@article{dunning_bloom_brinkmeyer_2020, title={Making a Market for On-farm Food Loss: Exploring Food Banks as a Market for Southeastern Produce}, volume={2}, ISSN={2152-0801}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2020.092.014}, DOI={10.5304/jafscd.2020.092.014}, abstractNote={Reducing food waste across the supply chain is one means to more efficiently utilize natural resources and potentially divert unutilized food to the food-insecure. Food banks are the primary institution by which this transfer occurs in the U.S. Over the past 20 years, growth in the number of pounds distrib­uted annually by food banks has been accompanied by a focus on the nutritional quality of the food distributed. This shift has included an increase in sourcing of fresh produce directly from growers, with anecdotal evidence that some food banks have market-based relationships in which food banks pay growers and even forward contract for product. The current study sought to examine the prevalence of these relationships for the purpose of evaluating food banks as a market channel for farmers’ surplus and cosmetically imperfect pro­duce. The authors collected data on market rela­tionships between food banks and produce farmers through interviews with food bank operators in 13 southeastern U.S. states. Based on interviews with 24 individuals representing 16 food banks, food bank associations, and regional nonprofit produce distributors serving food banks, we find payments from food banks to farms to be a widespread prac­tice. Eleven of the 13 states (and 14 of the 16 food banks) reported paying growers either directly or via Feeding America’s online Produce Matchmaker system. Interviews also revealed sourcing manag­ers’ expectations that compensating growers could be a “win-win” strategy for both food banks and growers. Such practices are supported by infra­structure commitments from Feeding America, a network of food banks and pantries which includes 80% of food banks in the U.S. 
See the press release for this article.}, journal={Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development}, publisher={Lyson Center for Civic Agriculture and Food Systems}, author={Dunning, Rebecca and Bloom, J. and Brinkmeyer, Emma}, year={2020}, month={Feb}, pages={1–11} }
 @article{johnson_bloom_dunning_gunter_boyette_creamer_2019, title={Farmer harvest decisions and vegetable loss in primary production}, volume={176}, ISSN={["1873-2267"]}, DOI={10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102672}, abstractNote={The topic of food loss and waste has risen in importance since the revelation that an estimated 40% of food in America is never consumed. Losses at the field level, however, are not well understood, and economic and growing conditions that dictate decisions made by fruit and vegetable growers can determine how much food is left unharvested. Many strategies have been suggested to reduce food loss and waste, but their development has been informed by concerns at the consumer level, and may not motivate growers to reduce losses. This study sought to understand how growers make decisions regarding when to end the harvest, and explores growers' perceptions of strategies that would incentivize them to reduce losses. The authors conducted seventeen semi-structured interviews with mid-sized to large commercial vegetable growers in North Carolina. The resulting findings clarify the primary decision-making drivers affecting food loss in the field, including whether growers have an interested buyer, the quality of the produce, the available price, the financial risk of product rejection, and the priority of another field becoming mature and ready to harvest. Growers did not perceive losses to be of high enough volume or value to measure crops that were left unharvested in the field, though research indicates that the volume is actually significant. We also asked growers about their perceptions of strategies for reducing farm level losses that have been promoted in industry reports on the subject. These strategies include facilitating donation and supporting emerging markets that focus on imperfect produce. Neither of these aligned well with strategies that growers perceived as important, such as increasing demand, providing processing infrastructure, and facilitating a consistent market and prices. While some growers donate produce or participate in gleaning, these activities can be limited by continued negative perceptions. Findings from this research suggest that, in order to effectively reduce the loss of edible food at the farm level, growers must be included in the development of strategies, and those strategies must incentivize their participation in order to be effective.}, journal={AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Johnson, Lisa K. and Bloom, J. Dara and Dunning, Rebecca D. and Gunter, Chris C. and Boyette, Michael D. and Creamer, Nancy G.}, year={2019}, month={Nov} }
 @inbook{johnson_dunning_2019, title={Food loss on the farm}, ISBN={9780429264139}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780429264139-9}, DOI={10.4324/9780429264139-9}, abstractNote={This chapter discusses farm-level loss from the viewpoint of mid- to large-scale produce growers. It considers product grown primarily for the fresh market, as opposed to exclusively for processing, and also considers losses of product left in the field as unharvested, as opposed to product graded out in the packing house. Food loss and waste are sensitive for many businesses, and farms are no exception. Food waste is generally related to individual behavior and occurs within the retail, restaurant, and household levels of the supply chain. Quality standards play an important role in the fresh produce industry. During the sorting and grading process on-farm, attention is given to the difference between quality and condition. Market destination is a second characteristic that broadly impacts the amount of field loss. Researchers should be well prepared with a solid grounding in the nature of produce growing, harvesting, and selling for the crop of interest.}, booktitle={The Economics of Food Loss in the Produce Industry}, publisher={Routledge}, author={Johnson, Lisa K. and Dunning, Rebecca D.}, year={2019}, month={Nov}, pages={116–127} }
 @article{loyola_dole_dunning_2019, title={North American Specialty Cut Flower Production and Postharvest Survey}, volume={29}, ISSN={["1943-7714"]}, DOI={10.21273/HORTTECH04270-19}, abstractNote={In the United States and Canada, there has been an increase in the demand for local specialty cut flowers and a corresponding increase in production. To assess the needs of the industry, we electronically surveyed 1098 cut flower producers and handlers in the United States and Canada regarding their current cut flower production and postharvest problems, and customer issues. We received a total of 210 responses, resulting in a 19% response rate. The results showed that the main production problem was insect management; crop timing was the second most important problem and disease management was the third. Crop timing encompasses a range of related issues such as determining the correct harvest stage, harvest windows that are too short, flowering all at once, or lack of control when the crop is ready to harvest. The main postharvest problems were temperature management, hydration, and flower food management. Timing and stem length were the two most mentioned species-specific production issues, with each one listed by 10% or more of the respondents for eight of the total 31 species. Regarding on-farm postharvest handling, hydration and vase life were the two most mentioned issues; they were reported for five and three species, respectively. For postharvest during storage and transport, damage and hydration were the most common issues; these were listed for three species each. The most commonly mentioned customer complaints were vase life and shattering, which were reported for six and two species, respectively. These results will allow researchers and businesses to focus on the major cut flower production and postharvest issues and on crops that are most in need of improvement in North America.}, number={3}, journal={HORTTECHNOLOGY}, publisher={American Society for Horticultural Science}, author={Loyola, Cristian E. and Dole, John M. and Dunning, Rebecca}, year={2019}, month={Jun}, pages={338–359} }
 @article{dunning_johnson_boys_2019, title={Putting Dollars to Waste: Estimating the Value of On-Farm Food Loss}, volume={34}, url={https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/283536/files/cmsarticle_671.pdf}, number={1}, journal={Choices}, author={Dunning, Rebecca D. and Johnson, Lisa K. and Boys, Kathryn A.}, year={2019}, pages={1–9} }
 @article{loyola_dole_dunning_2019, title={South and Central America Cut Flower Production and Postharvest Survey}, volume={29}, ISSN={["1943-7714"]}, DOI={10.21273/HORTTECH04484-19}, abstractNote={Imports of cut flowers into the United States have doubled in the last 20 years and come mainly from Colombia and Ecuador. We surveyed the cut flower industry in South and Central America, focusing on Colombia and Ecuador, to determine their production and postharvest problems. We received a total of 51 responses, of which 62% of the respondents had 100 or more employees. The most commonly grown or handled crops were rose (Rosa hybrids), carnation (Dianthus caryophyllus), chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum ×grandiflorum), alstroemeria (Alstroemeria cultivars), gerbera (Gerbera jamesonii), and hydrangea (Hydrangea species), in order of ranking. The most significant production problem was insect management, with disease management and crop timing the next most important issues. The most important species-specific issues in production were phytosanitary problems, disease (causal organism not specified), leaf miner (Lepidoptera, Symphyta, or Diptera), and thrips (Thysanoptera). The main overall postharvest problem was temperature management, followed by hydration and flower food management and botrytis (Botrytis cinerea). In regard to on-farm postharvest handling, damage to the flowers was the most mentioned issue. For the postharvest during storage and transport phase, temperature management, air transport, damage, and botrytis were the most important problems. The most mentioned customer complaints were damage, botrytis, and phytosanitary problems. The results of this survey can be used by researchers to focus their work on topics of most need. Improved production and postharvest handling will support the continued growth of the cut flower industry.}, number={6}, journal={HORTTECHNOLOGY}, publisher={American Society for Horticultural Science}, author={Loyola, Cristian E. and Dole, John M. and Dunning, Rebecca}, year={2019}, month={Dec}, pages={898–905} }
 @article{givens_dunning_2018, title={Distributor intermediation in the farm to food service value chain}, volume={34}, ISSN={1742-1705 1742-1713}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1742170517000746}, DOI={10.1017/s1742170517000746}, abstractNote={Abstract}, number={03}, journal={Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Givens, Graham and Dunning, Rebecca}, year={2018}, month={Jan}, pages={268–270} }
 @article{johnson_dunning_bloom_gunter_boyette_creamer_2018, title={Estimating on-farm food loss at the field level: A methodology and applied case study on a North Carolina farm}, volume={137}, ISSN={["1879-0658"]}, DOI={10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.05.017}, abstractNote={Current estimates of food loss at the farm level are either carried forward from decades-old estimates that rely on data from small farms using alternative agricultural practices, or they are based on grower estimates reported during interviews. A straightforward protocol adaptable to many crops is necessary to provide comparable data that can begin to fill gaps in knowledge on food loss in the US. Accurate estimation of on-farm losses for fruits and vegetables can inform ongoing national food loss and waste discussions and farm-level business decisions that hold potentially positive impacts for farm viability and resource-use efficiency. This paper describes a straightforward methodology for field-level measurement and demonstrates its utility on six vegetable crops harvested in 13 fields of a 121-hectare North Carolina vegetable farm. In this case, results showed that on average, approximately 65% of the unharvested crop that remained in the field was of wholesome, edible quality, although the appearance may not meet buyers' specifications for certain markets. The overall estimated average of vegetable crops that remained unharvested, yet were wholesome and available for recovery, was 8840 kg per hectare on the case study farm. The portion of the grower's reported total marketed yield that remained unutilized in the field averaged 57%, a figure greatly exceeding current estimates of farm level loss. Developing strategies to utilize these losses could enable growers to increase the amount of fresh produce moving into the supply chain, and represent a path towards sustainable intensification of vegetable crop production.}, journal={RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Johnson, Lisa K. and Dunning, Rebecca D. and Bloom, J. Dara and Gunter, Chris C. and Boyette, Michael D. and Creamer, Nancy G.}, year={2018}, month={Oct}, pages={243–250} }
 @article{johnson_dunning_gunter_bloom_boyette_creamer_2018, title={Field measurement in vegetable crops indicates need for reevaluation of on-farm food loss estimates in North America}, volume={167}, ISSN={["1873-2267"]}, DOI={10.1016/j.agsy.2018.09.008}, abstractNote={Food loss and waste in the US has been estimated at 40%, a figure that does not include losses at the agricultural level. Consumer food waste is expensive and environmentally damaging as it travels the length of the supply chain and largely ends up in the landfill. Most research and campaigns emphasize the consumer level, which has resulted in the omission of data collection and development of solutions for producers of fruit and vegetable crops. The available estimates of edible produce lost in the field are based on assumptions and estimates, rather than field data. Therefore, this project aimed to measure losses in the field in order to understand if estimates are accurate. Sixty-eight fields of eight vegetable crops were evaluated on nine North Carolina farms during the 2017 production season, using a sampling and scaling method. Combining the unharvested crops of marketable quality and edible but not marketable quality (produce that does not meet appearance quality standards), the average produce volume available after the primary harvest was 5114.59 kg per hectare. Totaling an average of 42% of the marketed yield for these crops, these high figures indicate the need for a reevaluation of the food loss estimates at the agricultural level in the US, and a focus on solutions.}, journal={AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Johnson, Lisa K. and Dunning, Rebecca D. and Gunter, Chris C. and Bloom, J. Dara and Boyette, Michael D. and Creamer, Nancy G.}, year={2018}, month={Nov}, pages={136–142} }
 @book{bloom_lelekacs_dunning_2018, place={Raleigh, North Carolina}, title={Local Food Systems: Clarifying Current Research}, url={https://content.ces.ncsu.edu/local-food-systems-clarifying-current-research}, number={LF-013}, institution={North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service}, author={Bloom, J.D. and Lelekacs, J.M. and Dunning, R.}, year={2018}, month={Nov} }
 @book{edmonds_dunning_2017, place={Raleigh, NC}, title={Building Local Food Economies: A Guide for Governments}, number={LF-001}, institution={North Carolina Cooperative Extension}, author={Edmonds, E. and Dunning, R.}, year={2017} }
 @article{givens_dunning_2017, title={Distributor vs Direct: Farmers, Chefs, and Distributors in the Local Farm to Restaurant Supply Chain}, volume={48}, number={1}, journal={Journal of Food Distribution Research}, author={Givens, G. and Dunning, R.}, year={2017}, pages={107–108} }
 @article{bloom_lelekacs_dunning_piner_emma_2017, title={Local Food Systems Course for 	Extension Educators in North Carolina: Summary of an Innovative Program}, volume={55}, url={https://www.joe.org/joe/2017august/iw3.php.}, number={4}, journal={Journal of Extension}, author={Bloom, J.D. and Lelekacs, J. and Dunning, R. and Piner, A. and Emma, B.}, year={2017}, month={Sep} }
 @article{bloom_lelekacs_dunning_piner_emma_2017, title={Local Food Systems Course for Extension Educators in North Carolina: Summary of an Innovative Program}, volume={55}, url={https://www.joe.org/joe/2017august/iw3.php.}, number={4}, journal={Journal of Extension}, author={Bloom, J.D. and Lelekacs, J. and Dunning, R. and Piner, A. and Emma, B.}, year={2017}, month={Aug} }
 @article{dunning_day_creamer_2017, title={Local sourcing and the military: Lessons learned through a university-based initiative to increase local procurement at a US military base}, volume={34}, ISSN={1742-1705 1742-1713}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S174217051700045X}, DOI={10.1017/s174217051700045x}, abstractNote={Abstract}, note={DOI:}, number={03}, journal={Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Dunning, Rebecca and Day, John and Creamer, Nancy}, year={2017}, month={Sep}, pages={250–258} }
 @article{dunning_2016, title={Collaboration and commitment in a regional supermarket supply chain}, volume={6}, ISSN={["2152-0801"]}, DOI={10.5304/jafscd.2016.064.008}, abstractNote={This article presents findings from a longitudinal case study of efforts by a 100-store regional grocery store chain to localize its supply of fresh produce. The study was conducted to better understand the development of collaborative supply chains between farmers and grocery stores, and the broader potential that grocery store chains might play in localizing food systems. Data consists of three years of the chain's local produce purchases via direct-store-delivery from farms to stores; a survey of store managers and farmer-vendors; and interviews with farmers and grocery store and chain-level management. Analysis is structured by a conceptual framework that links collaboration to trust, which undergirds mutual commitment and mutual dependency between supply chain members, and which is dependent upon effective communication and positive prior market exchanges. The study finds that organizational structures constraining single-store autonomy in purchasing and pricing, coupled with supply variability from farms, limits trust-building and the establishment of mutual commitments and dependencies. These constraints, however, do not completely exclude direct-store-delivery as a strategy for food system localization and grower market diversification. Practitioners can support the building of collaborative supply chains through capacity-building and shepherding of early market exchanges between growers and stores, and supporting individual growers or groups of growers to become "preferred vendors" for regional grocery chains.}, number={4}, journal={JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE FOOD SYSTEMS AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT}, author={Dunning, Rebecca}, year={2016}, pages={21–39} }
 @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{kline_joyner_kirchoff_crawford_pitts_wall-bassett_gurganus_dunning_2016, title={Gaps and barriers along the North Carolina agri-food value chain}, volume={118}, ISSN={["1758-4108"]}, DOI={10.1108/bfj-06-2015-0223}, abstractNote={
               Purpose
                – The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to formulate an exhaustive list of the issues, gaps, and barriers at each level of the agri-food value chain in North Carolina (NC), and second, to identify the issues of greatest importance to its members. 
            }, number={2}, journal={BRITISH FOOD JOURNAL}, author={Kline, Carol S. and Joyner, Leah Elizabeth and Kirchoff, Jon F. and Crawford, Alleah and Pitts, Stephanie Jilcott and Wall-Bassett, Elizabeth and Gurganus, Christine and Dunning, Rebecca}, year={2016}, pages={301–317} }
 @book{blacklin_dunning_lelekacs_2016, place={Raleigh, North Carolina}, title={How to Sell Pastured Meat Products to Grocery Stores via Direct-Store-Delivery}, url={https://content.ces.ncsu.edu/how-to-sell-pastured-meat-products-to-grocery-stores}, number={LF-012}, institution={North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service}, author={Blacklin, S. and Dunning, R. and Lelekacs, J.}, year={2016}, month={May} }
 @article{dunning_bloom_creamer_2015, title={The local food movement, public-private partnerships, and food system resiliency}, volume={5}, ISSN={2190-6483 2190-6491}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0295-z}, DOI={10.1007/s13412-015-0295-z}, number={4}, journal={Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences}, publisher={Springer Science and Business Media LLC}, author={Dunning, Rebecca and Bloom, J. Dara and Creamer, Nancy}, year={2015}, month={Jul}, pages={661–670} }
 @book{mettam_king_dunning_2013, place={Raleigh, NC}, title={A Community and Local Government Guide to Developing Local Food Systems in North Carolina}, number={AG-744}, institution={The Center for Environmental Farming Systems}, author={Mettam, L. and King, B. and Dunning, R.}, year={2013} }
 @article{berlin_dunning_dodge_2011, title={Enhancing the transition to kindergarten: A randomized trial to test the efficacy of the “Stars” summer kindergarten orientation program}, volume={26}, ISSN={0885-2006}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.07.004}, DOI={10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.07.004}, abstractNote={This randomized trial tested the efficacy of an intensive, four-week summer program designed to enhance low-income children's transition to kindergarten (n's = 60 program children, 40 controls). Administered in four public schools, the program focused on social competence, pre-literacy and pre-numeracy skills, school routines, and parental involvement. Hierarchical linear modeling indicated that the program significantly improved teachers’ ratings of (a) the transition to the social aspect of kindergarten for girls (but not boys); and (b) the transition to kindergarten routines for the subgroup of children who had the same teacher for kindergarten as for the summer program. Findings are discussed in terms of practices and policies for supporting children's transition to school.}, number={2}, journal={Early Childhood Research Quarterly}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Berlin, Lisa J. and Dunning, Rebecca D. and Dodge, Kenneth A.}, year={2011}, month={Apr}, pages={247–254} }