@article{rysin_dunning_2016, title={Economic viability of a food hub business: Assessment of annual operational expenses and revenues}, volume={6}, ISSN={["2152-0801"]}, DOI={10.5304/jafscd.2016.064.002}, abstractNote={Food hubs—aggregation and distribution entities with social missions that include localization of food production and distribution systems—are receiving increasing attention from the public and foundation sectors as a means of catalyzing economic development in rural and peri-urban areas. Funding proposals for food hubs are often couched in terms of initial start-up capital, with all involved parties expecting the hub to become self-sufficient of outside funding within 5 years. In this paper we comprehensively assess the annual operational revenues and expenses of four food hubs operating in North Carolina in 2014, and use these as a basis to estimate the model annual operating budget for a food hub business serving as an intermediary between small and midscale farmers and grocery stores, restaurants, and institutional food service. This analysis focuses on annual operational expenses and the ability of established food hubs to function independently of outside funding. The analysis of business operations also includes sensitivity analysis to estimate required revenues based on variation in operational expenses and the mark-up fees that hubs charge their growers. We find that the average losses, excluding monetary donations, sustained in 2014 by the hubs were $86,204 on average produce sales of $162,668. Assuming a 20% average mark-up fee and based on the model budget of annual operating costs, a food hub operation requires total annual sales of approximately $800,000 to cover its operating costs. 
See the press release for this article.}, number={4}, journal={JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE FOOD SYSTEMS AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT}, author={Rysin, Olya and Dunning, Rebecca}, year={2016}, pages={7–20} }
 @article{rysin_louws_2015, title={Decision tool for growers to evaluate economic impact of grafting technology adoption: An application to open-field conventional tomato production}, volume={25}, number={1}, journal={HortTechnology}, author={Rysin, O. and Louws, F. J.}, year={2015}, pages={132–138} }
 @article{rysin_mcwhirt_fernandez_louws_schroeder-moreno_2015, title={Economic viability and environmental impact assessment of three different strawberry production systems in the Southeastern United States}, volume={25}, number={4}, journal={HortTechnology}, author={Rysin, O. and McWhirt, A. and Fernandez, G. and Louws, F. J. and Schroeder-Moreno, M.}, year={2015}, pages={585–594} }
 @article{rysin_rivard_louws_2015, title={IS VEGETABLE GRAFTING ECONOMICALLY VIABLE IN THE UNITED STATES: EVIDENCE FROM FOUR DIFFERENT TOMATO PRODUCTION SYSTEMS}, volume={6}, DOI={10.17660/actahortic.2015.1086.8}, abstractNote={Four case studies representing distinct tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) production systems were selected, including conventional and organic field production, conventional production in multi-bay tunnels and organic production in high tunnels. Relevant cost and revenue information was collected. On-farm economic impact of grafting technology adoption was evaluated for each system. The primary objective was to use these real-life examples to investigate the forces that should be driving grower adoption decisions. A combination and interaction of multiple factors such as grafting transplant prices, expected yield improvements and sale prices guide adoption decisions. The use of grafted transplants generally resulted in positive net returns; conventional field tomato production and high tunnel organic tomato production were shown to be more sensitive to grafting transplant prices as they generally have lower profit margins. At high selling prices, growers can afford to pay price premiums for grafted transplants because only very modest yield improvements are required to compensate for higher costs of grafted plants. Use of grafted plants has potential economic benefits in all systems but actual outcome is dependent on multiple factors. INTRODUCTION The use of grafting in fruiting vegetables was first introduced in China in the 5 century (Lewis et al., 2014), while commercial use of vegetable grafting originated in Japan and Koreaabout 30 years ago and later expanded to Western countries (Kubota et al., 2008; Lee et al., 2010). Even though, the United States transplant production capacity is growing (Lee et al., 2010), vegetable grafting is still rare in field-based production systems due to the high cost of grafted transplants and lack of reliable information and local infrastructure (Barrett et al., 2012; King at al., 2010; Kubota et al., 2008; Taylor et al., 2008). The use of grafting is common with various vegetable species in both the Cucurbitaceae and Solanaceae families. A wide variety of rootstocks is available for specific conditions and environments (Lee et al., 2010). The use of grafted plants is seen primarily as a way to manage various soilborne pathogens in successive cropping systems (King et al., 2010; Kubota et al., 2008; Rivard and Louws, 2008) as there are commercially available rootstocks that exhibit resistance or tolerance to a number of diseases and nematodes. As a result of increased pathogen pressure, adoption of organic and high tunnel production systems, and the loss of methyl bromide as a soil fumigant, grafting is steadily becoming an important part of integrated pest management programs in vegetable crops (Barrett et al., 2012; King et al., 2010; Lee et al., 2010; Louws et al., 2010). In addition, growers may rely on grafting as a way to improve vigor, optimize absorption of water and nutrients, leading to improved use of limited resources (Djidonou et al., 2013a; Lee et al., 2010; Rivard and Louws, 2008), as a tool to manage abiotic frank_louws@ncsu.edu Proc. I IS on Vegetable Grafting Eds.: Zhilong Bie et al. Acta Hort. 1086, ISHS 2015 80 stress, to reduce the use of agricultural chemicals, and to enhance fruit quality (Lee et al., 2010). Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) is the major crop currently grafted in North America (Kubota et al., 2008) primarily for vigor benefits in protected agriculture and for disease resistance (Barrett et al., 2012; King et al., 2010; Kubota et al., 2008; Rivard and Louws, 2008). In tomato production, rootstock selection for disease management, and therefore associated production and economic benefits of grafting, are site-specific and depend on various local pathogens, as well as edaphic, environmental and anthropogenic factors (Barrett et al., 2012; Louws et al., 2010). As a result, it is difficult to generate reliable scientific evidence directly relevant for all growers who seek to determine the benefits of grafting for their situation (Kubota et al., 2008; Rivard and Louws, 2008). High costs of grafted plants are often viewed as a barrier to adoption of grafted technology in the United States (Rivard et al., 2010). Studies investigating economic viability of grafting typically have a specific focus predetermined by location, crop, production system and issue addressed by the experiment. For example, Barrett et al. (2012) investigated the cost-effectiveness of grafting to overcome root-knot nematodes (Meloidogyne sp.) in the production of organic heirloom tomatoes in Florida’s sandy soils. Grafted plants demonstrated great potential for maintaining fruit yields and reducing economic losses at high levels of infestation but were not economically feasible when used in fields with low nematode pressure. Taylor et al. (2008) arrived to a similar conclusion: it is not economically feasible for farmers growing seedless watermelon (Citrullus lanatus) to use grafted transplants if Fusarium wilt caused by Fusarium oxysporum is not an issue. Djidonou et al. (2013b) evaluated the impact of grafting on fresh-market tomato production under common management practices in North Florida in fumigated fields. They showed that grafting increased production costs considerably compared to the non-grafted system. However, net returns were higher in the grafted system due to yield improvements, but varied considerably depending on seasonal yields and market prices. A useful tool that could help growers make decisions about grafting is to provide a comparison of economic impacts of grafting across different production systems. We selected four case studies representing different tomato production systems capturing tomato production diversity in eastern United States: conventional field production, organic field heirloom tomato production, organic heirloom tomato production in high tunnels, and conventional heirloom tomato production in large multi-bay tunnels. Our primary objective is to investigate economic impact of grafting in these case studies and the forces that should be driving grower adoption decisions based on their specific economic circumstances. MATERIALS AND METHODS It was noted earlier that economic benefits of grafting are specific to the site and depend on various local environmental and economic factors. In addition, there exists great variability in the economic circumstances of different tomato production systems and sites. Selected case studies capture some diversity in tomato production in eastern United States. Conventional field production is the predominant system in the Southeast and is often characterized as large scale and orientated towards wholesale markets. Field and high tunnel organic heirloom tomato production systems are typically a part of highly diversified farms and are oriented towards specialized markets and local direct marketing. Finally, production of conventional heirloom tomatoes in multi-bay tunnels varies in scale and could be oriented towards both wholesale and specialty markets. In the case of multibay tunnels, frame construction is less expensive compared to high tunnels and can cover larger growing blocks. For each case study, we collected information on production, transplant and harvesting costs, expected yields and sale prices, and estimated revenues. Production cost models were developed based on customary management practices recommended by extension and research horticultural specialists and practiced by growers. These models}, number={1086}, journal={Acta Horticulturae}, publisher={International Society for Horticultural Science (ISHS)}, author={Rysin, O. and Rivard, C. and Louws, F.J.}, year={2015}, month={Jun}, pages={79–86} }