Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Question 3: What facilities or services are you currently using to meet your food <br />processing needs (e.g., church kitchen, rental kitchen, restaurant, home kitchen)? <br />From question 3, we see that 21 of the 62 respondents said they are not currently <br />processing. This indicates that not more than 41 of the total respondents are currently <br />engaged in value added food & agricultural processing. Of those who are processing, 20 <br />indicated their production space as their home kitchen. These respondents may not be in <br />compliance with state and federal regulations pertaining to food manufactured for <br />wholesale or direct retail. Six of the seven respondents who said they are using a co- <br />packer indicated they were having locally grown animals processed for meat. <br />Renfal Kitchen: 1 <br />Restaurant: 11 <br />Home Kitchen: 20 <br />Co-packer: 7 <br />Not Currently Processing: 21 <br />Other: Client's kitchens <br />Other: Has 800 sq.ft commercial kitchen <br />Other: catering service <br />Other: On-site preparation <br />Other: office dehydrator <br />Other: commercial kitchen bakery <br />Other: mill & blending plant <br />Question 5: Are you interested in buying locally-grown ingredients for your <br />business? <br />Yes: 43 <br />No: 14 <br />Many respondents to question 5 indicated that they are active participants in the area's <br />local food movement and will source locally-grown ingredients for their:value added <br />food products. Several respondents indicated that price and availability would be <br />important factors in whether or not they will source locally. <br />Estimated Facility Usage <br />Respondents varied widely in their responses to questions pertaining to their estimated <br />usage of a shared use food & agricultural processing facility. Only 45 of 62 valid <br />respondents gave any clear indication of hourly usage. In some cases, for purposes of <br />analysis, responses were pro-rated to a weekly basis, such as when a respondent wrote <br />"10 hours each month," the response was interpreted as 120 hours per year, equaling 2.4 <br />hours per week in a 50 week work year. <br />In order to more accurately gauge potential weekly usage, the researcher has weighted <br />responses according to whether they are from tier one, two, or three. Under even the best <br />of circumstances, hourly use and participation by potential clients will be far lower than <br />22 <br />