, T., Yan, T., and Dooley, K. 2009. “Structural investigation of supply networks: a social network 

analysis approach,” Journal of Operations Management 29 (2011) 194-211 doi:10.1016/j.jom.2010.11.001

Maani, K., and Maharaj, V., 2004. “Links between systems thinking and complex decision making,” System 

Dynamics Review. DOI: 10.1002/sdr.281
7

A diversity of organizations engaged in regional aggregation, branding and market development 

were represented at the NASC conference:

• Grass Run Farms (Dorchester, IA) and Wisconsin Meadows (Coon Valley, WI) shared 

their experiences in developing a food hub for grass fed meat. 

• Driftless Organics (Soldiers Grove, WI) and Goodness Greeness (Chicago, IL) shared 

their experiences in organic vegetables. 

• Morningside Farms (Galesville, WI) shared their experience with apples for fresh market. 

• A representative from Organic Valley (LaFarge, WI) discussed dairy distribution and 

logistics.

All six of these food hubs are operated as for-profit businesses, two are cooperatives, and four 

companies are self-organized and aggregate products from independent farms. Morningside 

Farms is part of a regional consortium of farmers who work cooperatively to pack and market 

apples with a regional label through Wescott Agriproducts (Elgin, MN). Goodness Greeness 

developed to serve a Chicago market, and unlike the other businesses, it did not start from a 

farmer base. All six sell product that is differentiated from conventional, and three of the 

businesses focus on organic product. The experiences of these businesses demonstrates that food 

hubs can add value to regional food systems and economies by:

• Serving specific functions such as coordinating anchor buyers and sellers,

• Overseeing inventory management, logistics, quality control, and customer service, and

• Providing product source identification and otherwise differentiated product.

Over 90 percent of the 44 participants who took the post-conference survey indicated that they 

would like to attend similar events in the future. Many expressed interest in additional 

opportunities to network with other regional food and freight professionals and collaborate on 

topics such as regional marketing and branding. In future events, participants would like to learn 

more about alternative and multi-modal regional freight options, such as short-line rail. Other 

participant-identified topics for future exploration include: 

• Approaches to better leveraging of existing infrastructure and hauling capacity, 

• Environmentally sustainable freight transportation options, 

• Software suited to regional route planning and mid-volume product tracking, and

• Logistics associated with linking multiple multi-farm food hubs.
8

Key Themes

Six, equally important, issues were identifiable as dominant in participant conversations during 

the two-day conference. The issues were grouped into the following themes: defining local, 

market differentiation, logistics, first/last mile, supply chain scale, and supply chain 

infrastructure. Figure 1 shows these themes. The conference served as a jumping off point for 

future conversations and investigations into important supply chain opportunities. Presentations 

focused on organizational and technical points, and it is from those discussions that the following 

themes emerged:

Figure 1. Key themes from the Networking Across the Supply Chain conference.

1. Defining local. For consumers and the wholesale buyers who are responding to their 

preferences, “local” can mean different things. Unlike its implied definition, “local” is

not just about distance to market, it is increasingly used as a proxy for a larger set of 

values and desirable attributes. A growing segment of consumers and wholesale buyers 

seek authenticity and the story behind the food product, and they are looking for 

sustainability indicators such as organic and fair trade. Developing appropriate supply 

chain arrangements for regional food systems is predicated on understanding this 

consumer-driven market change.

Defining Local

Market 

Differentiation

First/Last mile Logistics

Supply Chain 

Scale

Supply Chain 

Infrastructure

NASC Key themes
9

2. Market differentiation. The wholesale market for food products is complex. White 

table cloth restaurants, fast food chains, institutional kitchens, boutique retails and big 

box supermarkets have distinct supply chain partners. Sales strategy frequently 

determines supply chain partners and logistics relationships. 

3. Logistics. Relationships drive logistics and logistical decision-making. Logistics drives 

transportation infrastructure development. Supply chain relationships foster efficiencies 

and economic opportunities, yet participants noted that there were few, if any, 

opportunities for them to find strategic supply chain partners. More opportunities, such as 

those provided by the NASC conference, are needed to develop the necessary 

relationships.

4. First/last mile. Farmers are making real progress in scaling up production and

aggregating product for wholesale markets. Integrating farmers into established trucking 

routes may pose challenges. Last mile issues, such as inner city congestion from freight 

deliveries, continue to aggravate haulers and urban populations alike. Last mile 

challenges also include food access for inner city neighborhoods, where the cost of 

bringing product into the city is high and the market is uncertain.

5. Supply chain scale. Regional food distribution faces the competing goals of reducing 

costs and improving quality, while balancing market efficiencies with relational values.

Vertical integration and large-scale production and marketing represent one way to 

achieve cost efficiencies. Ratcheting down the scale may result in additional costs, yet it 

adds product value for consumers. 

6. Supply chain infrastructure. Regions with less access to the conventional distributional 

capital may be less vulnerable to supply chain disruptions and be more likely to have 

robust local and regional food distribution networks. Supply chain transparency and 

product tracking may be other advantages of local and regional food systems, through 

information technology improvements and based on new traceability regulations.

4

Additionally, there is a growing convergence between local food distribution,

institutional food provisioning, and food banks where the need is great but the 

opportunity for business development is scant.

 4 FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), 

http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FSMA/ucm270851.htm
10

Key Findings

Conference discussions and presentations led to findings that can be summarized into five 

general areas of concern:

• Consumer-driven, values-based supply chains

• Measures of sustainable food distribution

• National vs. regional logistics 

• Complexity of Upper Midwest supply chains

• Transportation barriers in the Upper Midwest

Consumer-driven, values-based supply chains

Participants agreed that supply chains for regional food in the Upper Midwest are values-based 

and are developing in response to consumer demand. Sustainability values are at the core of the 

local food movement. Regional supply chains need a strategy to communicate sustainability 

values from farm to store. The NASC participants indicated that increasing sustainable business 

practices across the supply chain strengthens the expectations of consumers in the value of the 

product they purchase. 

Some of the buyers and distributors that participated in the conference define local in terms of 

food miles, e.g. local food is sourced within a 150-mile radius of a given retailer. This is roughly 

the driving range that Less-Than-Truckload (LTL) haulers consider their service area in the 

Upper Midwest. However, many NASC conference participants, ranging from producer 

cooperatives to organic distributors, emphasized product attributes other than or in addition to 

geographic proximity. Their marketing approach is oriented toward meeting rising consumer 

interest in a constellation of attributes with which local is often conflated. Marketing claims 

highlight social, environmental, and health benefits that consumers associate with particular 

modes and scales of production. For example:

• Grass Run Farms (Dorchester, IA), a regional grass-fed beef distributor serving a 

predominantly upper Midwestern market emphasizes grass-fed flavor and high nutritional 

quality of its beef.

• Goodness Greeness (Chicago, IL), a leading Midwestern distributor of organic produce 

and the largest privately held organic distributor in the United States, showcases its 

commitment to local and regional food distribution in terms of its relationships with 

regional producers and contributions to organizations that support family farms and food 

security, such as Farm Aid5 and regional food banks. 

Distributors target local market segments that coincide with values-based markets, but “local” 

itself is not the sole or primary marketing attribute. Retailers are reporting success in marketing 

 5 Farm Aid is an organization that raises awareness about the loss of family farms and raises money to keep family 

farmers on the land (www.farmaid.org).
11

farmers rather than location – people want to support the values they believe in and people and 

communities they know.6

Measures of sustainable food distribution

As part of their emphasis on values-based marketing, the participants were eager to learn about 

how the transportation sector defines “sustainable” and how it negotiates various logistical and 

infrastructural challenges: How do alternate freight distribution modes fit together – rail, barge, 

delivery trucks vs. semis? What are the labor issues? How is risk addressed in distribution, 

especially foreseeable risks like cold chain disruption, rising fuel costs and increased regulation 

in response to freeway congestion?

Characteristics of sustainable food distribution are only now being defined. The businesses that 

are building values-based supply chains are looking for strategic partners who are committed to 

sustainability in terms of environmental, economic, and social goals. Early work in food systems 

made an assumption that distance to market meant that less fuel was used to move food to 

market, but a number of studies have since made it clear that it is more fuel efficient to ship full 

truckloads a long distance than to move LTL short distances.7

 Finding regional efficiencies in 

transportation is more complicated than anticipated. 

Distance to market is not necessarily the best measure of sustainable food distribution. In fact, 

research indicates that the transport of local food is typically highly inefficient, whereas longer 

food freight movements offer higher profit per mile due to economies of scale. As such, the 

notion of food miles erroneously equates transportation efficiencies with sustainability, when 

sustainable food distribution would be better measured by such indicators as increased fuel 

efficiency, reduced Green House Gases (GHG), sustainable production methods, and fair labor 

practices. As King et al describe:

“When food miles are small, product aggregation to achieve large load sizes and 

logistical efficiencies can yield highly fuel-efficient distribution systems.

8

”

In other words, fewer food miles does not necessarily mean greater resource efficiency and food 

miles tell us nothing about how a given food product was produced or shipped. As a result, other 

factors such as the perceived social, environmental, and nutritional attributes associated with 

specific types of production practices (e.g. organic, grass-fed, use of Integrated Pest 

 6 Major, M. 2013. “Setting the table with fresh views”. Progressive Grocer. 

http://www.progressivegrocer.com/inprint/article/id5370/setting-the-table-with-fresh-views/ 7 Desrochers, P. and Shimizu, H. 2012. The Locavore’s Dilemma: In Praise of the 10,000-Mile Diet. Public Affairs: 

New York

8 King, R. P., M. S. Hand, G. DiGiacomo, K. Clancy, M. I. Gomez, S. D. Hardesty, L. Lev, and E. W. McLaughlin. 

2010. “Comparing the Structure, Size, and Performance of Local and Mainstream Food Supply Chains.” 

Economic Research Report - Economic Research Service, USDA (99).
12

Management, fair trade designations) are in many ways better indicators of values associated 

with a particular food product’s qualities. As noted above, this is reflected in the marketing and 

merchandising strategies of a number of the producers and distributors that participated in the 

NASC conference. As part of their emphasis on values-based marketing, the participants were 

eager to learn about more sustainable distribution practices and the potential for multimodal 

distribution.

Consumers and wholesale buyers seek authenticity and story behind product, and the story could 

include how the product travels to market. It is difficult to capture a premium on local and 

sustainable products if buyers and end consumers cannot easily and credibly identify what 

differentiates them from products without these characteristics. As one organic produce 

distributor remarked at the NASC conference, “some local products are hard to sell not because 

they aren’t good but because they are not branded.” 

As local food supply chains are lengthened, high volume buyers and household consumers rely 

more heavily on branding, eco-labels, in-store merchandising, and other indicators on product 

packaging, smart phone apps, and websites to verify product claims. It is not uncommon for 

companies to employ multiple strategies. For example: Organic Valley, the nation’s largest coop of organic producers, organizes and profiles its growers by region on its website, where 

consumers can learn about and feel connected to the brand’s regional farmer suppliers. While 

the USDA organic seal9 “...indicates the food or other agricultural product has been produced 

through approved methods. These methods integrate cultural, biological, and mechanical 

practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve 

biodiversity,” the farmer profiles help household consumers connect to the people and the story 

behind the product, further validating the perception of authenticity. Distributors and haulers can 

help ensure that a product’s story travels with it from farm to consumer, with the long-term goal 

of ensuring the entire supply chain can maintain the sustainability brand that they are promoting. 

National vs. regional logistics 

Logistics support tends to maximize national rather than regional efficiencies. The reemergence 

of high-volume regional food distribution is relatively recent. Much of the mid-sized food 

distribution infrastructure that developed over the first half of the twentieth century was lost as 

farms, food distributors, and retailers became increasingly consolidated over the last three 

decades of the 20th century. Until very recently, many of the small and mid-scale food hubs that 

developed over the past couple decades were built on relationships and the remnants of 

preexisting infrastructure. Take, for example, the following description of an informal multifarm distribution hub operating in southwestern Wisconsin from a 2011 study by the National 

Center for Freight and Infrastructure Research and Education and CIAS:

 9

 USDA What is Organic? www.ams.usda.gov/nop
13

“Harmony Valley has become an informal point of aggregation for its own 

products as well as those of Driftless Organics, Star Valley Farms, and several 

other small, local farms. Harmony Valley has taken on an aggregation function 

primarily because it already had the necessary storage capacity and equipment 

(e.g., forklifts, two docks, and coolers). It is not in close proximity to primary 

transportation routes, however, making it a less than optimal hub site.”10

Driftless Organics farmer and co-owner Josh Engel explained on a NASC panel that

building relationships has been critical to the logistics and distribution component of his 

CSA and wholesale business. Indeed, relational infrastructure – the relationships 

between supply chain participants – is at the core of any supply chain or distribution 

network. And yet, while cooperation with Harmony Valley and other area farms has 

increased the distributional capacity of multiple businesses and enabled them to grow, 

Driftless Organics continues to face logistical and cold storage challenges caused in part 

by the ad hoc nature of the hub’s development over. This is an example of a successful 

but suboptimal system that developed over time without planning or strategic 

consideration of the location of the farms relative to the transportation network and the 

rest of the existing supply chain. Conversely, the supply chain is no longer well-linked to 

regional production areas, and instead has developed to serve distant production regions.

Complexity of the Upper Midwest supply chains

Supply chains in the Upper Midwest are complex, and supply chains for regionally-produced 

food are fragmented. A number of research studies have indicated that the number of farmers

who are moving towards sustainable production practices is growing.11 Not only has the number 

of organic vegetable producers in the Upper Midwest increased, so too, have the number of 

farmers marketing product at farmers markets, and the number of farmers markets across the 

region. Local food and direct marketing opportunities, including farmers markets, are one of the 

fastest-growing segments of agriculture. According to the Census of Agriculture, direct sales of 

food products from farmers to individual consumers rose by nearly 50 percent between 2002 and 

2007. 

Worth an estimated $1 billion in 2005, local food sales grew to $4.8 billion in 2007 and nearly 

$7 billion last year, according to industry estimates. For nearby businesses in major cities across 

 10 Bittner. J., L. Day-Farnsworth, M Miller, R Kozub, B Gollnik. September 2011. Maximizing Freight Movements 

in Local Food Markets. National Center for Freight and Infrastructure Research and Education. University of 

Wisconsin-Madison. p.12 11 The National Sustainable Soybean Initiative survey data at: 

http://www.coolbean.info/pdf/soybean_research/national_sustainability_initiative/SoybeanSurveyResults_2013_F

INAL.pdf, and USDA ERS data on organic production trends at http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/organicproduction.aspx#.U4zjO3ckRyw 
14

the U.S., having a farmers market nearby means an average increase in sales of anywhere from 

$19,000 to $15 million, according to a Marketumbrella research paper published in 2012.12

The 10 top states accounting for more than half – 51.3 percent – of all markets listed in the 

directory database are: California, 759; New York, 637; Illinois, 336; Michigan, 331; Ohio, 300; 

Pennsylvania, 290; Massachusetts, 289; Wisconsin, 286; Missouri and Virginia, tied at 246; and 

Iowa and North Carolina, tied at 229. 

Meeting participants discussed the fact that many farmers who start out with a farmers market as 

their primary outlet need to diversify and scale up their operation to include wholesaling. Some 

start out delivering direct to restaurants and/or starting subscription services through Community 

Supported Agriculture (CSA) businesses.

The trend toward sustainable agriculture, although difficult to quantify for fruit and vegetable 

farms, has increased the need for supply chain partners who share sustainability values and 

understand the importance of supply chain transparency, shared risk and benefit across the 

supply chain – from farmers to whole sale markets to retail outlets and consumers. 

Wholesale markets are diverse. High-volume buyers seeking local and regional products now 

include broadline distributors, such as Sysco, large vertically integrated grocery chains, gourmet 

retail, independent grocers, natural food co-ops, school districts, hospitals, “white table cloth” 

restaurants, gourmet fast food (Chipotle and Wolfgang Puck Express, for example), and food 

banks. This wide range of prospective buyers represents numerous opportunities for regional 

producers, but it also means that the high-volume regional food market now includes a wider 

range of customers to which many smaller scale local suppliers are unaccustomed. As a result, 

producers and distributors need to be savvy about which products and price points are 

appropriate for which markets. Distribution questions raised at the NASC conference centered 

on: how does a particular product or line of products wind its way through specific supply 

chains in such a way that helps to support business development along the entire chain?

Regional food supply chains are not appropriate for all businesses. It is important for growers to 

be able to identify a market niche suited to their cost of production, production capacity, and 

marketing skills and preferences. Distributors need to consider whether the high transaction costs 

that come with working with many smaller, regional growers (rather than one or two very large 

growers), and the more complex logistics that result, are balanced with access to higher-end 

markets or otherwise give the business a competitive edge. Similarly, it is helpful for the 

businesses down chain when high volume buyers are clear about their expectations with regard 

 12 Market Umbrella. 2012. “Farmers Markets Contribute Millions to Local, Regional Economies.” 

http://www.marketumbrella.org/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=163&cntnt01returnid=122

/
15

to product quality, presentation, price, delivery schedule, and merchandising and are willing to 

provide firm forward contracts to purchase product in advance of the growing season.

13

The complexity of the regional supply chain is further exacerbated by challenges such as

misperceptions and the difficulty of forming new relationships. Lack of alignment between 

supply chain partners on issues of product quality, pack size, cold chain integrity, pick-up and 

drop-off arrangements, and wholesale pricing can be frustrating for everyone and requires time 

to improve communication systems. Supply chain risk can strain business relationships, 

especially between many independent companies. As one NASC conference panelist remarked, 

“[Our natural food co-op] is always fighting growers’ perception that we are depository for 

product that can’t or didn’t sell at the farmers’ market. We make an effort to source from local 

growers, but the co-op can’t be a dumping ground; we have to have quality standards to be 

profitable.” A local food aggregator noted that farmers who are accustomed to direct marketing 

have been appalled by the low terminal prices they are expected to accept when selling through a

nascent local food hub. An independent distributor noted that transportation delays increase the 

risk of product shrinkage and cold chain mishaps. 

Transportation barriers in the Upper Midwest 

Transportation barriers are limiting market access in the Upper Midwest. Many of the greatest 

logistical inefficiencies associated with local and regional food freight occur at the beginning and 

end of the supply chain. This is where numerous short but indirect hauling routes combine with 

LTL and can increase the per unit hauling cost. In addition, recent changes to federal hours-ofservice regulations have restricted the number of consecutive hours drivers can operate their 

vehicles.14 Under current regulations, delays at loading docks count as hours of service. 

Consequently, delays in the first and last miles reduce actual hauling time and negatively impact 

profit margins by necessitating that haulers and distributors run more trucks. 

Transportation challenges identified at the conference include lack of coordination between the 

transportation providers and the very small and very large facilities that supply and receive local 

food. Small-scale suppliers require numerous pick-ups and sometimes have inadequate physical 

infrastructure, labor flexibility and/or limited knowledge of the time sensitivity associated with 

hours of service regulations and the cost of delays. As a result, drivers will sometimes arrive for 

a pick-up at a smaller supplier only to discover that product is not yet packed or palletized or that 

there is no one there to load the truck. Large-scale suppliers, on the other hand, face delays as a 

result of traffic congestion caused by numerous distributors arriving at the same time. 

 13 Day-Farnsworth, L. McCown, B., Miller, M., and Pfeiffer, A. December 2009. Scaling Up: Meeting the Demand 

for Local Food. Retrieved 29 Jul 2013. http://www.cias.wisc.edu/farm-to-fork/scaling-up-meeting-the-demandfor-local-food/ 14 US Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. 

https://cms.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/hours-service/summary-hours-service-regulations
16

While more rigorous research is needed to confirm and elucidate these issues, bottlenecking may 

be mitigated through education and improved communication systems about pick-up/delivery 

requirements for small supplier and the development of more mid-size aggregation and 

distribution centers for LTL as well as regionally-scaled logistics tools. Similar bottlenecks 

occur at delivery, when small-scale receivers are not prepared to take product and larger 

customers are contending with multiple deliveries at the same time. 

Distance-to-market gives local product an advantage in terms of product quality, as long as the 

cold chain is protected. As the time en route to market increases, product freshness decreases, 

and more shrinkage occurs – a concern especially with refrigerated fresh fruits and vegetables. 

Traffic congestion slows freight delivery and complicates logistics, and at the same time, and

societal reliance on trucking contributes to traffic congestion. Hours-of-Service regulation is 

meant to improve traffic and labor safety, but reliance on truck freight service to bring products 

to heavily populated regions adds to the traffic congestion. 

Metropolitan areas are highly dependent on freight transportation and those that serve as large 

distributional hubs, such as Chicago, are perhaps the most vulnerable to disruption. In fact, the 

largest national food distribution hub, measured by warehouse square footage, lies just east of 

Chicago. 15 By contrast, metro Minneapolis-St. Paul and smaller towns in the Upper Midwest 

are less reliant on national and international markets; this has resulted in opportunities to 

cultivate a regional culinary identity and regional markets and has led to the parallel emergence 

of more flexible, redundant and experimental small and mid-size distribution systems. Other 

metropolitan regions will face their own types of opportunities and constraints when creating 

regional food systems, based in part on the population density, the placement of existing 

distributional hubs, regional proximity to food production regions, and the agricultural ability of 

a region to produce specific commodities. 

Long-haul freight truck traffic is expected to rise dramatically on Interstate highways and other 

arterials throughout the US16. The impact of increased truck traffic will be felt most acutely in 

certain freight corridors, including significant portions of Interstate 94 between Chicago, 

Milwaukee, and the Twin Cities. According to the Federal Highway Administration, “assuming 

no change in network capacity, the number of National Highway System miles with recurring 

congestion and a large number of trucks is forecast to increase nearly four-fold between 2007 

and 2040. On highways carrying more than 8,500 trucks per day, recurring congestion will slow 

traffic on close to 7,200 miles and create stop-and-go conditions on an additional 23,500 

 15 MWPVL. 2013. The Grocery Distribution Center Network in North America. Retrieved from 

http://www.mwpvl.com/html/grocery_distribution_network.html

16 USDOT Federal Highway Administration Office of Freight Management and Operations. 2011. Freight Facts and 

Figures. US DOT. 

http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/docs/11factsfigures/pdfs/fff2011_highres.pd

f p. 33
17

miles.”17 Ultimately, reliance on freight trucks for food distribution means the region is reliant 

on fossil fuels which are subject to fluctuating prices. Mid-sized trucking firms that specialize in 

serving regional markets may need to share increased fuel costs with supply chain partners to 

stay in business, making these strategic partnerships critical.

Emergent Strategies and Solutions to Deliver Regional Food to Regional 

Markets

NASC participants shared some key innovations that they think will accelerate business 

development for regional food supply chains and make it possible to meet the demand for 

regional food produced with economic, social, and environmental attributes.

Strengthen regional supply chains

Multiple conference participants noted that stronger relationships across the supply chain tend to 

result in higher-value products. For example, a NASC participant who runs a farm and regional 

food distribution business explained that his relationships with his buyers are the primary reason 

he does not contract out his hauling; he simply does not want to jeopardize those relationships by 

outsourcing deliveries to a third party that cannot represent his product or is less personally 

invested in timely deliveries. Even in very high volume transactions between regional growers 

and large school districts, shared expectations and transparency are critical. At NASC, a former 

school food service director emphasized the importance of communicating with vendors about 

quality assurance prior to transactions to ensure that product requirements are clear and mutually 

agreed upon. 

Suppliers and buyers have different expectations regarding product price and quality and the 

extent to which supply chain relationships operate at arms’ length vs. face to face. While 

improvements to supply chain management and logistics may help increase quality and reduce 

transaction costs, the reconciliation of these competing goals will also require high levels of 

communication across the supply chain and opportunities for suppliers and buyers to meet one 

another and assess their compatibility. Supply chain governance, especially in those without 

vertical integrated structures, is increasingly important in fostering thriving supply chains and 

access to regional and local markets for farmers.

Participants engaged in a lively conversation about branding as a core regional marketing 

strategy. A number of the wholesale producers are developing brands to communicate a suite of 

quality attributes to consumers. Rather than develop distinct brands and add to the marketplace 

 17 USDOT Federal Highway Administration Office of Freight Management and Operations. 2011. Freight Facts and 

Figures. US DOT. 

http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/docs/11factsfigures/pdfs/fff2011_highres.pd

f pp. 33-39
18

“cacophony”, regional efforts to align branding activities will create market synergy and increase 

consumer recognition of regional products. 

A possible follow-up action item from the conference emerged: developing a regional marketing 

entity that could develop, manage and promote regional brands and host events ranging from 

networking opportunities to technical assistance trainings on production planning and product 

development. A regional marketing association akin to the Produce Marketing Association has 

the potential to catalyze, support, and cement critical business relationships. This is based on the 

observation that relationships drive logistics and multi-sector gatherings that include growers, 

distributors, and other allied professionals serve an important role by fostering collaborations 

while also paving the way for strategic, mid- to long-range planning and infrastructure 

development.

Good business practices such as clear communication, follow-through and creative problem 

solving lie at the heart of efficiency. Food distribution networks could be strengthened through 

more strategic and regular communication between suppliers and buyers and improve the ability 

of the public sector to support the work of nonprofit and private businesses through targeted 

research and development services. This has the potential to foster a wider range of stakeholder 

participation in regional planning processes and help identify partnership opportunities. 

The work of conference co-conveners, CIAS and the Mississippi River Regional Planning 

Commission (MRRPC), and their involvement with the Driftless Region Food and Farm Project 

and the Food Resources and Agribusiness Network have laid the foundation for a regional 

marketing and branding entity. However, additional resources are necessary to provide 

marketing and branding expertise, sponsor content rich programming, and host more regular 

networking opportunities.

Improve logistics at the regional level

Inefficiencies in regional food supply chains can result in increased costs and compromised 

product quality. Because the regional food distribution field is still comparatively young, there 

are relatively simple and low-cost opportunities for improvement. From a food miles and 

transportation perspective, research suggests that the most fuel and cost efficient hauls occur at a 

regional scale in fully loaded large-volume trucks.

18 Practices such as multi-farm aggregation 

and back-hauling can reduce the number of short and less-than-full load hauls, while potentially 

improving the cold chain, and correspondingly, product quality. It may also be possible to 

cooperate regionally to identify and develop logistics and the necessary infrastructure 

strategically, as was done by the dairy industry in the 1960s. 

 18 King, R. P., M. S. Hand, G. DiGiacomo, K. Clancy, M. I. Gomez, S. D. Hardesty, L. Lev, and E. W. McLaughlin. 

2010. “Comparing the Structure, Size, and Performance of Local and Mainstream Food Supply Chains.” 

Economic Research Report - Economic Research Service, USDA (99).
19

Community and regional food system development is increasingly the result of public-private 

collaborations. This is evidenced in the public health funding and economic development 

resources allocated to improve access to healthy food in under-served rural and urban 

communities and spur local economic development through food processing and innovation. 

Consequently, it is increasing more important to incorporate evolving food logistics into midrange transportation, land use, and economic planning. This is a critical time to include 

discussion about freight impact on metro transportation and provide a vision of a more 

sustainable approach to distributing food.

In response to these changing conceptions of food security and community and regional food 

systems, leadership at both regional and national food banks ranging from the Dane County Food 

Pantry Network in southern Wisconsin to Feeding America are reassessing their approaches to 

sourcing and are striving to increase their fresh and local produce offerings. One NASC 

participant made it clear that he or she believes food banks were never meant to be permanent, 

and figuring out how to “put themselves out of business” is a priority. The development of 

supply chain infrastructure to again serve inner city and rural communities may be possible by 

reexamining logistics and public reinvestment in necessary infrastructure. Investing in public 

terminal markets in urban regions over a particular population threshold may alleviate food 

access issues. 

Investigate multi-modal and dual purpose openings for food freight 

transportation

In anticipation of increased congestion in all modes of freight transportation, and the highway 

system in particular, food distribution networks have an opportunity to plan accordingly. One 

strategy discussed at the NASC conference is to explore the development and expansion of 

multi-modal regional food freight networks. Current U.S. transportation policy is modeoriented, meaning that different agencies focus on each mode of transportation, and each mode 

has its own funding mechanisms19. 

Multi-modal food freight infrastructure planning and development could potentially increase 

fuel/cost efficiencies and improve the sustainability of regional food distribution by reducing 

reliance on truck transportation and associated road wear and traffic congestion. For example, 

Goodness Greenness, a regional produce distributor that served on the NASC market outlook 

panel, is already using short line rail to ship carrots. A French grocery chain is hauling 

 19 Casavant, Ken , Marina Denicoff, Eric Jessup, April Taylor, Daniel Nibarger, David Sears, Hayk Khachatryan, 

Vicki McCracken, Marvin Prater, Jeanne O’Leary, Nick Marathon, Brian McGregor, and Surajudeen 

Olowolayemo. Study of Rural Transportation Issues, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing 

Service, April 2010. Web.http://dx.doi.org/10.9752/TS041.04-2010 p. xiii
20

wholesale product to market using barges on the Seine.

20 A question was raised regarding the 

use of barges for food distribution for the many cities along the Mississippi River, or along Lake 

Michigan. Increased communication and feedback between freight planners and commercial 

users could help identify barriers and opportunities to expanding the use of alternative freight 

modes to transport food regionally.

In addition to expanding research and investment in regional multi-modal food freight networks, 

planners and allied professionals could incorporate first and last mile considerations and urban 

freight movement best practices into metropolitan food distribution and logistics planning. The 

National Cooperative Freight Research Program’s Guidebook for Understanding Urban Goods 

Movement provides information and recommendations for improving public decision-making 

affecting urban commercial motor vehicle movements for goods delivery. It includes 

recommendations on design standards, urban infrastructure design, land use and zoning, and 

urban truck regulations and outlines a process for planners to assess goods movement issues in 

their metro areas.

21

The guidebook’s attention to first and last-mile issues could inform siting decisions for 

metropolitan food hubs and may be of particular interest to regional food systems and freight 

transportation planners. It explains that to accommodate the often tight confines of road 

geometrics in dense 'last mile' urban areas, trucking companies often transload products at 

metropolitan warehouses from large 5-axle tractor-semi-trailers (commonly referred to as “18-

wheelers”) to smaller, more agile delivery vehicles such as, single-unit two or three-axel trucks 

with relatively short wheelbases.

22 Many small- and mid-scale food distributors do not have 

fleets with both large vehicles that economize high-volume rural food transport and smaller 

vehicles suited to the challenges of dense, urban deliveries. 

Lack of knowledge among small-size producers and distributors of urban freight movements and 

limited access to capital and transportation infrastructure contribute to distribution inefficiencies. 

These inefficiencies might be avoided through education on the cost of in-house distribution and 

 20 Todd, S. (2012, March 19) “Supermarket delivers by river”. Lloyd’s Loading List. Retrieved from 

http://www.lloydsloadinglist.com/freightdirectory/searcharticle.htm?articleID=20017946724&highlight=true&keywords=supermarket+delivers+by+river

&phrase=#.UcnEj3eB7rc 21 Rhodes, Suzann S., Mark Berndt, Paul Bingham, Joe Bryan, Thomas J. Cherrett, Peter Plumeau, and Roberta 

Weisbrod. 2012. Guidebook for Understanding Urban Goods Movement. National Cooperative Freight Research 

Program (NCFRP) Report 14. Transportation Research Board. Washington DC. 

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/ncfrp/ncfrp_rpt_014.pdf 22 Ibid. p. 14
21

through collaboration with compatible regional hauling companies that have fleets suited to the 

diverse needs of regional food distribution.

23

Distributors at the NASC meeting pushed back on the idea of an additional warehouse step, 

because the more product is handled, the higher the risk of cold chain breakage, increased 

product shrinkage, and reduced freshness. Issues of ownership and risk arise, raising questions 

such as “Who owns the product at the time of warehousing and who is taking the added financial 

risk?” Food safety is a serious concern in products reliant on cold chain integrity, and 

regulations to ensure cold chain compliance require data monitoring and reporting. Independent 

distributors are at a disadvantage compared with vertically integrated companies that own the 

product and can absorb risk at different points of the supply chain. Reconciling freight capacity 

and planning concerns with food safety and business profitability will likely continue to be a 

challenge as public and private entities negotiate and balance different objectives within regional 

food and freight distribution networks.

 23 Nelson, David A., Michelle Miller, Alfonso Morales, and Ben Zeitlow.June 2013. Achieving scale strategically: 

understanding freight flows in regional food supply chains. National Center for Freight & Infrastructure Research 

& Education Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering College of Engineering University of 

Wisconsin–Madison.
22

Post-event Feedback 

Based on the post-event feedback survey summarized below, the NASC conference succeeded in 

achieving many of its goals: the NASC conference fostered numerous new connections between 

participants. Participants learned useful innovations for transportation logistics, and many 

indicated that they are interested in attending similar events in the future. Interest in the event 

exceeded conference capacity. Some have identified the need for more discussions and 

interactions of farmers with regional hauling and logistics companies to better leverage existing 

infrastructure and hauling capacity. 

Participants Comments

1. The conference fostered new connections: 

Over 97% of respondents made three or more new connections with other participants.

− 66% of respondents made more than 5 new connections with other participants.

− 70% made new contacts useful to their businesses.

− 88% made connections useful for local foods development.

2. Participants learned about food freight transportation and logistics from multiple perspectives 

and would like to see more freight and logistics expertise showcased in future panels: 

79% learned useful innovations for transportation and logistics.

Comments:

“The growers/producers did not have a good understanding of what happens when they 

hold a truck up by not having the shipment ready to go at agreed upon time.”

“Understanding trucker drive time constraints was helpful.”

“I would have liked to hear from more speakers that actually have trucks on the road. We 

heard from Organic Valley and Goodness Greenness. We need more companies and 

individuals who have trucks and are moving product share their advice.”

“Really liked having a rep from the DOT there and would like them invited to the next 

meetings.” 

“Have more discussions on how rail shipping works. Discussion on locations of existing 

food hubs and how to start linking them together to develop food routes.”

3. Participants seek ongoing opportunities to network, build relationships, and advance the 

ideas discussed at the conference: 92% were interested in attending similar events in the 

future.

Comments:

“Hold follow-up discussions for those that desire to roll up their sleeves and start to 

execute!”
23

“Thank you—it was a fabulous conference, I made many key connections. Lots of energy 

to move forward with the next steps!”

“Good job! Much more discussion is needed.”

“More time for pure networking. That part felt a bit rushed as we moved on to the next 

scheduled event. Conversations just got started and it was time to move on. Lots of good 

people to talk to!

4. Participants saw value in the diversity of perspectives and expertise represented at the 

conference, and they seek opportunities for continued collaboration.

Comments:

“This is more about building connections of trust than about finding new technologies. 

We need players outside of the system who can creatively connect existing systems in 

new ways.”

“We don't need to try to create a new transportation system for local and regional foods. 

[We need to] find a way to integrate existing players into a higher level of involvement.”

“The idea of a regional food marketing association that could increase relationships 

between businesses and work on a regional branding effort.”

5. Participants provided suggestions for future conferences:

Comments:

Interest in the event exceeded conference capacity; subsequent events would ideally 

accommodate at least 150 participants. 

Allow for more informal networking time.

Provide more structure or facilitation for small group discussions.

Let participants self-organize by topic of interest, theme, or professional background for 

small group discussions, and create opportunities to change groups for each discussion.

Host pane – or discussion – on ways to leverage existing infrastructure and hauling 

capacity.

Host a panel on environmentally sustainable hauling strategies and regional food freight 

alternatives to trucking, e.g. short-line rail.

Feature scale-appropriate software for regional route-planning and product tracking.

Showcase more regional hauling and logistics companies in future panels.

Generate more specific action items at the end of the conference.
24

Appendix A: Presentations about “Networking Across the Supply Chain” 

conference

The organizers of the NASC conference and the authors of this report hope that the usefulness of 

these activities continues to reap the benefits in the future. Since the conference was held, the 

following activities have used the results:

• American Planning Association, Chicago, IL April 2013 

http://media.planning.org/media/npc13/presentations/S563.pdf

• Wisconsin Chapter of the American Planning Association, Sheboygan, WI, June 2013

http://www.scribd.com/doc/227680283/WAPA-Conf-Presentation-6-13-2013

• USDA-AMS, Washington, D.C., August 2013 

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5105410

• University of Illinois summer institute webinar on food systems, August 2013 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/227681436/UIUC-Teleconference-August-2013

• UW-Extension Food Systems team meeting, Stevens Point, WI September 2013 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/227679979/UWEX-Food-Systems-M-miller-10-13

• Wisconsin Green Building Alliance, Milwaukee, WI, October 2013 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/227683218/Designing-the-life-we-envision-sustainableagriculture-and-food-supply-webs

• NC1198 Multistate project Renewing an Agriculture of the Middle: Value Chain Design, 

Policy Approaches, Environmental and Social Impacts annual meeting, Minneapolis, MN, 

October 2013 http://nimss.umd.edu/lgu_v2/homepages/saes.cfm?trackID=14216

• Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, November 2013 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/228170233/Northwestern-Local-Food-Panel-Nov2013

• Midwest Value-Added Food conference, Wausau, WI, January 2014 

http://prezi.com/dyytyshkxyzz/wholesaling-local-food/#

• Wisconsin Local Food Summit, Milwaukee, WI, January 2014 

http://prezi.com/vxsyxi8kth5b/growing-the-local-foodeconomy/?utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy

• National Logistics, Trade and Transportation Symposium, Gulfport, MS, February 2014 

(refereed paper http://www.scribd.com/doc/226815095/Resilient-Regional-Supply-Chainsfor-Sustainably-grown-Food?secret_password=aJ3WZPeTnOx6XR1I3as4) 

http://www.usm.edu/logistics-trade-transportation/conference-presentations (presentations 

not yet posted http://prezi.com/m_1jkwxakgpt/?utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy) 

• Madison Regional Economic Partnership, Madison, WI, March 2014 

• Climate Quest, Madison, WI June 2014 

• Wisconsin Chapter of the American Planning Association, Madison, WI, June 2014

• Paper in process – “Resilient regional supply chains for sustainably-grown food” with Steve 

Viscelli, Swarthmore College.
25

Appendix B: Meeting Agenda

Networking Across the Supply Chain Agenda

February 20-21, 2013

La Crosse, WI

Wednesday, Feb. 20

12:30—1:00pm: Welcome

• Bryan Law, Conference Facilitator, Mississippi River Regional Planning Commission

• Marina Denicoff, Transportation Services Division, Transportation and Marketing 

Programs, USDA-Agricultural Marketing Service

• Michelle Miller, Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems, University of Wisconsin –

Madison

1:00—1:45pm: Panel presentations: Market Outlook. Confirmed speakers:

• Kymm Mutch – Project Director, Regional Learning Lab, School Food FOCUS, 

Milwaukee

• Don Stanwick, Purchasing Manager for Chartwells-Thompson Hospitality, Compass 

Group, Chicago

• Brad Smith, Peoples Coop, LaCrosse

I:45-3pm: Facilitated small group discussions on wholesale buyer needs and opportunities.

3:00—3:45pm: Panel presentations on Connecting Supply and Demand: Challenges and 

Opportunities.

• Ben Perkins, Goodness Greeness, Chicago

• Kristine Jepsen, Grass Run Farms, Dorchester, IA

• Nick Lichter, Organic Valley, LaFarge, WI

3:45-5pm: Facilitated small group discussions on distributor/processor needs and opportunities.

5:00—6:00pm: Networking Hour with cocktails and tapas (small bites). Cash bar sponsored by 

City Brewery, LaCrosse.

6:00—6:30pm: Keynote presentation

I. Brandon Scholz, Wisconsin Grocers Association
26

7:00—9:00pm: Theme discussions in downtown La Crosse restaurants. Participants interested in 

further conversation on specific topics are invited to reconvene at one of four downtown 

restaurants.

• Transportation Relationships: fuel costs, drivers, equipment availability, and 

communication

• Keeping the story with the product

• Matching supply and demand: relationships and communication

• Extreme weather and infrastructure resilience: lessons learned

Thursday, Feb. 21

7:00-8:00: Complementary breakfast

8:00—8:45am: Panel presentations on the Supply Perspective: Current Situation and Outlook.

• Rod Ofte, Wisconsin Meadows Grass-fed beef co-op

• Tom Ferguson, Ferguson Morningside Orchards

• Josh Engel, Driftless Organics

8:45-10am: Facilitated small group discussions on farmer needs and opportunities.

10:00am—11:30pm: Synthesis, future R&D, next steps, participant insights and plenary 

discussion. Confirmed conference respondents:

• Alfonso Morales, UW-Madison Professor of Urban and Regional Planning

• Ernie Perry, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Center for Freight and Infrastructure 

Research and Education

• Craig Chase, Leopold Center, Iowa State University

• Ken Meter, Crossroads Resource Center
27

Appendix C: Participants and Affiliation

Networking Across the Supply Chain: 

Transportation Innovations in Local and Regional Food Systems

LaCrosse, WI • February 20-21, 2013

Farmers

1. Shannon Adams, Mystery Bridge Farms

2. Peter Allen, New Forest Farm, UW-Madison

3. Ashleigh Blasey

4. Irv Cernauskas, Irv & Shelly’s Fresh Picks

5. Valerie Dantoin Adamski, Northeast WI Tech College, Full Circle Farm

6. Jess Ecker, Ecker’s Apple Farm

7. Mary Ecker, Ecker’s Apple Farm

8. Josh Engel, Driftless Organics, LLC

9. Teresa Engel, WI DATCP-Marketing, Driftless Organics, LLC

10. Andy Ferguson, Ferguson’s Orchards

11. Tom Ferguson, Ferguson’s Orchards 

12. Rufus Haucke, Just Local Foods

13. Kristine Jepsen, Grass Run Farms

14. Ryan Jepsen, Grass Run Farms

15. Mark Moesch, Bluff Country Cider Works

16. Dale Nelson, Bellbrook Berry Farm LLC

17. William O’Brien, Bellbrook Berry Farm LLC

18. Rod Ofte, WI Grass-Fed Beef Cooperative

19. Mark Olson, Renaissance Farm, Wisconsin Food Hub Cooperative

20. David Parr, Parrfection Produce, LLC

21. Andy Ross, Skagit Flats Farm LLC

22. Ethan Seaver

23. Andrew Sell, Wisconsin Farmers Union

24. Lisa Shirek, Painted Rock Farm, Sustainable Community Initiative

25. Christine Welcher, Sugar River Farm

26. Pat Wilborn, PortFish, Ltd.

27. Sarah Lloyd, Neldells Farm, Wisconsin Farmers Union, Wisconsin Food Hub Cooperative

Transportation

1. Tom Bartsh, Edina Couriers

2. Rick Christianson, Co-op Partners Warehouse

3. Lynn Foster, Food Network Software

4. Rufus Haucke, Just Local Foods

5. Bob Haugen, Food Network Software

6. Keith Herlitzke, Potato King, Inc

7. Kristine Jepsen, Grass Run Farms
28

Transportation, continued

8. Ryan Jepsen, Grass Run Farms

9. Nick Lichter, Organic Logistics

10. Andrew Lutsey, Chicago Local Foods

11. Rod Ofte, WI Grass-Fed Beef Cooperative

12. David Olson, Reinhart Foodservice

13. David Parr, Parrfection Produce, LLC

14. John Pavelski, Sonday Produce LLC

15. Ben Perkins, Goodness Greeness

16. Ernie Perry, CFIRE

17. Felix Ramirez, North Wind Distribution

18. David Rand, Chicago Local Foods

19. Don Roper, Wescott Agri Products

20. Andy Ross, Skagit Flats Farms LLC

21. Donald Stanwick, Chartwells- Thompson Hospitality

22. Joe Tegtmeier, Buy Right Purchasing Group

23. Brian Wickert, 5th Season Coop

24. Richard Klossner, Horizon Organic

Buyers

1. Rod Ofte, WI Grass-Fed Beef Cooperative

2. Shawna Bohan, Vernon County Farm to School

3. Ryan Boughton, One Eleven Main

4. Richard Klossner, Horizon Organic

5. Andrew Lutsey, Chicago Local Foods

6. Tracey Mofle, West Wind Community Coop

7. Kymm Mutch, School Food FOCUS

8. John Pavelski, Sonday Produce LLC

9. Ben Perkins, Goodness Greeness

10. Felix Ramirez, North Wind Distribution

11. David Rand, Chicago Local Foods

12. Don Roper, Wescott Agri Products

13. Brandon Scholz, WI Grocers Association

14. Brad Smith, People’s Food Co-op

15. Donald Stanwick, Chartwells- Thompson Hospitality

16. Joe Tegtmeier, Buy Right Purchasing Group

17. Brian Wickert, 5th Season Coop

18. Laura Witzling, Institutional Food Market Coalition, UW Extension-Dane County

19. Colleen Johnson, Vandewalle & Associates

20. Mark Olson, Renaissance Farm, Wisconsin Food Hub Cooperative

21. Sarah Lloyd, Neldells Farm, Wisconsin Farmers Union, Wisconsin Food Hub Cooperative
29

NGO

1. Rachel Armstrong, Farm Commons

2. Jessica Bauer, La Crescent Area Healthy Community

3. Juli Brussell, Ceres Trust

4. Brian Burson, Illiana Ag Alliance

5. Elena Byrne, Organic Processing Institute

6. Layne Cozzolino, Central Rivers Farmshed

7. Molly Donaldson, Feeding America

8. Steve Elliott, Health First Wisconsin

9. Karunakar Ghimire, Green & Rural Development Nepal

10. Jan Joannides, Renewing the Countryside

11. Karen Lehman, Fresh Taste

12. Vicki Markussen, 7 Rivers Alliance

13. Vince McCoy, Channel One, Inc

14. Ken Meter, Crossroads Resource Center

15. Penny Molina, Profitable Growth Network

16. Susan Oddsen, La Crescent Area Healthy Comm.

17. Kassia Perpich, Fresh Taste

18. Lisa Shirek, Painted Rock Farm, Sustainable Community Initiative 

19. Joan Stockinger, Cooperative Development Services

20. Caroline van Schaik, Land Stewardship Project

21. Carla Wright, Organic Processing Institute 

22. Andrew Bernhardt, UW-Extension, Wisconsin Local Food Network

23. Sarah Lloyd, Neldells Farm, Wisconsin Farmers Union, Wisconsin Food Hub Cooperative

24. Andrew Sell, Wisconsin Farmers Union

Government

1. Joanie Buckley, Oneida Nation of Wisconsin

2. Dan Cornelius, Intertribal Agriculture Council

3. Marina Denicoff, USDA-AMS

4. Teresa Engel, WI DATCAP-Marketing

5. Lois Federman, WI DATCAP-Marketing

6. Jason Grimm, Iowa Valley RC&D

7. Bryan Law, Mississippi River Regional Planning

8. Laura Paine, WI DATCAP-Marketing

9. Jen Pino-Gallagher, WI DATCAP-Marketing

10. Mary Robb, WI DOT-Planning

11. Kathleen Spencer, WI DOT-Planning

12. Carolyn Wetuski, USDA Rural Development
30

University

1. Valerie Dantoin Adamski, Northeast WI Tech College, Full Circle Farm

2. Kelly Cain, St. Croix Institute for Sustainable Agriculture, UW-River Falls

3. Craig Chase, Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University

4. Sandra Streed, Northern Illinois University

5. Catherine Dunlap, Heartland Community College

6. Jerry Waller, UW-River Falls

7. Richard Warner, Green Lands Blue Waters, University of Minnesota

8. Teresa Wiemerslage, ISU Extension

9. Greg Schweser, University of Minnesota

10. Alfonso Morales, UW-Madison, URPL

11. Ernie Perry, UW-Madison, CFIRE

12. Janice Soriano, UW-Madison, URPL

13. Vanessa Herald, UW-Madison, CIAS

14. Regina Hirsch, UW-Madison, CIAS

15. Sara Janes Ugoretz, UW-Madison

16. Greg Lawless, Community and Regional Food System UWEX

17. Michelle Miller, UW-Madison, CIAS

18. Rachel Murray, UW-Madison, CIAS

19. Sara Tedeschi, UW-Madison, CIAS

20. Lindsey Day Farnsworth, UW-Madison, CIAS

21. Laura Witzling, Institutional Food Market Coalition, UW Extension-Dane County 

22. Peter Allen, UW-Madison, New Forest Farm

23. Andrew Bernhardt, UW-Extension, Wisconsin Local Food Network
31

Appendix D: Sponsors

United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Marketing Service

Transportation Services Division

The Transportation Services Division (TSD) serves as the expert source for economic analysis 

on agricultural transportation from farm to markets. As part of USDA, TSD informs, represents, 

and assists agricultural shippers and government policymakers through: market reports, 

regulatory representation, economic analysis, transportation disruption reports, technical 

assistance, outreach to stakeholders, responding to inquiries. For more information, visit: 

www.ams.usda.gov/AgTransportation

University of Wisconsin Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems

The Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems (CIAS) is a research center for sustainable 

agriculture in the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison. 

CIAS brings together university faculty, producers, policy makers, and others to conduct 

research, curriculum and program development projects at the intersection of farming practices, 

farm profitability, the environment and rural vitality. For more information, visit: 

www.cias.wisc.edu

Mississippi River Regional Planning Commission

The Mississippi River Regional Planning Commission (MRRPC) is comprised of nine counties 

located along the Mississippi River in Western Wisconsin. Organized in 1964 to plan for the 

physical, social and economic development of the Region, the Commission provides advisory 

services on regional issues to local governments and other public and private agencies. It also 

serves as a coordinating agency for programs and activities and contracting with local units of 

government to make studies and offer advice on land use, thoroughfares, community facilities, 

public improvements, and encouragement of economic and other developments. For more 

information, visit: http://mrrpc.com/ or contact Bryan Law, Economic Development Planner at 

608-785-9396 or bryan@mrrpc.com

Food Resource and Agribusiness Network

Food Resource and Agribusiness Network (FRAN) is a geographic concentration of similar 

companies that share common technology, markets, suppliers or workforce skills in Western 

Wisconsin, Eastern Minnesota and Northeast Iowa. It works to improve the competitive 

advantage of regional businesses by providing a platform to address common opportunities and 

synergies that exist among regional food processing and agribusiness companies. For more 

information, visit: www.frannetwork.org/, or contact Bryan Law, Economic Development 

Planner at 608-785-9396 or bryan@mrrpc.com.

This conference and publication were supported by Cooperative Agreement No. 12-25-A-5639 

between the Agricultural Marketing Service/USDA and the Center for Integrated Agriculture at 

the University of Wisconsin-Madison