County Fair Tomato Cooperative: Developing an Organic Tomato Processing Cooperative

Materials and Methods:

1) Developing and testing a variety of processed organic tomato products. Original experiments were conducted from the 1997 growing season through the 2001 growing season. We were constrained to working on some of these objectives only during the growing season. Product testing went on at KSU laboratories using purchased tomatoes from December 1997-April 1998. Recipe development and scaling to batch size was also pursued throughout the project period at KSU, the Treehouse Kitchen and eventually the Central Soy foods Processing Kitchen. We never did experiment with products such as dried tomatoes, dried soup mixes, etc. By the end of the project we were producing two types of tomato salsas and one sauce.

2) Developing low-cost equipment suitable for use with limited processing runs of tomatoes in a certified kitchen. Some analysis had already occurred, and we had begun working with KSU on processing bottlenecks in December 1997. Treehouse, Project personnel and KSU personnel continued addressing the equipment needs of the group for the scale at which we functioned. Investigation into large scale peeling devices made it clear that the project was underfunded to tackle that problem. We did develop working devices for larger scale hot-bath processing and eventually could hot-bath approximately 96 quarts of product (peeled, whole tomatoes) at one time. However, market demand led us away from the whole tomato product and towards salsas and sauces which utilized a hot pack process. A further bottleneck, peeling fresh garlic, was resolved with a hulling device that Central Soy foods uses for hulling soybeans.

3) Development of a suitable, legal label, together with nutritional labeling analysis. With assistance from KSU, we developed, printed and used legal labels, including nutritional analysis, for all our salsa products.

4) Development of production standards and practices to standardize farm production. Meetings were scheduled with farmers during the winter of 1997-1998, to set up production standards, select varieties and develop consensus on quality. The Production Coordinator worked with the seedling supplier and farmers to insure the tomatoes were planted and trellised properly. Standards were enforced and reviewed during each production year, including a system of dockage to insure that good producers were not penalized by substandard production. At the same time, we were assisted in on-going varietal trials by KSU horticultural extension, including both on-station and on-farm trials, out of which came several promising varieties

5) Development of a marketing cooperative. Incorporation options were explored during the winter of 1997-1998. The Project Coordinator began collecting bylaws and articles from other producer cooperatives, and investigating their practices in relation to marketing rights, compensation for volunteer time, voting rights, etc. Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation were developed during the fall and winter of 1998-1999 with actual filing for incorporation in spring of 2000. Management did not develop from within the group as was hoped, primarily because the cooperative functioned as such a small part of each farm’s operation that they were unwilling to devote the time necessary. Funding self-sufficiency was a priority, and the Project Manager researched various funding mechanisms utilized by other small-scale cooperatives. Ultimately though, funding depended on adequate production. As of the writing of this report (Nov. 2001) the major asset of the cooperative is an inventory of salsa which must be sold during the winter to insure cash availability for the 2002 growing season. Members of the cooperative will meet this winter to weigh the options and determine whether the cooperative will continue.

6) Exploration and implementation of at least 3 marketing channels. a) Product from the 1997 test batches on were market tested through CSAs and at farmers markets, as well as at cooperating retailers. b) Products were never marketed with the Cooperative Food Warehouse suppliers or displayed at trade shows, primarily because the local market could absorb all production. We have never attained so much production that product needed to be exported. c) For the same reason, product was never sent to various mail order merchandisers to seek inclusion in catalogs. .

7) Increasing farm family income through agricultural activity and retained control of value-added processing. The Production Supervisor worked closely with all growers, but especially those for whom commercial production of tomatoes was a new endeavor. Until the 2001 season, farmers received an agreed upon, per pound price within 3 months of delivery, or they could take payment in the form of processed product at wholesale prices for retail sale through their own channels, presenting an opportunity for even greater profits.
Prices paid to farmers were higher than through traditional wholesale channels, with costs of production set with that goal in mind. Profits were not retained by the cooperative. The 2001 season was the most productive, and a large inventory of product is in storage. As it is sold, farmers will be reimbursed.