TYPE Original Research
PUBLISHED 21 April 2023
DOI 10.3389/fsufs.2023.1084750
The need and development for a
OPEN ACCESS value-added toolkit—A case study
EDITED BY
Samir Sayadi Gmada, with Montana specialty fruit
Andalusian Institute for Research and Training
in Agriculture, Fisheries, Food and Ecological
Production (IFAPA), Spain growers
REVIEWED BY
Michael Fabinyi,
University of Technology Sydney, Australia Sumedha Garg1, Gaurav Jha2, Sun-Hwa Kim3, Zachariah Miller4
Antonio Alberto Rodríguez Sousa,
Complutense University of Madrid, Spain and Wan-Yuan Kuo1*
*CORRESPONDENCE 1Montana State University Food Product Development Lab, Department of Health and Human
Wan-Yuan Kuo Development, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, United States, 2Department of Agronomy, Kansas
wanyuan.kuo@montana.edu State University, Manhattan, KS, United States, 3Hospitality Management, Department of Health and
Human Development, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, United States, 4Department of Research
RECEIVED 30 October 2022
Centers, Western Agricultural Research Center, Montana State University, Corvallis, MT, United States
ACCEPTED 03 April 2023
PUBLISHED 21 April 2023
CITATION
Garg S, Jha G, Kim S-H, Miller Z and Kuo W-Y Introduction: Cold-hardy small fruits and berries have the potential for specialty
(2023) The need and development for a fruit growers in the Intermountain West, where the climate is not suited for
value-added toolkit—A case study with conventional fruit crops. In the last seven years, approximately 50 varieties of
Montana specialty fruit growers.
Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 7:1084750. cold-hardy, bush fruit types have been researched in western Montana.
doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2023.1084750 Method: Hence with the increased small fruit and berry production, and
COPYRIGHT interest of specialty fruit growers in value-added product development, this paper
© 2023 Garg, Jha, Kim, Miller and Kuo. This is
utilized participatory action research (PAR) to develop a value-added product
an open-access article distributed under the
terms of the Creative Commons Attribution development toolkit with specialty fruit growers and used an integrated logic
License (CC BY). The use, distribution or model to discuss creating and implementing the toolkit. Firstly, we used an online
reproduction in other forums is permitted,
survey to identify the needs and challenges of specialty fruit growers. Next, a
provided the original author(s) and the
copyright owner(s) are credited and that the value-added toolkit is drafted using the principles of design thinking and involving
original publication in this journal is cited, in a student-grower partnership. Thirdly, the specialty fruit grower’s interest in and
accordance with accepted academic practice.
feedback on the drafted toolkit is evaluated using focus group discussions and
No use, distribution or reproduction is
permitted which does not comply with these individuals interviews, and the results are used to revise the toolkit. Lastly, the
terms. short, medium and long-term outcomes for this toolkit are discussed using the
logic model.
Results: From the survey, 61% of specialty fruit growers indicated an interest in
value-added opportunities. Yet, focus group discussions and individual interviews
found the biggest barriers to value-added product development are cost,
resources, and environment. This indicated a co-created toolkit will be a beneficial
solution. During focus group and individual interviews, the growers suggested
including the toolkit as part of coursework in semester-long classes. This will
address issues of continuity and funding.
Discussion: Overall, this study deployed PAR methods to propose with Montana
specialty fruit growers a solution to their increasing needs in value-added pursuits,
implying short-term economic benefits but also long-term socio-ecological
benefits. The participatory model of creating value-added resources presented
by this paper can benefit other small-scale specialty crop growers in underserved
regions.
KEYWORDS
design thinking, specialty fruit, value-added production, participatory action research,
Montana growers
Frontiers in Sustainable FoodSystems 01 frontiersin.org
Garg et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2023.1084750
1. Introduction for growing cold-hardy small fruits and berries (Miller, 2016). Since
cold-hardy small fruits and berries are perennial shrubs, they can
For every dollar US consumers spend on foods, growers receive reduce tillage and can increase water holding capacity and reduce
only 16 cents [U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2022], the soil erosion, allowing less disturbance in soil (Green America,
remainder mostly absorbed by the middlemen in the value chain. 2018). The root systems of perennial plants also store more carbon,
Hence, for growers to have a greater share of profit margins, value- deeper in the root system, and this allows growth for healthier crops
added ventures provides a diversified income stream for growers to (Green America, 2018). In order to identify climate-adaptable and
utilize surplus and unmarketable harvest to make products (Chen profitable bush fruit varieties, Montana State University-Western
et al., 2021). This also gives more variety to consumers (Chen et al., Agricultural Research Center (Bitterroot, MT) has evaluated 50
2021). The concept of value-added agriculture refers to the process varieties of novel cold-hardy varieties.
of changing the physical state of an ingredient/raw commodity in A recent unpublished survey identified 61 growers who
order to produce a product that increases the value of the raw grow cold-hardy specialty fruits in Montana (Z. Miller, personal
commodity (U. S. Department of Agriculture, 2022). Jam-making communication, October 19, 2021). Yet, only 15 out of the
using fruits is an example of a value-added product (Fuller, 2019; 600 Montana food establishments offer value-added cold-hardy
U. S. Department of Agriculture, 2022). Value-added agriculture specialty fruits, based on a comprehensive directory (Abundant
is particularly critical to small-scale specialty crop farms. This is Montana, 2022). This underlines the untapped territories of value-
because these farms are limited in resources to compete with larger added ventures formost specialty fruit farms inMontana. However,
entities, thus demand unique initiatives including value-added published studies on value-added small fruits and berries are
product development to capture newer markets (e.g., ecologically limited to common commercial varieties and lack information
conscious consumers) (Selfa and Qazi, 2005). about cold-hardy specialty fruits.
Compared to typical crops (e.g., grains), specialty crops can Although consumers are more familiar with the popular berries
generate sales revenue that are three to five times higher, and value- like blueberries and strawberries and their value-added products,
added efforts can increase this revenue even more. Winemaking, many, including berry growers are unaware of the novel cold-hardy
for example, can generate six times more revenue than selling varieties and the possibility of producing value-added products
the grapes otherwise (Miller, 2021). In Montana, however, only from them (Miller, 2016). For example, saskatoon prove to be better
1% of the 26,800 farms (U. S. Department of Agriculture, 2020) used as value-added product than consumed raw since they have an
are engaged in value-added agriculture (Fuller, 2019). Particularly, earthy, musty, grassy, andmushy flavor, thus it makes them suitable
small-scale growers in Montana have missed an opportunity to for a value-added product, such as in jellies, juices, or pie fillings
add value to their specialty crops. Adding value to promote to improve the sensory acceptance (Kidd, 2006; Garg et al., 2023).
specialty crops can help by diversifying agriculture landscape, By developing value-added products, these novel varieties could
decreasing the risk of crop failure and safeguarding community be introduced to the market with nutritional benefits and refined
food security, unlike monocropping systems (Aguilar et al., 2015). sensory profiles (Garg et al., 2023).
Such efforts can ultimately enhance food system resiliency against Participatory action research (PAR) was used in this study to
global issues such as climate change and supply chain disruptions address this market gap and promote value-added research for
under pandemic (Ebel et al., 2022). cold-hardy specialty fruit growers. In PAR, academics and non-
Among the specialty crops, the current study looked at the cold- academics collaborate to identify and solve community challenges
hardy small fruits and berries such as haskaps, aronia, saskatoon, (Méndez et al., 2017). It is the non-academics (such as smallholder
and dwarf sour cherries. These are considered “superfoods,” farmers) who shed knowledge of the place, content, and practices,
owing to their richness in nutrients and physiologically active while the academics provide research and experimental design,
phytochemicals provided (Miller, 2016). Their market expansion collaboratively identifying practical solutions (Méndez et al.,
has been attributed to this, with a growing number of consumers 2017). Qualitative stakeholder engagement methods combined
consuming berries, owing to the health benefits provided (Fortune with quantitative outcome-oriented approaches result in more
Business Insights, 2020). It is estimated that the global berry market scientifically sound and versatile results, which enable solutions to
will increase by 5.7% annually by 2025, hitting $8.96 billion (More, be strategized (Ivankova, 2017).
2022). The studied small fruit and berries contain phytochemicals In literature focusing on agroecology, PAR is well-known for
such as flavonoids and phenolic acids that may prevent chronic its effectiveness with small-scale growers (Méndez et al., 2017).
diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular and neurodegenerative A community-university partnership, for example, proposed a
diseases (Rupasinghe, 2008; Rupasinghe et al., 2012). For example, “learning framework” to understand how socio-ecological drivers
haskaps were reported to have the highest antioxidant and total influence urban farming in Minneapolis (Nicklay et al., 2020, p.
phenolic contents compared to strawberry, raspberry, blackberry, 1). The teams investigated processes as enablers or barriers and the
blueberry, partridgeberry, and grapes (Rupasinghe et al., 2012). role of relationships in the collaboration. The results of qualitative
Also, the total anthocyanins in saskatoons and wild blueberry online surveys and interviews identified that collaborative research
were found to be 1.5 to 600 times as high as that in raspberry, in the urban agroecology will result in a shared learning outcome
chokecherry, strawberry, and sea buckthorn (Hosseinian and Beta, for both researchers and growers. Another PAR study investigated
2007). if small-scale coffee farmers in El Salvador can ideate strategies
Owing to the environmental conditions of Montana, the state for biodiversity conversations and household livelihood (Méndez
has mostly neutral to alkaline soil (pH 6–8), not ideal for ericaceous et al., 2017). During the process, (1) relationships were built
fruit such as blueberries that require acidic soil, but rather suitable and an understanding of the context was acquired, (2) actions
Frontiers in Sustainable FoodSystems 02 frontiersin.org
Garg et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2023.1084750
were supported, research was continued, and sharing of results a mix of quantitative and qualitative questions. Questions 1–5
was conducted, (3) directions were changed, and academic and provided fixed options that participants could select from Table 1.
action outcomes were obtained (Méndez et al., 2017). According They could also elaborate on their selected choice, using the
to this study, PAR involves a shared interest in research by textbox provided. Question 6 was an open-ended question for the
partners, belief in collective power, a commitment to participation, participants to share their opinion and thoughts.
integrating humility between participants, establishing trust, and Q1: What are the top three research and workshop topics on
communicating effectively (Méndez et al., 2017). small fruits that you would be most interested in?
PAR has proven successful in agroecology research, but there Q2: What are your top three choices for the product
are few studies utilizing PAR for value-added projects. In order development of small fruits?
to address this gap, we integrated PAR and logic models. By Q3:What are the top three aspects which you believe to be most
doing so, we co-created a value-added toolkit for Montana important in the product development of small fruits?
specialty fruit growers. Specifically, this study aims to (i) apply Q4: What fruit crops have you planted or are planning to grow?
PAR in co-creating a value-added toolkit with Montana specialty Q5: Please describe your current operation.
fruit growers, and (ii) develop a logic model to strategize and Q6: What are the most exciting or challenging aspects of your
outline the anticipated benefits of co-creating the toolkit. Through business? What growth or changes would you like to see in your
the logic model, dynamic community engagement studies can business in the next 5 years?
be planned, implemented, evaluated and communicated more The 42 growers were selected from the North American
effectively (Taylor-Powell andHenert, 2018). The toolkit andmodel region by distributing the survey among channels where relevant
of this research may be applicable to other specialty crop growers in audience can be acquired from—such as the Montana Berry
the future, encouraging them to pursue value-added agriculture. Grower Association and Facebook groups where members who
grew similar crops could participate. Individuals who self-identify
as specialty fruit growers in the USA/Canada region and grew
2. Methods varieties such as aronia, currants, dwarf sour cherries, elderberry,
haskaps, and saskatoons were selected for the survey. Emails to
This study used participatory action research (PAR) principles some growers were obtained by past partnership effort by members
to co-develop a value-added toolkit with small-scale specialty fruit of the research teams. Forty-two specialty fruit growers participated
growers in Montana. Similar methodologies have been used in past in the survey, including growers operating farms in Montana (19),
studies to use action research and co-create products such as public Utah (7), Canada (7), Minnesota (2), Missouri (2), New York (1),
health interventions and development of science shops (Leask et al., Ohio (1), Oregon (1), Illinois (1), and Wisconsin (1). Since the
2019; Senabre Hidalgo et al., 2021). PAR has six iterative stages: (1) responses from the other regions are limited, the survey result
identifying the problem, (2) collecting, analyzing, and interpreting analysis included only Montana and Utah to represent growers
the data, (3) developing a plan to intervene, (4) implementing the with geoclimatic proximity in the Intermountain West. Due to a
intervention, (5) evaluating the intervention, and (6) monitoring to greater number of responses fromMontana growers in this survey,
inform revisions (Ivankova, 2017). This study presents outcomes and their ease of access to the research site at Montana, only
from the first three stages, and uses a logic model to visualize Montana growers were selected for the following focus groups and
the development (Stage 3) and proposed outcomes of stages 4–6 interviews. We had also previously collaborated with the specialty
(Taylor-Powell and Henert, 2018). fruit growers in Montana, hence it made the partnership on the
We designed the study to maximize the growers’ participation toolkit more realistic (Garg et al., 2023). Based on the outcomes of
in all data collection and developing the value-added toolkit. This this partnership, collaboration with other states can be directed to
included surveying 42 specialty fruit growers for their needs and evaluate the scalability of implementing the toolkit.
challenges especially in value-added areas. A preliminary value-
added toolkit was drafted based on the survey feedback. Next,
using focus group discussions and one-on-one interviews with
12 MT specialty fruit growers, we revised the drafted toolkit. 2.2. Value-added toolkit development
Finally, for any conference presentation or publications, twelve
MT specialty fruit growers were invited to review the material The toolkit was structured based on the Hasso-Plattner model
to ensure accuracy of the data and interpretation. Two of these which accounts for the five stages of design thinking. These include
growers shared feedback. Approval from the Institutional Review empathizing, defining, ideating, prototyping and testing. The
Board atMontana State University was received before carrying out process guide mentions that, “To create meaningful innovations,
the survey (W-YK090320), focus group discussion (SG022822-EX), you need to know your users and care about their lives” (Plattner,
and interviews (SG022822-EX). 2021). The five stages were first modified to have the toolkit
emphasize specialty fruit grower’s needs, while still being in
alignment with the five stages. The typical structure of design
2.1. Survey thinking model stems from user/consumer’s needs (Plattner, 2021),
however by integrating PAR, our model differs by engaging and
An online survey was administered using QualtricsXM (Provo, empathizing both specialty fruit growers (who use the toolkit to
UT) to identify the needs and challenges of specialty fruit growers develop the product) and consumers (who will be the end-users
particularly in value-added areas. The survey questions included of the developed product). We replaced the terms empathize and
Frontiers in Sustainable FoodSystems 03 frontiersin.org
Garg et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2023.1084750
TABLE 1 Quantitative results from the survey with specialty fruit growers in Montana and Utah.
Question and choices Frequency %a
1. Research/workshop topics of interest (choose up to 3)
Farm Operation 22 85
Market and business planning 18 69
Value-added product development 16 62
Socioeconomic sustainability 13 50
Environmental sustainability 9 35
2. Choices of food product development (choose up to 3)
Snacks and sweets (granola, candies, freeze-dried fruits) 19 73
Jams, jellies, and preserves 17 65
Hard beverages (wine, beer, hard cider, spirits, etc.) 13 50
Fermented beverages (cider, kombucha, kefir, etc.) 11 42
Condiment, sauce, dressing, seasonings, etc. 10 38
Flavored beverages (seltzer, juices, shakes, fruit tea, etc.) 8 31
3. Aspects of importance in product development (choose up to 3)
Healthfulness 21 81
Taste 18 69
Branding 11 42
Environmental sustainability 10 38
Price 6 23
Promotion of agri-tourism 6 23
Clean label 5 19
Other 1 4
4. Operating size
Currently in the planning stage 2 8
Less than 1 acre 8 31
Between 1-5 acres 12 46
More than 5 acres 4 15
5. Crops planted
Raspberry 13 50
Haskaps 12 46
Currants 11 42
Dwarf Sour Cherries 8 31
Elderberry 7 27
Aronia 6 23
Saskatoon 4 15
Blueberries 1 4
aThese percentages are based on the number of growers (out of the 26 growers surveyed) who choose this answer.
define in the design thinking model proposed by Hasso-Plattner scale-up and community engagement. This was also in alignment
and diverted to use of the term “create partnership,” instead. This with the grower’s concern from the survey of needing resources
allowed us to be less abstract and be more intuitive to help (scale-up), and support for market & business planning to get
address the needs of the growers (as to be discussed in Section consumers more aware of these berries (community engagement).
3.1). Secondly, the revision of the toolkit had a final stage of The toolkit was drafted (Figure 1) to serve as an intervention
Frontiers in Sustainable FoodSystems 04 frontiersin.org
Garg et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2023.1084750
(Plattner, 2021) that can assist the specialty fruit growers in value- (Gill et al., 2008). The list of predetermined questions are provided
added product development. The steps included (1) creating a as part of the Supplementary material (refer to Moderator’s Guide).
student-grower partnership, (2) ideating a product, (3) prototyping This allowed us to minimize bias responses and provide an
product recipes, (4) testing the product with consumers, and (5) environment where participants can speak more freely, also if there
scaling-up and community engagement for product launch. The is any emerging theme that becomes significant—the interview
toolkit has iterative cycles between some steps to highlight the participant/researcher could diverge to pursue the idea in greater
non-linear approach, as well as input and outputs from both detail (Gill et al., 2008). Doing so, a thick and rich verbatim was
students and growers to show the PAR process of engaging established to clarify any abstract ideas and have a more accurate
both researchers and non-researchers to establish a social change account of the participant’s thoughts.
(Méndez et al., 2017). The value-added toolkit in this study followed To achieve reliability in our findings, we recruited notetakers to
a design thinking approach, as opposed to the traditional Stage- sit in on the focus group/interviews, audio-taped the sessions and
Gate©R model (Stage-Gate International, 2022). The first reason to verified the material prepared. In qualitative studies, the equivalent
apply design thinking was that it is a human-centric model. Such term to reliability is “consistency” and “confirmability” (Noble and
model stresses empathizing with users to account for emotional Smith, 2015). Consistency was achieved by keeping an accurate
connections and lived experiences, whereas Stage-Gate is driven decision trail through the notes made by the two notetakers,
more by rational thinking (Nakata, 2020). and confirmability by having the notes verified by two separate
researchers. These researchers could also utilize the audio-tapings
to confirm the precision of the notes made. To further increase
2.3. Focus group and individual interviews reliability of the study, this manuscript was shared among all the
growers who took part in the focus group and interviews. The
Twelve Montana specialty fruit growers reviewed and modified material was shared to all growers for first and second submission,
the toolkit via one focus group (8 growers) and 4 individual and each time two of the twelve growers responded to confirm that
interviews (The moderator guide and questionnaire is attached as all thoughts/ideas have been adequately denoted.
the Supplementary material). In the absence of a time that was
convenient for all, eight participants participated in a 90-min in-
person focus group (FG) and four participated in 25-min online 3. Results and discussion
interviews. The growers discussed the feasibility of value-added
3.1. Survey
product development, specifically for small-scale growers, and how
the drafted toolkit could be used to assist them in developing
From the survey, 46% of the Montana and Utah growers had
value-added products.
a farm size between 1 and 5 acres. While 8% were still in the
As part of the focus group protocol, the moderator began by
planning stage, 31% and 15% growers had farm size <1 acre and
asking general questions (e.g., knowledge and current practices
more than 5 acres, respectively (Table 1, Q4). The average Montana
of value-added product development) and then moved to more
farm size across all crops types in 2019 was 1,272 acres (United State
specific ones (e.g., feedback on presented toolkit). Growers were
Department of Agriculture, 2020). To contrast, the total farmland
asked to share their understanding of the term “value-added
of the 156 berry farms inMontana in 2017 was just 52 acres (United
product development,” then to share their experiences with product
State Department of Agriculture, 2017). Hence, our survey agrees
development. Lastly, a handout of the draft toolkit was presented
with the above comparison, that the majority of these specialty fruit
to the panel (Figure 1) to share a guided approach to value-added
growers operate on very small-scale, and the average farm size is far
product development (with student-grower partnership), and they
below the state average.
were asked to refine and modify the framework, as necessary. The
The top crops planted include raspberry (50%), haskap (46%),
same questions were asked during the four individual interviews,
and currants (42%) (Table 1, Q5). This identifies which varieties
and there was a visual aid that listed questions and showed
are the most popular among small scale specialty fruit growers.
graphical illustrations to reduce fatigue for participants.
From a study in Nielsen, it was reported that while strawberries
and blueberries had the greatest category share of berry sales in
the US−44.2 and 28.8%, respectively, raspberries had the third
2.4. Ensuring validity and reliability of greatest share of sales at 14.6% (Shahbandeh, 2021). The fact that
qualitative research 50% of growers from our survey are growing at least one of these
top varieties suggests there is a consumer market which they can
Qualitative research collection can often be questioned due to tap into, whilst also sharing varieties that are not as common to
no means of assuring validity and/or reliability for such kind of consumers (haskaps and currants).
studies (Noble and Smith, 2015). Five research/workshop topics were provided to the growers
In the present study, we assured validity in the manner to indicate their area of interest (Table 1, Q1). From the 17
of implementing semi-structured focus groups, avoiding biased Montana and 9 Utah growers, the top three topics chosen were
perspective from moderator, and establishing a thick and rich farm operations, market and business planning, and value-added
verbatim. Semi-structured interviews and/or focus groups is when product development (selected by 85%, 69%, and 62% of the
the moderator provides a list of predetermined questions to help growers, respectively). At least one of these topics was selected by
initiate the conversation between participants and researchers all 26 participants. When asked to write down the most challenging
Frontiers in Sustainable FoodSystems 05 frontiersin.org
Garg et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2023.1084750
FIGURE 1
Proposed draft toolkit for engaging Montana specialty fruit growers in value-added product development adapted from Stanford School of Design,
as proposed by Plattner (2021).
aspects, several growers expressed that marketing berries within When asked to choose the top three interested categories of
Montana is challenging due to the lack of fruit recognition by food product development (Table 1, Q2), the majority chose snacks
consumers and the relatively small market size. A Montana grower and sweets (73%), jams, jellies and preserves (65%), and hard
stated, “The most challenging has been the lack of knowledge, by beverages (50%). The global consumption of snacking has increased
consumers, of what the berries are. Marketing will play a huge by 5% after the pandemic, and 64% of consumers have reported
role in the future of the industry,” The growers further explained replacing one meal with a snack (Mondelēz International, 2021).
the struggles of differentiating their products and competing with In a following study on the market potential of Montana specialty
larger entities, an issue of small specialty crop farms discussed in fruits, the participants indicated interest to access these fruits as
previous literature (Selfa and Qazi, 2005). For example, one grower either jams/jellies/preserves or snacks and treats (Garg et al., 2023).
commented “Our business emphasizes products that are made from The agreement between growers and consumers regarding which
fruit that grows in Montana. Some Montana wineries and jam and product categories are of most interest is promising for being
jelly processors and other retailers sell out-of-state fruit or wine successful in our value-added endeavors. When asked to share
promoted as Montana products, when these products are simply the three major aspects of importance in product development,
bottled or packaged in Montana. There is a hunger for genuine, healthfulness (81%), taste (69%), and branding (42%) were the
local-grown and produced products.” leading factors (Table 1, Q3). The 2021 Food & Health Survey had
A Fisher’s exact test was performed to evaluate whether found that among consumers the leading drivers are taste, followed
the interest between the top three research/workshop topics by price and then healthfulness (International Food Information
(farm operations, market and business planning and value- Council, 2021). The proximity between the growers’ and the
added product development) was significantly different among consumers’ interest in healthy and tasty snack foods implied that
growers with differing farm sizes. Growers who were currently the growers were well in tune with the leading market trend,
in the planning stage or had a farm-size less than one acre demonstrating their motivation in value-added ventures. On the
were compared with growers with a farm size larger than other hand, the growers’ choices for products commonly seen in
one acre. Our results concluded that regardless of the farm the current marketplace such as jams and wines may be partly due
size, all growers showed a consistent interest in the three to limited innovation infrastructure, which can be expanded by
research/workshop topics. university-grower partnerships.
Followingly this survey, we conducted a separate study
to evaluate the market potential of some Montana specialty
fruits (haskaps, saskatoons, and dwarf sour cherries), and found
that consumers were interested in supporting local produce 3.2. Focus group and individual interviews
and paying slightly more to support small-scale producers, but
would like them to be storage stable and year-round accessible A comprehensive analysis of the focus group and individual
(Garg et al., 2023). This consumer study and the survey of interview findings can be found in Tables 2, 3. Due to the
the present study jointly indicated that value-added initiatives difference in data collection methods adopted, we separated
could connect these growers with local consumers by developing the tables to remove any biases from participating in a
products that extend the sale season and improve the palatability group-setting (FG) or individually (individual interviews). The
for these specialty fruits that are not as well-known in the dominant themes discussed remained unchanged between the
fresh market. FG and individual interviews (Tables 2, 3). These included
Frontiers in Sustainable FoodSystems 06 frontiersin.org
Garg et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2023.1084750
benefits of developing value-added product, barriers to product phase to discover their value-added market. Nevertheless, for
development and expectations for the presented toolkit. However, having quick and action-orientated results, semester-long (16
different aspects triggered interest for value-added product weeks) undergraduate courses were preferred by the majority.
development among the focus group participants and the Embedding this student-grower partnership in coursework also
individual interviewees. Focus group participants appreciated that allows for a level of continuity, because the coursework will be
value-added product development can help with preservation, closely monitored and adjusted by faculty each year, as opposed
transport to greater distances and can keep food healthy to a 2-year graduate thesis which may be hard to follow up,
(Table 1). In addition, individual interviewees shared that branding after the student graduated. This thought was expressed by one
and marketing provide benefits toward value-added product grower in the focus group, who believed coursework studies
development (Table 2). would provide a better level of continuity than implementing
The barriers toward product development shared similarity the project as part of a thesis (Table 2, quote I). The partnership
between the focus group and the individual interviews. These were could be initiated by faculty in fall to identify the growers
primarily cost, resources and environment (Tables 2, 3). Since small- which had sufficient produce from summer and would like to
scale growers lack capital, time and knowledge to carry out value- participate. Then, in the spring semester the students can take this
added activities on their own, finding an alternate solution can produce and complete the steps of ideation through to testing.
make this venture more profitable. The individual interviewees This is because a grower mentioned the availability of farmers
further shared that unforeseen environmental concerns (such as is best during the months of January-February (Table 3, quote
crop failure due to insects) can also be limiting factors for them H). This was confirmed by knowing the harvest season of these
(Table 2). A similar study in Indiana identified the barriers and fruits range from June to September (Miller, 2019). Therefore,
motivators for starting value-added businesses from the viewpoint growers could be more actively involved in the co-creation of
of growers and farmer market managers (Chen et al., 2021). The the value-added product, during the spring term when they are
study agreed with our findings that a lack of resources, such as time, best available.
labor, cost, and infrastructure hinders the founding of value-added One individual interview participant also brought up the idea
enterprises (Chen et al., 2021). The same study also reported the of maintaining intellectual property (IP), as growers may be
difficulty with marketing as another hurdle for the growers. While sensitive to sharing trade secrets/ideas (Table 3). For example, a
farmer’s markets were a good starting point to pilot-test the sales, grower shared, “I guess I have mixed feelings about it because
growers seemed to experience challenges with expanding their sale I think the testing and developing will be...I mean something
to broader markets such as wholesale or retail outlets (Chen et al., that’s more personal to the grower.” Hence, establishing agreement
2021). Likewise, this hurdle was captured in the present study, was added to the revised toolkit to reassure the growers’ IP
when the growers mentioned marketing being the prerequisite for right. A paper by Smith and Bragdon (2016), also discussed
profiting from value-added efforts. the important relationship between intellectual property rights
Next, when presented with the drafted toolkit, the growers and small-scale farmer innovation. The paper highlighted how
indicated funding as an expected challenge. This challenge many small-scale farmers do not use IP tool, and with the
concerned access to capital funds for trialing different recipes, presence of such practices it can encourage small-scale farmer
sourcing equipment and supplies. Table 2 (quotes D and E) and innovation, or at least provide the space for it to occur without
Table 3 (quotes C and D) provide examples of direct quotations any hindrance. With this IP concern in mind, forming the student-
from growers, which highlights the costing and resource concerns grower partnership via undergraduate courses also helps growers
raised. However, the growers agreed that integrating this toolkit to retain more intellectual property. This is because graduate
with coursework can benefit both them and students. Such as, students are typically expected to publish theses, but undergraduate
implementing this student-grower partnership in food product students can be offered the options to partner with growers for
development courses offered at the university to have tuition the benefit of experiential learning, and in exchange, sign on non-
fees support the testing supplies. The partnership endeavor was discloser agreements to keep the product recipes confidential for
viewed as an area of great technical support for growers, and the growers.
product development experience for students via service and
learning. Some example dialogues from growers to support the
partnership endeavor are shared in Table 2 (quote G) and Table 3
(quote G). Such expression implied the grower’s strong initiatives 3.3. Revised value-added toolkit
in being a player in partnerships with the university, instead of
being a research subject, which stresses the critical role of PAR As discussed in Section 2.2, this study integrated PAR with
in value-added research with growers. Collective decision-making design thinking principles, thus the toolkit serves to empathize with
and active engagement from all stakeholders (researchers and non- both the growers and consumers to create products meeting the
researchers) is integral to the success of PAR (Senabre Hidalgo et al., needs of both. Therefore, following the design thinking framework
2021). to construct the value-added toolkit was preferred over Stage-
When growers were asked about the duration of the Gate for this study, so the students can be more empathetic of
partnership, there was debate on the timeline of this toolkit the growers’ needs and form partnerships based on emotional
because each grower had different business needs and aims. For connections with them. Design thinking framework also allows
example, while one grower in the focus group had an established decision making to be directed by the design teams, while
value-added business, the remainder were still in the trialing Stage-Gate relies upon hierarchical judgment by senior managers
Frontiers in Sustainable FoodSystems 07 frontiersin.org
Garg et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2023.1084750
TABLE 2 Dominant themes from the focus group discussion with specialty fruit growers in Montana.
Dominant theme Explanation Example from focus group Number of
references
Benefits for value-added Preservation—panel expressed interest for product (A) “That’s what brought me to freeze drying, it was just Preservation−5
product development development to preserve products and extend shelf-life. another way of being able to preserve them.”
Transport—with extension of shelf-life can make the (B) “[With product development] can get the product to Transport−4
product widely available consumers at greater distances.”
Health—realizing with some processing methods can (C) “I’m kind of interested in freeze-drying for its’ Health−4
help to keep nutritional benefits health properties.”
Barriers to product Cost—Numerous concerns were raised with how (D) “And there’s cost to using the kitchen. . . it kind of Cost−7
development cost-prohibitive product development can be for keeps building until, you’re almost cost-prohibitive
small-scale growers. to sell your product.”
Resources—Panel shared they lacked knowledge (E) “I got good ideas I just, I just don’t have the time or Resources−8
surrounding appropriate licensing or did not have time the resources to [execute it].”
and resources to execute the activities of product
development, independently.
Expectations from Funding –Panel shared that funding can be an issue for (F) “And it wouldn’t be as much of a monetary Funding−10
presented toolkit executing the toolkit. Initially, shared that a grant may investment (as growers), until we can get something
be required prior to partnership, but later agreed that established and then, then it would be much easier to
testing out the success of a partnership will help in write a grant for it, to say, this is what we have and
writing the grant. this is our value-added product.
Partnership—Growers were willing to offer knowledge (G) “I’ve got ideas that I don’t know how to proceed with Partnership−9
and ideas (of what they have experienced). But they them, so yea, I think that would be great if we had
lacked time for experimenting—hence found the somebody that was able to do that.”
partnership between student and grower can be of great
values. Also, shared the interest to extend the toolkit
and be connected with markets. (H) “I would just take it one step further with the scaling
up and the marketing like where to go from there as
far as making the connections to get it to market.”
Timeline—there was slight debate if toolkit should have (I) “If it’s part of classwork, it could have some Timeline−10
a shorter timeline (coursework class) or longer timeline continuity, or, pretty easily, might have different
(thesis research), but most later agreed that a shorter students over a period of time. If it’s part of their
duration would be a good place to start for them. thesis, I think that will be very difficult.”
(Nakata, 2020). Again, design thinking was highly preferred in this enterprise. The prototyping activities in this spring course are
case, so the decision flows have an equal hold among the research to gain a proof of concept at the front end of innovation,
team of students/university and growers. instead of optimizing the prototype quality, thus can use the
The value-added toolkit draft (Figure 1) was revised to leftover produce from past season without having to use the fresh
incorporate growers’ feedback from the focus group and individual summer harvest.
interviews (Figure 2). First, in the creating partnership stage, to Subsequently, NUTR496 in fall semester will have students
address the growers’ expectations for funding, timeline, and IP perform prototyping to scale up and community engagement stages.
right, we have embedded faculty tasks to secure funding and Having empathized in SFBS491 with the grower’s needs and
establish timeline and IP agreements with the growers prior to requirements, NUTR496 will be more student-led, where students
the student-grower collaboration. Second, to address the growers’ can refine the prototype recipes by consulting with growers on
perceived barriers including cost and resources, we propose their business goals, ensuring technical benchmarks such as food
to implement the student-grower partnership in two courses safety, nutrition, sensory, and shelf life are met. The students
at Montana State University, SFBS491—Special Topics: Farm will then perform scale-up trials and community outreach with
to Market (Montana State University, 2022b) and NUTR496— product evaluations to identify the appropriate commercialization
Practicum Food Product Development (Montana State University, and marketing platforms. For the testing stage, to consider for
2022a). growers’ concern with funding and resource access, the toolkit
Building on the partnership developed by faculty with the was revised to emphasize the university and faculty providing
growers, SFBS 491 in spring semester will focus on the first four equipment, facility and technical advice to students. For the scale-
stages of the toolkit (Figure 2). This includes students creating up and community engagement stage, the toolkit has expanded
partnership with the growers to empathize with the needs of to suggest to growers which avenues the developed product can
growers and consumers, defining the problems, followed by be marketed toward. This was after a grower at the focus group
ideation, prototyping and testing to create and validate the product mentioned the idea of adding another step to the toolkit on
concepts and preliminary prototype recipes. For the prototyping helping growers with marketing and building connections (Table 2,
and testing stages, the toolkit was revised to add grower’s input quote H). Finally, as the growers generally agreed that the toolkit
on product ideas, as some of the growers interviewed had for student-grower partnership can benefit their businesses, the
carried product development efforts in their own capabilities toolkit has included one output of the university fulfilling their
and were aware of what can be a good product for their land-grant missions.
Frontiers in Sustainable FoodSystems 08 frontiersin.org
Garg et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2023.1084750
TABLE 3 Dominant themes from the individual interviews with specialty fruit growers in Montana.
Dominant theme Explanation Example from focus group Number of
references
Benefits of value-added Branding—many interviewees shared interest for local (A) “I came up with the totally Montanan moniker. Branding−4
product development made products can be a good pursuit to drive economic Which in our Montana grape and wine association
gain in Montana. was a very popular idea, and I think it will grow as
more of our wineries produce wines that qualify.”
Marketing—with appropriate use of marketing (B) “. . . the increase in value per pound of grapes is five Marketing−3
messaging, it was idolized that some growers could reap or six times higher in terms of the sale than we
better profits by use of value-added product would get if we just sold the grapes”
development.
Barriers to product Cost—Primary cost concerns with the interviewees (C) “. . . our biggest struggle right now is just trying to Cost−9
development surrounded with finding a product that returns figure out with the least amount of effort what’s
sufficient profit margin, for the time and energy that gonna be our biggest profit margin. . . ”
growers may be placing in turning their produce from
raw commodities into value-added goods.
Resources—Many interviews stated how troublesome it (D) “...they (grower’s) don’t know the reality of getting Resources−5
can be to turn a simple idea/recipe into a product ready form here’s my berries in a bucket to into a jar that
for market-sale. has a FDA approved label, like not just figure out
the recipe, but they’re gonna need help with all of
the in-between.”
Environmental—Though these fruit varieties prove to (E) “Our primary grower in Livingston had a complete Environmental−6
be resilient to Montana’s harsh climate, the uncertainty crop failure last year, he was a steady supplier for us
with environmental conditions is a common barrier for for 3 or 4 years and got attacked by an
growers. insect. . .wiped out his whole crop.”
Expectations from Funding—Panel shared that toolkit needs to consider (F) “Um well one thing that isn’t indicated anywhere Funding−5
presented toolkit funding sources, especially with small-scale growers here that I think is absolutely important and that we
lacking capital support to get them involved. do all the time is to look at the financial implications
of any possible project.”
Partnership—Growers shared great interest in the (G) “I would do it more as a helping them to develop Partnership−20
partnership between students and realized this as a tool their skills while maybe getting something out of it
which can assist them in their learning, whilst getting rather than relying on them to develop a product
some assistance. for me.”
Timeline—whilst there was debate upon an appropriate (H) “. . . if you guys could do it spring semester that Timeline−5
length of duration for the toolkit (due to each project would be the best, because farmers are most
being slightly different), it was agreed that a spring available in January-February”
semester start would be easier to start the collaboration
(while agreeing to keep leftover produce from prior
season).
Maintaining intellectual property (IP)—few growers (I) “I guess I have mixed feelings about it because I think Maintaining IP−3
expressed that sharing their trace secret (recipes) for the testing and developing will be...I mean something
testing can be problematic, and there may be need to that’s more personal to the grower.”
develop some agreement for that.
3.4. Logic model In the short term, our proposed toolkit served as an immediate
benefit for the specialty fruit growers in Montana, and a catalyst
This study presents outcomes from the first three PAR stages To toward the future development of the specialty fruit value-added
illustrate the short, medium, and long-term outcomes of the value- industry. By participating in the focus group and individual
added toolkit created in this study, we developed a comprehensive interviews of this study, the Montana specialty fruit growers had
logic model following the approach of Taylor-Powell and Henert increased knowledge and awareness of (1) the potential assistance
(2018) (Figure 3). This allowed us to address the remaining three and resources available for their value-added interest, (2) the
stages of PAR. stages involved in a food product development cycle, and (3)
In this logic model, we define “short-term” to be outcomes that how the successful use of PAR in value-added agriculture can
resulted in changes in learning and knowledge with the proposal be economically beneficial for their on-farm businesses. This also
and revision of the toolkit draft (6 months−1 year). “Medium- served a secondary benefit of revising the toolkit based on grower
term” outcomes are those that result in behavioral changes after feedback and finding growers who will be interested in trialing
a student-grower partnership has been established and product the toolkit.
development and testing activities carried out (1–3 years). Finally, Our understanding of the growers’ network in Montana makes
we consider “long-term” outcomes to be changes in conditions that us confident that we will find growers willing to partner to trial
have resulted after the toolkit has been implement for several years this toolkit. With this, we will see “medium-term” changes such
(3 years+). as (1) participation of growers to utilize the toolkit for developing
Frontiers in Sustainable FoodSystems 09 frontiersin.org
Garg et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2023.1084750
FIGURE 2
Revised toolkit for engaging Montana specialty fruit growers in value-added product development. Changes from previous draft are highlighted
in red.
FIGURE 3
Logic model to visualize the input, output, and outcomes for the creation and implementation of the value-added product development tool. Logic
model is based on the approach demonstrated by Taylor-Powell and Henert (2018). 1In this model, any place where it is mentioned growwers, it
signifies Montana specialty fruit growers.
Frontiers in Sustainable FoodSystems 10 frontiersin.org
Garg et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2023.1084750
value-added products, (2) development of value-added products Value-added efforts with these specialty fruits can help
addressing market demand and resources available, (3) use of growers extend the sale season and improve the palatability
safe food-handling practices for processing yield into value-added of these varieties. Past studies have presented the successful
products, (4) established methods to evaluate product quality and role of participatory research in urban agroecology by
safety, and (5) recommend steps for commercializing product for combining knowledge from science and practice. However,
the consumer market. With the assumption that there are several PAR frameworks for value-added agriculture are still
student-grower partnerships created, we anticipate noticing long- evolving. Thus, developing and promoting more collaborative
term conditional changes. These include (1) increased value-added frameworks in value-add agriculture can serve as a model for
products made utilizing these novel berries and fruit varieties ready future research.
for market consumption, (2) increased consumer awareness and This study concludes that value-added product development
acceptance of these novel crops, (3) economic benefits for small- is an interesting learning topic for many specialty fruit
scale growers to diversify income streams and reap higher income, growers in Montana. Yet, with the barrier of cost, resources,
and (4) contribution to crop biodiversity with more growers and environment, the growers struggle to carry out these
cultivating these novel crops (5) students attain thorough product activities by their own means. However, implementing
development skills. In summary, we expect that this project could student-grower partnership through a co-created, value-added
be a contributing factor to assist small-scale fruit and berry growers toolkit promises to address the needs of both the growers
with value-added product development and assist the Montana and consumers in encouraging value-added endeavors of
small fruit and berry industry with related agri-businesses. Though small farms.
this model is constructed to address the needs of Montana growers, Responding to the growing market of berry consumption and
it shows promise for long-term applicability among similar farms establishing crop biodiversity in places such as the Intermountain
in different locations. West, future research is called for to test, evaluate and monitor
the implementation of this toolkit, as suggested by the remaining
three principles of PAR. Doing so will also allow us to
3.5. Limitations raise the awareness of these novel cultivars [including haskap,
aronia, elderberry, currants, saskatoon, and dwarf sour cherries
First, based on the six PAR stages, we propose a logic (DSC)], by means of value-added product development. The
model of developing and implementing the value-added toolkit current literature suggests that though these berry varieties offer
to assist specialty fruit growers. However, this study focuses on resounding health benefits, there is a lack of consumer awareness,
the outcomes from only the first three PAR stages (identifying and the acceptability of these fruits has not been formally
the problem, collecting and analyzing data, and developing the evaluated. Hence, future studies can focus on addressing some of
intervention). Since we did not implement the value-added toolkit, these concerns.
we used the logic model to visualize the proposed outcomes
of the remaining three stages (implementing, evaluating, and
monitoring for revising the interventions) (Taylor-Powell and Data availability statement
Henert, 2018). Therefore, this paper requires a follow-up study
on a larger representative sample size to testify the logic model The original contributions presented in the study are included
by implementing and evaluating the outcomes of the value-added in the article/Supplementary material, further inquiries can be
toolkit, which is an ongoing research direction of our team. directed to the corresponding author.
Second, this study was based on survey results only from the
specialty fruit growers in the Intermountain West, and the focus
groups and interviews with Montana growers only. Therefore, the Ethics statement
toolkit developed and the logic model proposed in this study may
have place-based features and may not be directly generalized for The studies involving human participants were reviewed
applying in other regions. However, testing the implementation of and approved by Institutional Review Board at Montana State
this toolkit spanning to other regions with small farm productions University. The patients/participants provided their written
may share knowledge to revise the partnership model tailoring to informed consent to participate in this study. Written informed
the specific needs of growers. consent was obtained from the individual(s) for the publication
of any potentially identifiable images or data included in
this article.
4. Conclusion
To support Montana specialty fruit growers in diversifying Author contributions
their income streams, this study implemented PAR to engage
the growers in value-added initiatives. Through surveys, focus SG analyzed and interpreted all results and wrote the
groups and individual interviews with the growers, a value-added manuscript. GJ shared expertise on the logic model and
toolkit involving student-grower partnership was co-created with edited the manuscript. S-HK assisted in data analysis generated
the growers, and discussed with a logic model for its short to long from focus group discussions and edited the manuscript. ZM
term benefits. provided horticultural background expertise and edited the
Frontiers in Sustainable FoodSystems 11 frontiersin.org
Garg et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2023.1084750
manuscript. W-YK advised the entire study and edited the Conflict of interest
manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the
submitted version. The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be
construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Funding
This study was sponsored by USDA Specialty Crop Block Publisher’s note
Grant (20SC02605).
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the
authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated
Acknowledgments organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the
reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or
We acknowledge and honor, with respect, the Indigenous claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or
Nations on whose traditional homelands we now stand and whose endorsed by the publisher.
historical relationships with the land continues to this day. We
thank all the growers who took part in the survey. Special thanks
to Montana’s specialty fruit growers for their participation in the Supplementary material
focus group and individual interviews, and their continued support
in the endeavors of this research. We also thank the assistance The Supplementary Material for this article can be found
from undergraduate researchers Grace Nicholls, Sonja Ring, Rachel online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2023.
Baranek, and Everett Choi. 1084750/full#supplementary-material
References
Abundant Montana (2022). Abundant Montana. Bozeman: Abundant Montana. International Food Information Council (2021). 2021 Food and Health Survey.
Available online at: https://abundantmontana.com/about/ (accessed Ocotober 18, Washington, DC: Internation Food Information Council. Available online at: https://
2022). foodinsight.org/2021-food-health-survey/ (accessed September 19, 2022).
Aguilar, J., Gramig, G. G., Hendrickson, J. R., Archer, D.W., Forcella, F., and Liebig, Ivankova, N. V. (2017). Applying mixed methods in community-based
M. A. (2015). Crop species diversity changes in the United States: 1978–2012. PLoS participatory action research: a framework for engaging stakeholders with
ONE. 10, e0136580. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0136580 research as a means for promoting patient-centredness. J. Res. Nurs. 22, 282–294.
doi: 10.1177/1744987117699655
Chen, H., Ellett, J. K., Phillips, R., and Feng, Y. (2021). Small-scale produce growers’
barriers and motivators to value-added business: food safety and beyond. Food Control Kidd (2006). Sensory and Instrumental Evaluations of Saskatoon Fruit. Master of
130, 108192. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.108192 Science in Food Science and Technology, University of Alberta.
Ebel, R., Ahmed, S., Warne, T., Moxley, A., Grimberg, I., Jarchow, M., et al. (2022). Leask, C. F., Sandlund, M., Skelton, D. A., Altenburg, T. M., Cardon, G., Chinapaw,
Perceptions and responses of diversified farm producers in the northern great plains M. J. M., et al. (2019). Framework, principles and recommendations for utilising
to the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 6, 335. participatory methodologies in the co-creation and evaluation of public health
doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2022.668335 interventions. Res. Involv. Engag. 5, 2. doi: 10.1186/s40900-018-0136-9
Fortune Business Insights (2020). Organic Berries Market Size to Reach USD Méndez, V. E., Caswell, M., Gliessman, S. R., and Cohen, R. (2017). Integrating
1,016.79 Million by 2027; High Consumption of Organic Fruits to Augment Growth, agroecology and participatory action research (PAR): lessons from Central America.
States Fortune Business InsightsTM . Pune: Fortune Business Insights. Available Sustainability 9, 705. doi: 10.3390/su9050705
online at: https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/07/06/2057988/0/en/ Miller, Z. (2016).Using Research to Facilitate Production of Antioxidant-Rich Berries
Organic-Berries-Market-Size-to-Reach-USD-1-016-79-Million-by-2027-High- and Small Fruits in the Northern Rockies. Available online at: https://portal.nifa.
Consumption-of-Organic-Fruits-to-Augment-Growth-states-Fortune-Business- usda.gov/web/crisprojectpages/1019101-using-research-to-facilitate-production-of-
Insights.html (accessed January 23, 2020). anti-oxidant-rich-berries-and-small-fruits-in-the-northern-rockies.html (accessed
Fuller, K. (2019). Value-Added and Direct-to-Consumer Sales: Montana Highlights January 23, 2020).
from the 2017 Agricultural Census. Department of Agricultural Economics and Miller, Z. (2019).MT Fruit Production: Opportunities and Challenges.
Economics, Montana State University Bozeman, MT, United States. Available online
at: http://ageconmt.com/valueadded-and-direct-to-consumer/ (accessed March 2, Miller, Z. (2021). Farming for the Future: High Value, Small Acreage Crops Benefit
2021). Farmers and Communities. Hamilton: Ravalli Republic.
Garg, S., Leisso, R., Kim, S.-H., Mayhew, E., Song, M., Jarrett, B., et al. (2023). Mondelēz International (2021). 2021 Global Consumer Snacking Trends Study.
Market potential and value-added opportunities of cold-hardy berries and small fruits Manassas: Mondelēz International.
in the Intermountain West, USA. J. Food Sci. 88, 860–876. doi: 10.1111/1750-3841. Montana State University (2022a). NUTR496. Bozeman: Montana State University.
16426 Available online at: http://catalog.montana.edu/search/?P=NUTR%20496 (accessed
Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E., and Chadwick, B. (2008). Methods of data October 27, 2022).
collection in qualitative research: interviews and focus groups. Br. Dent. J. 204, Montana State University (2022b). SFBS: Sustainable Food and Bioenergy.
291–295. doi: 10.1038/bdj.2008.192 Bozeman: Montana State University. Available online at: http://catalog.montana.edu/
Green America (2018). Methods of Regenerative Agriculture #1: Perennial coursedescriptions/sfbs/ (accessed October 27, 2022).
Plants and Diverse Crops. Washington, DC: Green America. Available online at: More, A. (2022). Berries Market 2022: Global Industry Brief Analysis by Growth
https://greenamerica.org/blog/methods-regenerative-agriculture-1#:$\sim$:text= Opportunities, Progression Status, Size, Share, Growth Factors and Trends By
Beyond%20carbon%20sequestration%20and%20climate,for%20invertebrates%20and Forecast 2025 with Leading Regions and Countries Data. Washington, DC: News
%20small%20mammals (accessed April 29, 2022). Channel Nebraska.
Hosseinian, F. S., and Beta, T. (2007). Saskatoon and wild blueberries have higher Nakata, C. (2020). Design thinking for innovation: considering distinctions, fit, and
anthocyanin contents than other Manitoba berries. J. Agri. Food Chem. 55, 10832– use in firms. Bus. Horizons 63, 763–772. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2020.07.008
10838. doi: 10.1021/jf072529m
Frontiers in Sustainable FoodSystems 12 frontiersin.org
Garg et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2023.1084750
Nicklay, J. A., Cadieux, K. V., Rogers, M. A., Jelinski, N. A., LaBine, K., and Smith, C., and Bragdon, S. H. (2016). The Relationship Between Intellectual
Small, G. E. (2020). Facilitating spaces of urban agroecology: A learning framework Property Rights and Small-Scale Farmer Innovations. Geneva: Quaker United Nations
for community-university partnerships (Original Research). Front. Sustain. Food Syst. Office.
4, 143. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2020.00143
Stage-Gate International (2022). Food and Beverage. Burlington: Stage-Gate
Noble, H., and Smith, J. (2015). Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative International. Available online at: https://www.stage-gate.com/industries/food-
research. Evid. Based Nurs. 18, 34. doi: 10.1136/eb-2015-102054 beverage/ (accessed October 27, 2022).
Plattner, H. (2021). An Introduction to Design Thinking: Process Guide. Stanford: Taylor-Powell, E., and Henert, E. (2018). Developing a Logic Model: Teaching and
Institute of Design at Stanford. Training Guide. Madison: University ofWisconsin-Extension: University ofWisconsin.
Rupasinghe, H. P. V., Yu, L. J., Bhullar, K. S., and Bors, B. (2012). Short U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) (2022). Food Dollar Series. Washington,
communication: Haskap (Lonicera caerulea): a new berry crop with high antioxidant DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Available online at: https://www.ers.usda.
capacity. Can. J. Plant Sci. 92, 1311–1317. doi: 10.4141/cjps2012-073 gov/data-products/food-dollar-series/documentation.aspx (accessed October 21,
2022).
Rupasinghe, H. V. (2008). The role of polyphenols in quality, postharvest handling,
and processing of fruits. Postharvest Biol. Technol. Fruits Veget. Flowers 14, 260–281. United State Department of Agriculture (2017). Land in Berries: 2017 and 2012.
Washington, DC: USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service.
Selfa, T., and Qazi, J. (2005). Place, taste, or face-to-face? Understanding producer–
consumer networks in “local” food systems inWashington state. Agricult. Hum. Values United State Department of Agriculture (2020). “Farms and land in farms,” in
22, 451–464. doi: 10.1007/s10460-005-3401-0 Proceedings of the 2019 Summary, ed N. A. S. Service (Washington, DC: United State
Department of Agriculture).
Senabre Hidalgo, E., Perelló, J., Becker, F., Bonhoure, I., Legris, M., and Cigarini,
A. (2021). “Participation and co-creation in citizen science,” in The Science of Citizen U. S. Department of Agriculture (2020). Montana Annual Bulletin, 2020.
Science, eds. K. Vohland, A. Land-Zandstra, L. Ceccaroni, R. Lemmens, J. Perelló, M. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Available online at: https://www.
Ponti, R. Samson, and K. Wagenknecht (Cham: Springer International Publishing), nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Montana/Publications/Annual_Statistical_Bulletin/
199–218. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4_11 2020/Montana-Annual-Bulletin-2020.pdf
Shahbandeh, M. (2021). Category Share of Berries Sales in the United States U. S. Department of Agriculture (2022). USDA Value-added Ag Definiton.
in 2020, by Type. Washington, DC: Winsight Grocery Business. Available Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Available online at: https://www.
online at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/191512/fresh-berry-category-share-in- agmrc.org/business-development/valueadded-agriculture/articles/usda-value-added-
2011/ (accessed October 19, 2022). ag-definition (accessed February 20, 2022).
Frontiers in Sustainable FoodSystems 13 frontiersin.org