Skip to content
White papers

Full-length papers from the classroom and the kitchen.

Our white papers are the long form: one subject, worked end to end, with the numbers shown. They are written from real VK classrooms and operations — never from client-confidential work — and every figure traces to a named session or source.

White Paper 01 · Workforce training · Houston

Costed to Sell: The Food-Costing Method We Teach Houston's Workforce

Aubrey McCoy · Founder & Principal · VK Capital Ventures Inc. · October 2026 · 8 min read

Most food businesses price the way they season at home — by feel — and find out what they made after the money is already spent. In our TSU Workforce Readiness classroom, students costed a single batch of nachos line by line and discovered their most expensive ingredient was not the one they expected. This paper sets out the costing method we teach, the full worked example, and what the room said back.

The question

How do you price a dish so the business returns money every time it sells — and how do you teach that skill to a new food worker in a single session?

Method & data

One live class session — TSU Workforce Readiness, October 15, 2026. A defined recipe (loaded nachos, about 25 servings) costed ingredient by ingredient at prices students pulled from Houston-area stores, carried with breathing room, priced against the local market, then run through labor and fixed costs. Every figure in this paper is the class's own.

The method in six steps

01

Define the recipe and the portion

How much of each ingredient, in what form, and how many servings it produces. No pricing before this exists.

02

Price every ingredient the same way

Ingredient cost used = cost per unit × quantity used — every line, from real stores near the cook, in the cook's zip code.

03

Divide to the portion

Cost per portion = total recipe cost ÷ number of portions. Price every line first; rounding early is how money leaks.

04

Carry it with breathing room

The computed number is food only. Packaging, plates and the unexpected eat margin, so the carried cost sits above it.

05

Price for return

Set the menu price from the carried cost — enough to pay the people and the place, honest enough that people buy.

06

Subtract labor and fixed costs

Wages, permits and rent come out before anyone calls the remainder profit. What is left is the take-home.

Fig. 01 · Ingredient cost breakdown — one batch of nachos, ~25 servings

Cheese — 8 bags ×$4.00Chips — 2 boxes ×$12.99Avocados — 12 ×$1.50Lettuce — 4 heads *Roma tomatoes — 20*Sour cream *Cilantro — 10 × $1.00Onions — 8 × $0.55$32.00$25.98$18.00$13.12$11.00$10.50$10.00$4.40

Source: TSU Workforce Readiness class session, October 15, 2026 — priced live from Houston-area stores. Batch total ≈ $125.

Ingredient cost used = cost per unit × quantity used. * Estimate: tomatoes, lettuce and sour cream were priced live in class as ranges and are shown at the class's working figures (gold). The cheese — not the chips — was the batch's biggest cost.

Fig. 02 · The price build — from true cost to a price that returns

Computed cost per portionCarried cost (breathing room)Menu price$5.70$7.00$15.00

Source: TSU Workforce Readiness class session, October 15, 2026.

The computed $5.70 is carried at $7.00 — $1.30 of breathing room for packaging, plates and the unexpected — then priced at $15.00, leaving $8.00 per plate toward labor, permits, rent and return.

What the class showed

  • 01The cheese was the batch's biggest cost — eight bags at $4.00, $32.00 of a roughly $125 batch. The chips everyone expected to dominate came second, at $25.98.
  • 02The full ingredient-by-ingredient computation came to about $5.70 per portion. Dividing the rounded batch total first gives $5.00 — the gap between those numbers is exactly why the method prices every line.
  • 03Carried at $7.00 per portion with breathing room, the plate priced at $15.00 — against a downtown market where a bacon-wrapped stadium hot dog sells for $10.
  • 04Run at shift scale — one entry-level prep cook, 300 servings in four hours — the example returns $4,500 in revenue against $2,100 in food and $32 in labor: about $2,368 of take-home before fixed costs like Houston's roughly $200 pop-up permit and rent.
  • 05Prices are local. The same ingredient costs differently across zip codes, and food grown nearby costs less than food shipped in — so costing starts from nearby stores and nearby farms.
  • 06Students priced ingredients from their own grocery-store jobs, calculated along in real time, and pushed back thoughtfully on letting an AI hold the knowledge. The class's answer: the tool stores the formula, but the cook learns the numbers by hand first.

What it means for operators, funders & growers

Food costing is not accounting homework — it is the difference between a talented cook and a viable business, and it is teachable in one session when it is taught as a practice instead of a lecture. For funders and institutions, this is what workforce training looks like when it produces an employable, auditable skill: a worker who can cost a dish can be trusted with a menu, an invoice, and eventually a business. VK Capital Ventures teaches this method in workforce classrooms, applies it to every menu across our own brands before anything ships, and builds it into the Farm2Chef platform connecting Houston's chefs and farmers. Training engagements and menu-costing work are available to partners — start a conversation with the contact link below.

White Paper 02 · Food economics · Houston

The Split Shelf: Wholesale Food Costs, One Falling Staple, and What It Means for Food Access in Houston

Aubrey McCoy · Founder & Principal · VK Capital Ventures Inc. · October 2026 · 10 min read

In September 2026, U.S. producer prices posted their largest monthly rise since March 2022 — while the food index itself was flat year over year, fresh vegetables jumped 41 percent in a single month, and chicken eggs fell almost 40. This paper reads the Bureau of Labor Statistics release line by line, follows the costs through the distribution chain, and sets them against the food-security data for the county we operate in.

The question

What do September's wholesale food prices actually say — and what do they mean for the households, and the small kitchens that feed them, at the end of the chain in Harris County?

Method & data

Primary-source synthesis, October 15, 2026: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Producer Price Indexes — September 2026 (USDL-26-1576); USDA Economic Research Service, Household Food Security in the United States in 2024 (ERR-358); Feeding America, Map the Meal Gap; Rice University Kinder Institute, Greater Houston Community Panel (spring 2024, n > 5,200); USDA ERS Food Price Outlook (September 2026) and WASDE (October 2026). Every figure traces to its source.

September, by the numbers

+1.3%

Final demand PPI, September

The largest one-month advance since March 2022 — and +6.3 percent over twelve months, the largest since December 2022 (BLS).

+41.0%

Fresh & dry vegetables

One month at the producer level, and +29.6 percent year over year — after a −34.9 percent swing in July alone (BLS).

−39.7%

Chicken eggs

The month's great exception. Eggs for fresh use fell 31.9 percent in September and 66.0 percent over twelve months (BLS).

+6.7%

Wholesaling margins

Food and alcohol wholesaling, September — the distribution chain repricing itself in a 20-percent diesel month (BLS).

13.7%

U.S. households food insecure

18.3 million households in 2024, the highest since 2014 — in the final edition of USDA's annual series (USDA ERS).

~40%

Harris County households

Moderate-to-high food insecurity in the Kinder Institute's spring 2024 panel — nearly three times the national rate.

Fig. 03 · One month, two directions — producer food prices, September 2026

Fresh & dryvegetablesGrainsOilseedsFinfish & shellfishFresh fruits & melonsBeef & vealFinal demand foods(all)Dairy productsPorkProcessed youngchickensEggs for fresh use+41.0%+17.4%+11.4%+9.0%+3.7%+3.3%+1.2%-1.1%-3.7%-4.1%-31.9%

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Producer Price Indexes — September 2026 (USDL-26-1576), Table 2. One-month percent changes, seasonally adjusted.

The food index itself rose just 1.2 percent in September — and is flat, 0.0 percent, over twelve months. Inside it, produce whipsawed (fresh and dry vegetables +41.0 percent after a −34.9 percent swing in July) while eggs for fresh use fell 31.9 percent in the month and 66.0 percent over the year.

Fig. 04 · The closer to home, the bigger the number — food insecurity at nested scales

U.S. householdsTexasHFB 18-county areaHarris CountyHarris Co. w/ children13.7%17.6%18%~40%50%

Sources: USDA ERS (2024); Feeding America, Map the Meal Gap (2023 data); Houston Food Bank service-area reporting (2024 data); Kinder Institute, Greater Houston Community Panel (spring 2024).

Instruments differ by source and are not directly comparable — the federal survey, the Feeding America model, and the Kinder Institute's direct local panel each measure their own way, and each bar is labeled with its source. What no instrument disputes is the direction: need deepens as the lens tightens on Harris County, and reaches one in two households with children.

What the data shows

  • 01September was an energy and volatility month, not a food-inflation month. Final demand foods rose 1.2 percent on the month but are flat — 0.0 percent — over twelve months, while energy drove the goods index: +10.8 percent on the month, gasoline +20.3 percent, diesel +21.0 percent (BLS, USDL-26-1576).
  • 02The egg collapse is a supply story. Avian influenza destroyed laying flocks across 2022–2025; as producers rebuilt, production overshot into oversupply. USDA's October WASDE cut the 2026 average wholesale forecast to 103.5 cents per dozen, against a 2025 average of 373.7 cents — and a dozen retail eggs averaged $2.27 in August 2026 against $4.95 in January 2025 (USDA WASDE; BLS data via NPR).
  • 03Every link of the pass-through chain that BLS prices got more expensive: food and alcohol wholesaling margins +6.7 percent in September, truck transportation of freight +19.3 percent over the year, and food and alcohol retailing margins +7.8 percent over the year (BLS, USDL-26-1576, Table 2).
  • 04Texas carries the largest food-insecure population of any state — more than 5.3 million people, at a 17.6 percent rate on 2023 data, with 1 in 4 Texas children affected (Feeding America, Map the Meal Gap).
  • 05In the Houston Food Bank's 18-county service area, 18 percent of residents — roughly 1.44 million people — were food insecure in 2024, and calls to 211 seeking food assistance rose 28.6 percent from February to June 2026, with referrals to food banks and pantries up nearly 37 percent (Map the Meal Gap; United Ways of Texas 211 data).
  • 06The Kinder Institute's direct survey finds nearly 40 percent of Harris County households at moderate-to-high food insecurity — 18 percent high, 21 percent moderate — and half of households with children. With USDA's annual report now ended, local measurement like this carries the weight (Kinder Institute, 2025; USDA ERS, 2024).

What it means for operators, funders & growers

A small kitchen sits at the exact midpoint of this paper: it buys at producer and wholesale prices it does not control, and it sells to the households in these statistics. The operators who survive months like September are the ones who cost every dish from a defined recipe, shorten the chain where they can, and pool demand where they cannot. That is the logic behind VK's own structure — Farm2Chef connecting Houston chefs and farms directly; the Community Protein Pool splitting whole animals by ZIP code at disclosed terms, rolling out first in Harris County; and the workforce costing method taught in our companion paper, Costed to Sell. We publish this data because it is our operating environment — and we would rather show it than summarize it.

White Paper 03 · Food access & insecurity · Houston

Harris County Food Insecurity, Mapped: The Neighborhood Data Behind the County Number

Aubrey McCoy · Founder & Principal · VK Capital Ventures Inc. · October 2026 · 9 min read

Harris County's food insecurity rate depends on which instrument you read — 18.2 percent modeled, 39 percent surveyed — and both hide the real story: a neighborhood spread from the county average to roughly 80 percent in Greenspoint & IAH. This paper maps the variation, explains the methods behind each number, and follows the 2026 demand signals in 211 and food bank data.

The question

How does food insecurity actually distribute across Harris County's neighborhoods and household types, and why do the county's three measurement systems produce such different numbers?

Method & data

We triangulate three labeled instruments: the Kinder Institute's Greater Houston Community Panel direct survey (spring 2024, n>5,200) for neighborhood and household resolution, Feeding America's Map the Meal Gap model for county trend, and USDA ERS for the national benchmark — supplemented by United Ways of Texas 211 demand data and Houston Food Bank service-area reporting for 2026.

By the numbers

~80%

Greenspoint & IAH households food insecure

Highest of 30 Harris County neighborhood areas — about four in five households (Kinder Institute, 2025)

39%

Harris County households, moderate-to-high food insecurity

Direct survey of 5,200+ residents; 18% high, 21% moderate (Kinder Institute, spring 2024)

18.2%

Harris County modeled rate, 863,820 people

County estimate for 2023, up from 13.9% in 2019 (Feeding America, Map the Meal Gap, 2025)

50%

Households with children food insecure

Versus 33% of households without children; 62% with three or more children (Kinder Institute, 2026)

+37%

Rise in 211 food referrals, Feb–Jun 2026

Referrals to food banks and pantries rose from 4,230 to 5,785 (United Ways of Texas 211 data, 2026)

1.44M

People food insecure in HFB's 18-county area

18% of residents in 2024, served through 1,600+ partners (Houston Food Bank; Map the Meal Gap, 2024)

What the data shows

  • 01Seven of the Kinder Institute's 30 Harris County neighborhood areas exceed 50 percent moderate-to-high food insecurity, led by Greenspoint & IAH at about 80 percent, Pasadena & Hobby at 58 percent, Greater Spring & Aldine West at 57 percent, and Northside & Eastex at 53 percent (Kinder Institute, 2025; 2026). County averages understate need in the north and east by roughly half.
  • 02Children concentrate the risk: 50 percent of households with children were food insecure versus 33 percent without, rising to 62 percent for households with three or more children and 68 percent for households with children earning under $35,000 (Kinder Institute, 2026). Household size is a risk factor independent of income alone.
  • 03The modeled and surveyed figures measure different things. Map the Meal Gap estimates 18.2 percent of Harris County individuals (863,820 people) in 2023 from county characteristics, while the Kinder panel asked households directly using a validated seven-item instrument (Feeding America, 2025; Kinder Institute, 2025). Planning should use the model for trend and the survey for geography, each labeled.
  • 04Exposure reaches well past the poverty line: 59 percent of households earning under $35,000 were food insecure, but more than one in five households earning $75,000 to $99,999 also reported it (Kinder Institute, 2025; Rice University News, 2025). Eligibility drawn only at poverty thresholds misses a working population the survey shows is genuinely short of food.
  • 05Demand data moved before the next survey could: 211 calls seeking food assistance rose 28.6 percent and referrals to food banks and pantries nearly 37 percent from February to June 2026 (United Ways of Texas 211 data, 2026). Referral counts measure help-seeking, not prevalence, but they are the region's fastest directional signal.
  • 06Benefit contraction is transferring demand locally: about 160,000 fewer Harris County residents were approved for SNAP between December 2024 and July 2026 — a decline of roughly 24 percent, including about 84,500 fewer children (Kinder Institute, 2026). That demand lands on household budgets and the charitable network in the same neighborhoods the survey already flags.

What it means for operators, funders & growers

For operators and funders: site and size interventions from the neighborhood map, not the county mean. A dollar spread evenly across Harris County systematically under-serves the north and east, where household rates run at double the county figure. Budget senior and family programming from survey and model data, track 211 referrals as the between-surveys early warning, and expect charitable demand to keep absorbing what benefit enrollment sheds.

White Paper 04 · Food access & insecurity · Houston

SNAP Economics: What a Benefit Dollar Does Inside a Local Food System

Aubrey McCoy · Founder & Principal · VK Capital Ventures Inc. · October 2026 · 10 min read

SNAP delivered $7.21 billion to 3.19 million Texans in fiscal 2024, and USDA economists estimate each downturn dollar generates $1.54 in GDP — under conditions this paper states plainly. We follow the dollar through redemption channels, per-meal arithmetic, and the farmers-market channel, where authorization has grown far faster than redemption.

The question

What does a SNAP dollar actually do after issuance — how much economic activity it generates, where it is redeemed, what reaches farmers, and what happens locally when enrollment contracts?

Method & data

We build from USDA ERS's SNAP multiplier study (ERR-265, 2019), CBPP's analysis of USDA FNS administrative data for Texas (fiscal 2024), and USDA FNS Benefit Redemption Patterns for FY 2022, with Feeding America meal-cost data and Kinder Institute analysis of Texas HHS enrollment data for the 2025–26 contraction.

By the numbers

1.54

GDP multiplier per $1 of SNAP in a downturn

$1B in benefits → $1.54B GDP, ~13,560 jobs, ~$32M farm income (USDA ERS, ERR-265, 2019)

$7.21B

SNAP benefits delivered in Texas, FY 2024

Reaching 3,193,000 residents — 10% of the state population (CBPP, 2025)

$6.19

Average Texas benefit per person per day

$188 per household member per month in FY 2024 (CBPP, 2025)

78.0%

Share of benefits redeemed at supermarkets & super stores

Versus 0.6% at small grocery stores (USDA FNS, FY 2022 redemption patterns, 2025)

$18.8M

SNAP redeemed at farmers markets & direct farmers, FY 2014

Across 5,175 authorized markets and farmers, up 28% in a year (USDA ERS, 2015)

-18%

Houston metro SNAP enrollment, Jun 2025–Jun 2026

About 155,000 fewer people approved in the nine-county metro (Kinder Institute, 2026)

What the data shows

  • 01The ERS multiplier — $1.54 of GDP per $1 of benefits, about 13,560 jobs and $32 million of farm income per $1 billion — is explicitly a downturn estimate that the authors describe as an upper bound near full employment (USDA ERS, ERR-265, 2019). Used with its conditions attached, it remains the benchmark for SNAP's economic footprint.
  • 02Per-meal arithmetic explains the program's limits: Texas's average benefit of $6.19 per person per day (CBPP, 2025) works out to roughly $2 per meal, against an average meal cost of $3.70 reported by food-secure individuals in 2024 (Feeding America, Map the Meal Gap, 2026). SNAP supplements a food budget; it does not constitute one.
  • 03Redemption is highly concentrated: supermarkets and super stores took 78.0 percent of FY 2022 benefits on 57.1 percent of transactions, while convenience stores hosted 20.2 percent of transactions for a small share of dollars (USDA FNS, 2025). Households redeemed 79.5 percent of benefits within two weeks — a demand calendar retailers can set inventory by.
  • 04The farmers-market channel is tiny in dollars but diagnostic: 5,175 authorized markets and direct marketing farmers redeemed $18.8 million in FY 2014, a fraction of one percent of program redemptions (USDA ERS, 2015). Authorization growth outpacing redemption growth shows access points were not the binding constraint — awareness, hours, and habit were.
  • 05Incentives move the direct channel: in FINI's first year, produce incentives at almost 1,000 farmers markets representing about 4,000 farmers in 27 states generated almost $8 million in combined SNAP and incentive produce sales, with high incentive redemption rates (Farmers Market Coalition, year-one summary). Channel design, not just benefit level, determines where dollars land.
  • 06Contraction transmits fast: about 155,000 fewer people were approved for SNAP in the Houston metro between June 2025 and June 2026, an 18 percent decline, while a west Houston pantry's weekly attendance more than doubled (Kinder Institute, 2026). Benefit losses appear simultaneously as retailer revenue losses and charitable-system load.

What it means for operators, funders & growers

For operators and funders: treat SNAP enrollment as a published leading indicator for both grocery purchasing power and pantry demand in your trade area. The multiplier case for SNAP is strong but conditional — quote it with its downturn caveat. And for local-food advocates, the redemption data sets the honest agenda: the direct channel grows by fixing awareness, hours, and incentives, not by adding more authorized stalls.

White Paper 05 · Food access & insecurity · Houston

Food Deserts and Bus Routes: Getting to Fresh Food in Houston

Aubrey McCoy · Founder & Principal · VK Capital Ventures Inc. · October 2026 · 9 min read

USDA's Food Access Research Atlas counts more than 500,000 Houstonians in low-access areas — but distance is only half the barrier. This paper reads the tract definitions against Houston's vehicle access, evening bus frequency, and the dollar-store expansion, and finds the return trip, not the map distance, is where access fails.

The question

Why does living near a store on a map still leave so many Houston households without practical access to fresh food — and which definition of access matches the lived trip?

Method & data

We use USDA ERS's Food Access Research Atlas and its tract studies (EIB-209; EIB-236) for definitions and national counts, City of Houston and Kinder Institute material for the local scale including Acres Homes, LINK Houston's Transit Equity Demand Index for transit supply in high-demand areas, and Statista store counts reported by the University of Rhode Island for dollar-store growth.

By the numbers

500,000+

Houston residents in USDA-designated food deserts

City of Houston / Houston Food Bank estimate citing the Food Access Research Atlas (2025)

69%

Acres Homes residents living in a food desert

Seven of 11 census tracts; community goal was to reduce the share to zero (Kinder Institute)

3,000+

Acres Homes low-income families without a vehicle, 0.5+ mi from a store

The vehicle-access definition converted to a household count (Kinder Institute)

12%

Households with no vehicle in Houston's high transit-demand areas

Across 867,000 residents with a 24% household poverty rate (LINK Houston, Equity in Transit: 2020)

~1/3

Share of high-demand areas with frequent transit on weekends

About half on weekdays, and even less after 6 p.m. (LINK Houston, 2020)

39,000+

Dollar stores in the U.S., 2025

Up ~4,700 since 2021; groceries were 80%+ of Dollar General's sales (Statista via University of Rhode Island, 2026)

What the data shows

  • 01'Low access' is a defined term, not a metaphor: a low-income tract where at least 500 people or 33 percent of residents live more than 1 mile (urban) from a supermarket, supercenter, or large grocery store (USDA ERS, EIB-236). The vehicle-access variant — 100+ housing units without a vehicle more than half a mile from a store — is the measure that describes car-free Houston households.
  • 02Access churns: nationally, 10,126 tracts were low-income/low-access on the vehicle measure in 2019, with 3,833 tracts leaving the category and 3,090 entering it between 2015 and 2019 (USDA ERS, 2021). A tract can exit by gaining income rather than a store, so progress claims need the reason, not just the flag.
  • 03In Acres Homes, the store count misleads: effectively two full grocery stores serve the area's edges, while other storefronts signed as grocery stores are convenience stores on inspection (Kinder Institute). That is why the Atlas counts only stores reliably stocking a wide range of healthy food — and why proximity to any storefront overstates fresh-food access.
  • 04Transit supply fails at grocery-trip hours: in LINK Houston's three high-demand areas, frequent service covered about half the area on weekdays, about a third on weekends, and even less after 6 p.m. (LINK Houston, 2020). Grocery trips are disproportionately evening and weekend trips with a perishable load — precisely when the network is thinnest.
  • 05The expanding format is the limited-assortment one: dollar stores grew by about 4,700 U.S. locations from 2021 to 2025 and their share of rural household food purchases rose 102.9 percent from 2008 to 2020 (Statista via University of Rhode Island, 2026; Feng et al., AJPH, 2023). They solve distance without solving assortment, and the Atlas excludes them from access counts for exactly that reason.
  • 06Local policy is beginning to treat the trip as the intervention: Houston's Complete Communities plans name grocery access and transit together in ten neighborhoods, and METRO's Community Connector microtransit explicitly links riders to grocery stores, clinics, and schools in zones including Near Northside, Second Ward, and Third Ward (City of Houston; METRO, 2025).

What it means for operators, funders & growers

For operators and funders: fund the trip, not just the store. Evening and weekend frequency in high-demand areas, microtransit, mobile markets, and food placed at destinations households already travel to will outperform interventions that assume a household can absorb a longer journey. Measure access with the vehicle-access definition, and audit any 'food desert solved' claim for whether a supermarket arrived or incomes merely rose.

White Paper 06 · Food access & insecurity · Houston

School Food and Garden Education: What the Outcomes Data Actually Shows

Aubrey McCoy · Founder & Principal · VK Capital Ventures Inc. · October 2026 · 9 min read

Farm to school is mainstream — 74 percent of U.S. school food authorities did an activity in 2022–23 and districts spent $1.8 billion on local food — but the outcome evidence is uneven. This paper grades it honestly: strong for knowledge and willingness to taste, small and mixed for dietary intake, and thinnest for the test-score claims made most loudly.

The question

What outcomes does the research actually support for school gardens, farm to school procurement, and food education — and where does the evidence run out?

Method & data

We rely on USDA FNS's 2023 Farm to School Census (national and Texas findings) for scale and spending, and on the field's systematic reviews — Advances in Nutrition (2022), Public Health Nutrition (2021), and the Savoie-Roskos (2017) and Ohly (2016) reviews as characterized in later literature — for graded outcome claims, with Houston ISD meal-program reporting for local context.

By the numbers

74%

U.S. school food authorities doing farm to school, 2022–23

Participation up 14% since the 2019 Census (USDA FNS, 2023 Farm to School Census)

$1.8B

Local food purchased by U.S. school districts

Roughly 16% of total food spending (USDA FNS, 2023 Census)

$254M

Local food purchased by Texas districts

Across 5,679 schools and 3,687,285 students; $158M was fluid milk (USDA FNS, Texas findings, 2024)

473

Edible school gardens in Texas

7% of Texas schools had an edible garden (USDA FNS, Texas findings, 2024)

6,539

U.S. schools with an edible garden, 2023

Up 9.6% from 5,966 in 2019; 3M+ students potentially reached (JNEB, 2026, citing the Census)

32%

Texas SFAs citing limited local availability as top challenge

Followed by price (22%) and finding vendors (16%) (USDA FNS, Texas findings, 2024)

What the data shows

  • 01Scale is settled: 74 percent of U.S. SFAs did at least one farm to school activity in 2022–23, districts spent about $1.8 billion on local food, and Texas alone accounted for $254 million across 5,679 schools (USDA FNS, 2023 Census; Texas findings, 2024). Farm to school is standard practice whose effects, not existence, are the open question.
  • 02Knowledge and selection are the reliable outcomes: the Advances in Nutrition systematic review found most farm to school studies reported at least one desirable result — improved nutrition knowledge, increased fruit and vegetable selection and consumption, and improved self-efficacy — with a minority of inconsistent or null findings (Prescott et al., 2022).
  • 03Dietary intake effects are small and honestly mixed: the garden-intervention literature indicates small but positive influences on children's fruit and vegetable intake amid methodological limitations (Savoie-Roskos et al., 2017). Programs claiming large dietary transformations from a garden are ahead of the evidence.
  • 04The intervention is the bundle, not the bed: successful experiential programs combined gardens with harvesting, cooking, tasting, and classroom nutrition education over typically 10–15 weeks, and most effective farm to school studies were multicomponent (Public Health Nutrition, 2021; Prescott et al., 2022). Funding only the garden buys the weakest version of the model.
  • 05Academic claims are the thinnest leg: reported science-score gains rest on a small, mostly elementary, rarely randomized study base, and a frequently cited reading gain (6.5 points versus controls, higher with more exposure) comes from a single program study (Blair, 2009; JNEB, 2026). Treat gardens as plausible support for applied learning, not an established test-score intervention.
  • 06Procurement, not pedagogy, is the binding constraint: Texas SFAs named limited availability of local foods (32 percent), higher local prices (22 percent), and difficulty finding local vendors (16 percent) as their top challenges (USDA FNS, Texas findings, 2024). Garden and education programs succeed when the cafeteria behind them can source and serve the food.

What it means for operators, funders & growers

For operators and funders: buy the full sequence — grow, harvest, cook, taste, learn — and report outcomes at the level you measured: tastings, selections, knowledge gains. That case is strong and truthful without borrowing test-score claims the literature cannot yet carry. Pair every education dollar with procurement capacity, because the census says availability, price, and vendor discovery are what actually limit school food quality in Texas.

White Paper 07 · Food access & insecurity · Houston

Senior Food Insecurity in Texas: The Quietest Number in the Dataset

Aubrey McCoy · Founder & Principal · VK Capital Ventures Inc. · October 2026 · 9 min read

Texas has the largest number of food-insecure seniors in the nation — 900,941 people aged 60+, at a rate that rose to 15.1 percent — yet older adults are the least likely to appear in a pantry line or to be enrolled in SNAP. This paper explains the three mechanisms that keep senior hunger quiet, and the delivered-meal evidence for reaching people who do not arrive on their own.

The question

Why does senior food insecurity in Texas keep rising while remaining the least visible segment in service data — and what interventions does the evidence support for a population that under-presents and under-enrolls?

Method & data

We compare two labeled instruments — Feeding America's Map the Meal Gap (2024 data, 2026 release; plus its 2022-data release for trend) and the AARP Public Policy Institute's CPS Food Security Supplement analysis for adults 50+ — with FRAC research on senior SNAP participation and churn, and Meals on Wheels America's evidence review of 38 studies (1996–2023).

By the numbers

900,941

Food-insecure seniors (60+) in Texas — largest in the nation

Texas senior total in the 2024 data (Feeding America, Map the Meal Gap, 2026)

15.1%

Texas senior (60+) food insecurity rate

About 1 in 7 seniors, up from 13.6% (Feeding America, 2024 data; Feeding Texas, 2026)

17.5%

Texas rate for adults aged 50–59

Higher than the 60+ rate — insecurity peaks before retirement benefits (Feeding America, 2024 data)

16.4%

Texas food insecurity rate, adults 50+ (survey measure)

1,538,000 people in 2023; U.S. rate 10.4% (AARP Public Policy Institute, April 2025)

~55%

Eligible seniors (60+) participating in SNAP

Versus ~88% of all eligible individuals, FY 2022 (USDA FNS data via FRAC, 2025)

2.5M

Low-income food-insecure older adults unserved by Meals on Wheels

In addition to 2.6M seniors served annually (Meals on Wheels America, 2026)

What the data shows

  • 01Texas leads the nation in senior hunger by count and is worsening by rate: 900,941 food-insecure seniors 60+ at 15.1 percent in the 2024 data, up from 13.6 percent in the prior release (Feeding America, Map the Meal Gap, 2026; Feeding Texas, 2026). The AARP survey measure independently puts Texas adults 50+ at 16.4 percent — different instrument, same verdict (AARP PPI, 2025).
  • 02The risk peaks before 'senior' programs begin: Texas adults aged 50–59 show a 17.5 percent rate, above the 60+ rate, and nationally 4.9 million adults 50–59 (12.4 percent) are food insecure alongside 7.7 million seniors 60+ (9.5 percent) (Feeding America, 2026). Program eligibility that starts at 65 misses the highest-risk decade.
  • 03Service counts structurally understate senior need: mobility limits, transportation gaps, stigma, and the logistics of carrying groceries keep older adults from pantry lines and demand counters (Feeding Texas). Prevalence for this group must be read from surveys and models, never inferred from who shows up.
  • 04Under-enrollment is the largest fixable gap: only about 55 percent of eligible adults 60+ participated in SNAP in FY 2022 against about 88 percent overall, and administrative churn disenrolls an estimated 17–28 percent of SNAP households annually, disproportionately older adults (USDA FNS data via FRAC, 2025). Application and recertification help is a food intervention.
  • 05Disability multiplies the risk: seniors with a disability had food insecurity rates more than twice those without, and adults 50–59 with a disability more than three times (Feeding America, Map the Meal Gap, 2024 release of 2022 data). Fixed-income trade-offs — groceries against medication and medical care — are the mechanism households themselves describe (Feeding Texas).
  • 06Delivered meals carry the strongest senior-specific evidence: a review of 38 studies (1996–2023) associates Meals on Wheels with reduced costly health care use, reduced nursing home use, increased food security, improved diet quality, and reduced isolation (Meals on Wheels America, 2023). The model works precisely because it requires no trip, no line, and no application.

What it means for operators, funders & growers

For operators and funders: budget senior need from survey and model data, never from service counts, which are guaranteed to understate it. The highest-return moves are unglamorous — SNAP enrollment and recertification assistance for the roughly 45 percent of eligible seniors outside the program, and delivered or congregate meal formats that reach people who will not arrive on their own. In Houston, overlay the senior data on the vehicle-access and transit maps before siting anything.

White Paper 08 · Farm Economics & Markets · Houston

How a Wholesale Price Is Born: Price Formation from Farm Gate to Loading Dock

Aubrey McCoy · Founder & Principal · VK Capital Ventures Inc. · October 2026 · 10 min read

A wholesale price is not one price but a chain of them, and in 2024 only 11.8 cents of the American food dollar reached the farm. This paper decomposes that dollar, explains why farm prices travel to the shelf slowly and stickily, and shows what a buyer is really paying for at each stage.

The question

How is a wholesale food price actually formed — how much of the final dollar is created at the farm, in processing, in wholesaling, and in service — and why do changes at the farm gate arrive at the buyer late, damped, and asymmetric?

Method & data

USDA ERS Food Dollar Series (March 2026 comprehensive revision, 2024 data) and ERS farm-to-retail price spreads; Congressional Research Service review of price-transmission research (R40621); ERS analysis of farm-to-retail price volatility.

By the numbers

11.8 cents

Farm share of the food dollar, 2024

Farm establishments received 11.8 cents per dollar spent on domestically produced food in 2024, down from 12.1 cents in 2023; the marketing share was 88.2 cents (USDA ERS, Food Dollar Series, 2026)

18.5 cents

Farm share of the food-at-home dollar, 2024

Food bought to prepare at home returned 18.5 cents per dollar to the farm in 2024, up from 18.4 cents in 2023 (USDA ERS, Food Dollar Series, 2026)

69.1 cents

Farm share for fresh eggs, 2024

Minimally processed products return far more to the farm: fresh eggs 69.1 cents, beef 52.2 cents, and fresh milk 50.8 cents per dollar in 2024 (USDA ERS, Food Dollar Series, 2026)

$0.36 / $1.70

Apple farm value vs. retail price per pound, 2024

The average farm value of apples was $0.36 per pound against a retail price of just over $1.70 per pound in 2024 (USDA ERS, farm-to-retail price spreads, 2024)

43% → 4%

How a farm price shock shrinks on its way to retail

In 2011 the farm price of corn, wheat, and soybeans rose 43%, intermediate foods prices rose 12%, and retail food prices rose just 4% (USDA ERS, Retail Food Prices Less Volatile Than Farm and Wholesale Prices)

33.6 cents

Largest claimant on the food dollar: food services, 2021

On the pre-revision industry-group bill, food services took 33.6 cents per dollar in 2021, ahead of processors at 15.2 cents, retailers at 12.7 cents, and wholesalers at 10.7 cents (USDA ERS Food Dollar, 2021, via AEI, 2023)

What the data shows

  • 01The farm share is 11.8 cents of the 2024 food dollar and the marketing share is 88.2 cents — and the marketing share is mostly cost (labor, freight, energy, shrink), not margin (USDA ERS, Food Dollar Series, 2026).
  • 02Where you eat changes the split: food at home returned 18.5 cents per dollar to the farm in 2024, and ERS attributes the long-term farm-share decline in part to rising food-away-from-home spending (USDA ERS, Food Dollar Series, 2026).
  • 03Product form decides the farm's share: fresh eggs returned 69.1 cents and beef 52.2 cents per dollar in 2024, while heavily processed products return only a few cents (USDA ERS, Food Dollar Series, 2026).
  • 04Price transmission is lagged and asymmetric — retail prices follow farm prices up faster and more completely than they follow them down, a pattern CRS documents without treating it as proof of excessive market power (Congressional Research Service, R40621).
  • 05Volatility is damped at every stage: a 43% farm-price rise in 2011 became a 12% intermediate rise and a 4% retail rise (USDA ERS).
  • 06A wholesale quote prices a bundle — product, storage, breaking bulk, and delivery — so comparing quotes without separating the bundle systematically misprices in-house labor against delivered product (USDA ERS price-spread data, 2024).

What it means for operators, funders & growers

A kitchen cannot negotiate with the food dollar, but it can choose where in the chain to buy — and that choice is a decision about which tasks to pay for and which to perform. Buying further upstream raises the ingredient share of each dollar and moves labor, storage, and spoilage in-house; buying downstream buys those services back. The discipline is to separate the bundle, price the in-house tasks honestly, and compare like with like — the supply-chain counterpart of the dish-level costing VK teaches in Costed to Sell.

White Paper 09 · Farm Economics & Markets · Houston

Farmers Market Economics: What a Market Day Is Worth — to the Farmer, and to the Block Around It

Aubrey McCoy · Founder & Principal · VK Capital Ventures Inc. · October 2026 · 9 min read

A market day keeps two ledgers: the vendor's share of an $11,615 average peak-season pool, and the surrounding block's gain when direct-market dollars circulate locally at a 1.86 multiplier. This paper counts both, from USDA surveys, the Census of Agriculture, and university impact studies.

The question

What is a farmers market day actually worth — to the farm selling at it, and to the local economy around it — and what connects the two?

Method & data

USDA AMS market counts and 2019 National Farmers Market Manager Survey; USDA NASS 2022 Census of Agriculture and 2015 Local Food Marketing Practices Survey; Farmers Market Coalition research summaries and the UC Davis / UC Cooperative Extension Sacramento-region multiplier study.

By the numbers

8,771

U.S. farmers markets in 2019

Markets rose from 1,755 in 1994 to 8,771 in 2019, and accounted for $1.7 billion in farmer income in 2020 (USDA AMS, via U.S. Senate National Farmers Market Week resolution, 2025)

$11,615

Average total sales per peak-season market day, 2019

Peak-season market-day sales averaged $11,615 nationally — $17,951 in the West and $5,284 in the South (USDA AMS, 2019 National Farmers Market Manager Survey)

780 households

Average shoppers on a peak-season market day

An average of 780 households shopped on a peak day nationally; 891 at urban markets and 315 at rural markets (USDA AMS, 2019)

116,617 farms / $3.3B

Direct-to-consumer farms and sales, 2022

116,617 farms sold directly to consumers with sales of $3.3 billion in 2022, up 16% in value from 2017 (USDA NASS, 2022 Census of Agriculture)

1.86

Regional output multiplier for direct marketers

Direct-marketing producers had a regional output multiplier of 1.86 vs. 1.42 for non-direct producers in the Sacramento region (UC Davis / UC Cooperative Extension)

68%

Vendor retention, 2018 to 2019

68% of vendors present in 2019 had returned from the 2018 season (USDA AMS, 2019 National Farmers Market Manager Survey)

What the data shows

  • 01The sector grew from 1,755 markets in 1994 to 8,771 in 2019, generating $1.7 billion in farmer income in 2020 (USDA AMS, via U.S. Senate resolution, 2025).
  • 02A vendor's day is a share of a shared pool: total peak-season sales averaged $11,615 per market day nationally in 2019, but only $5,284 in the South (USDA AMS, 2019).
  • 03Direct sales are consolidating: 116,617 farms sold $3.3 billion directly to consumers in 2022, a 16% value increase achieved by fewer farms than in 2017 (USDA NASS, 2022 Census of Agriculture).
  • 04Direct marketers buy locally: 89% purchase inputs from local businesses, against 45% of larger wholesale farms (Farmers Market Coalition).
  • 05That local purchasing drives the multiplier: 1.86 for direct marketers vs. 1.42 for non-direct producers per dollar of output in the Sacramento-region study (UC Davis / UC Cooperative Extension).
  • 06Vendor retention is the binding constraint connecting both ledgers: 68% of 2019 vendors had returned from 2018 (USDA AMS, 2019).

What it means for operators, funders & growers

For a farm, a market day should be costed like any other product — fee, labor, fuel, and unsold product against a realistic share of a measured pool, not against hope. For a district, the same day is worth more than the pool because direct-market dollars circulate locally. The two ledgers meet in retention: a market that protects vendor economics protects its own multiplier, and a market that does not will lose first its vendors and then its crowd.

White Paper 10 · Farm Economics & Markets · Houston

The CSA Model, Priced Out: Community Supported Agriculture as Farm Finance

Aubrey McCoy · Founder & Principal · VK Capital Ventures Inc. · October 2026 · 9 min read

A CSA share is a subscription, a working-capital loan, and a shared crop risk in one box. With 7,398 U.S. CSA farms selling $226 million in 2015 and typical member retention near 65%, this paper prices the model out — including the 2–7% platform layer most share prices forget.

The question

What does the CSA model actually do financially — for the farm's cash calendar, for the member, and for the price of a share — once retention and platform costs are counted honestly?

Method & data

USDA NASS 2015 Local Food Marketing Practices Survey; University of Maryland Extension CSA research; peer-reviewed California CSA retention study (Sustainability); VK house research on CSA/farm platform fee benchmarks compiled from published platform pricing, October 2026.

By the numbers

7,398 farms / $226M

U.S. CSA operations and sales, 2015

7,398 CSA operations generated $226 million, 7% of all direct-to-consumer food sales in 2015 (USDA NASS, 2015 Local Food Marketing Practices Survey)

~65%

Typical CSA member retention, national

A national average retention of approximately 65% is cited in University of Maryland Extension research; Maryland survey farms reported 94% (University of Maryland Extension, 2011)

62.9%

Average CSA retention in California study

Across 80 California CSA farms, average retention was 62.9%, ranging regionally from 53.4% to 75.5% (Sustainability, California CSA retention study)

2–7%

Platform fee band for CSA/farm software

General CSA/farm platforms charge 2–7% of sales excluding processing; Farmigo charges 2% and Barn2Door 1–3% by volume (VK house research from published platform pricing, October 2026)

2.9% + $0.30

Near-universal card processing cost

Card processing of about 2.9% plus $0.30 per transaction applies on top of platform fees on most farm platforms (VK house research, October 2026)

$3,027M

All U.S. direct-to-consumer sales, 2015

Total direct-to-consumer food sales were $3,027 million in 2015, the base against which CSA's $226 million is 7% (USDA NASS, 2015)

What the data shows

  • 01CSA is a small, financially distinctive channel: 7,398 operations and $226 million in 2015, 7% of direct-to-consumer sales (USDA NASS, 2015 Local Food Marketing Practices Survey).
  • 02Retention is the model's governing variable, and the honest planning figure is roughly six in ten members renewing — a national average near 65% (University of Maryland Extension, 2011).
  • 03Retention is managed, not fated: California CSA farms averaged 62.9% with a regional spread from 53.4% to 75.5% (Sustainability, California retention study).
  • 04The model's core value is timing: member payments arrive before planting costs, making customers the farm's working-capital source in place of operating credit (USDA NASS channel data; VK analysis).
  • 05Modern plumbing costs 2–7% of sales in platform fees plus about 2.9% + $0.30 in card processing, a stack that belongs inside the share price from the first calculation (VK house research, October 2026).
  • 06CSA is usually one income strand among several for farm households, consistent with most farm households earning the majority of income off-farm (USDA ERS, America's Farms and Ranches at a Glance, 2024 edition).

What it means for operators, funders & growers

Price a CSA share from the season's full cost — produce, administration labor, platform and processing fees — using a retention assumption drawn from the evidence (around 60–65%), not from the best survey available. Farms that do so get the model's real benefit: pre-sold, predictable revenue that arrives when costs do. Farms that price from the produce alone will subsidize the difference invisibly, in labor and margin, until the model appears to fail for reasons that were in the arithmetic from the start.

White Paper 11 · Farm Economics & Markets · Houston

Farm to Institution: Procurement as the Largest Lever in the Local Food Economy

Aubrey McCoy · Founder & Principal · VK Capital Ventures Inc. · October 2026 · 9 min read

One framework now organizes over $1.1 billion a year in institutional food purchasing, and sales of local food to institutions and their intermediaries grew 33% in real terms to $14.2 billion in five Census years. This paper examines procurement — the largest, most durable lever in the local food economy.

The question

How large is institutional food purchasing as a lever on farm revenue, through what mechanics is it being redirected toward local and values-based supply, and what must a supplier have ready to reach it?

Method & data

Center for Good Food Purchasing program reporting via NYC Mayor's Office of Food Policy; USDA ERS analysis of the 2022 Census of Agriculture; USDA NASS 2015 Local Food Marketing Practices Survey; New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets 30% Initiative results; Cook County and Santa Clara County program documents.

By the numbers

$1.1B+ / 70+ institutions

Good Food Purchasing Program scale, 2024

Over 70 institutions in 25 major U.S. cities represented over $1.1 billion in annual institutional food purchases as of 2024 (NYC Mayor's Office of Food Policy; Center for Good Food Purchasing, 2024)

$14.2B

Farm sales to retail, institutions, and intermediaries, 2022

Sales through those channels rose 33.2% in real terms from 2017 to $14.2 billion, with operations more than doubling to 60,332 (USDA ERS, 2022 Census of Agriculture analysis)

$660M a year

New York City agency food spending

NYC agencies spend approximately $660 million a year on food, serving over 220 million meals and snacks (NYC Mayor's Office of Food Policy)

5.9¢ → 25¢

New York 30% farm-to-school reimbursement

Districts sourcing at least 30% of lunch ingredients from New York farms receive 25 cents per meal instead of 5.9 cents (NY State Department of Agriculture and Markets)

82 districts / $40.4M

New York 30% Initiative results

82 districts were approved for 2025–26 and over $40.4 million has been spent on New York farm products since 2021 (NY State Department of Agriculture and Markets, 2026)

$3.4B

Farm sales direct to institutions and intermediaries, 2015

Institutions and intermediaries were the largest direct-marketing category in 2015 at $3.4 billion of $8.7 billion total (USDA NASS, 2015 Local Food Marketing Practices Survey)

What the data shows

  • 01Values-based procurement is organized at scale: over 70 institutions in 25 cities representing over $1.1 billion a year as of 2024 (Center for Good Food Purchasing; NYC Mayor's Office of Food Policy, 2024).
  • 02The Census growth is intermediated: sales to retail, institutions, and intermediate markets reached $14.2 billion in 2022, up 33.2% in real terms, through 60,332 operations (USDA ERS, 2022 Census analysis).
  • 03Institutions were already the largest direct category in 2015 at $3.4 billion, ahead of direct-to-consumer sales (USDA NASS, 2015).
  • 04Price incentives work on verified shares: New York pays 25 cents per meal instead of 5.9 cents at a documented 30% in-state sourcing threshold (NY State Department of Agriculture and Markets).
  • 05The incentive produced measurable farm revenue: 82 districts approved for 2025–26 and over $40.4 million spent on New York farm products since 2021 (NY State Department of Agriculture and Markets, 2026).
  • 06Mechanics matter more than mission statements: standards written into solicitations, farm-of-origin transparency, and annual verification are what move purchasing (Center for Good Food Purchasing framework).

What it means for operators, funders & growers

Institutional demand rewards suppliers who are ready before the solicitation opens: documented farm of origin, workforce practices in writing, food-safety paperwork in order, and a route to volume through aggregation. Houston suppliers who assemble that packet now — rather than when a bid gives them weeks — are positioned for the direction American institutional buying is demonstrably traveling, on published national evidence.

White Paper 12 · Farm Economics & Markets · Houston

Small-Farm Profitability: The Benchmarks Nobody Publishes

Aubrey McCoy · Founder & Principal · VK Capital Ventures Inc. · October 2026 · 9 min read

In 2023, 51% of U.S. farm households had negative income from farming and 85% earned most of their income off the farm — while holding wealth above the national median. This paper assembles the federal benchmarks, and the Texas figures, that every buyer, program, and farm should be planning against.

The question

What do the published federal benchmarks actually say about small-farm profitability — how many farms make money farming, where household income really comes from, and how concentrated sales are?

Method & data

USDA ERS America's Farms and Ranches at a Glance (2024 edition, 2023 ARMS data; 2025 edition, 2024 data) and ERS farm income forecast (September 2025); USDA NASS 2022 Census of Agriculture, including sales-class distribution and Texas state results.

By the numbers

51%

Farm households with negative farm income, 2023

51% of U.S. farm households had negative income from farming in 2023 (USDA ERS, America's Farms and Ranches at a Glance: 2024 Edition)

85%

Farm households earning most income off-farm, 2023

85% of farm households received the majority of total household income from off-farm sources in 2023 (USDA ERS, 2024 Edition)

43%

Farms with positive net cash farm income, 2022

43% of farms had positive net cash farm income in 2022 (USDA NASS, 2022 Census of Agriculture)

74% / 2%

Small farms' share of farms vs. share of sales

1.4 million farms with sales of $50,000 or less were 74% of farms but produced 2% of sales value in 2022 (USDA NASS, 2022 Census of Agriculture)

−$1,189

Median farm income forecast, 2025

Median income from farming was forecast at −$1,189 for 2025 against median total household income of $109,515 (USDA ERS forecast, September 2025, via DTN)

230,662

Texas farms, 2022

Texas farms fell from 248,416 in 2017 to 230,662 in 2022, with average size rising to 544 acres (USDA NASS, 2022 Census of Agriculture, via Texas Farm Bureau)

What the data shows

  • 01A majority of farm households did not make money farming in 2023: 51% had negative income from farming (USDA ERS, America's Farms and Ranches at a Glance: 2024 Edition).
  • 02The household, not the farm, is the surviving unit: 85% of farm households received most of their income from off-farm sources in 2023 (USDA ERS, 2024 Edition).
  • 03The Census agrees from the business side: only 43% of farms had positive net cash farm income in 2022 (USDA NASS, 2022 Census of Agriculture).
  • 04Sales are highly concentrated: farms with $50,000 or less in sales are 74% of farms and 2% of sales, while 6% of farms sell more than three-fourths of all products (USDA NASS, 2022).
  • 05The problem is cash flow, not wealth: only 1–4% of family farm households held wealth below the U.S. median in 2024, reflecting land and asset holdings (USDA ERS, 2025 Edition).
  • 06Texas mirrors national consolidation: 230,662 farms in 2022, down over 17,700 from 2017, with average size up to 544 acres (USDA NASS, 2022, via Texas Farm Bureau).

What it means for operators, funders & growers

Plan against the benchmarks, not the folklore. Buyers should treat cost-covering prices as arithmetic rather than generosity, since squeezed prices are quietly subsidized by farm households' off-farm income. Programs should be designed for the actual entrant — a beginning producer averaging 47 years old, likely with a job — and for payment timing that relieves a cash-flow problem on an asset-rich farm. Predictable, pre-sold, promptly paid revenue is the most useful thing the rest of the food economy can offer a small farm.

Soil & Regenerative Practice · No. 13

Soil Organic Matter: The One Percent That Changes the Farm's Math

Aubrey McCoy · Founder & Principal · VK Capital Ventures Inc. · October 2026 · 10 min read

One percentage point of soil organic matter holds water, releases a measurable nutrient credit, and costs about 100 tons of material per acre to build — which is why protecting it beats promising to replace it.

The question

What does a single percentage point of soil organic matter actually do to water, nutrients, and farm risk — in figures that can be checked?

Method & data

USDA NRCS Soil Health — Organic Matter guide (2014); Rodale Institute Farming Systems Trial 30-Year Report (2011); University of Minnesota Extension soil-water summary (2020); ATTRA Drought Resistant Soil citing Hudson (1994); Soil Health Institute / NACD 29-farm economics study (2021). Every statistic was verified against a source opened during drafting; the widely circulated 20,000-gallon claim was dropped as unverifiable to a primary source with stated conditions.

By the numbers

90%

Water organic matter can hold

Organic matter can absorb and hold as much as 90 percent of its weight in water, releasing nearly all of it for plant use (USDA NRCS, 2014)

~10,000 gal

Added available water per +1% SOM

Estimated added available water capacity per acre-foot of medium-textured soil for a one-point increase in organic matter (University of Minnesota Extension, 2020)

10–20 lb N

Nitrogen released per % SOM per year

Plus 1–2 lb phosphorus and 0.4–0.8 lb sulfur per acre per year from each percentage point in the upper six inches (USDA NRCS, 2014)

100 tons

Material to build 1% stable SOM

At least 200,000 lb of organic material per acre to produce one percentage point of stable organic matter (USDA NRCS, 2014)

31%

Higher organic corn yield in drought years

Organic corn yields versus conventional in years of moderate drought in the 30-year trial (Rodale Institute, 2011)

+$65/acre

Average net income gain, soil health systems

Average increase across 29 farms, driven mainly by reduced costs rather than higher yields (Soil Health Institute / NACD, 2021)

What the data shows

  • A sponge that releasesOrganic matter holds up to 90 percent of its weight in water and releases nearly all of it to plants, unlike clay (USDA NRCS, 2014).
  • Texture decides the payoffA one-point increase adds an estimated 10,000 gallons per acre-foot on medium soil, and proportionally far more on loamy sand (University of Minnesota Extension, 2020).
  • A published nutrient creditEach percentage point releases about 10–20 lb nitrogen, 1–2 lb phosphorus and 0.4–0.8 lb sulfur per acre per year (USDA NRCS, 2014).
  • Expensive to build, cheap to loseBuilding one stable point takes at least 100 tons of material per acre, while erosion removes the organic-matter-rich surface first (USDA NRCS, 2014).
  • Resilience, not a yield promiseOver 30 years organic yields equaled conventional overall and were 31 percent higher for corn in moderate-drought years (Rodale Institute, 2011).
  • Profit came from costsSoil health systems raised net income an average of $65 per acre across 29 farms, mainly through lower costs (Soil Health Institute / NACD, 2021).

What it means for operators, funders & growers

For a Gulf Coast grower, soil organic matter is a rate problem in a climate that decomposes it quickly: measure it on the same fields, protect the surface that holds it, and add material continuously. VK's Farm2Chef farm profiles and practice-ledger concept exist to document those practices farm by farm — as records a buyer can read, not as measured results VK has not produced.

Soil & Regenerative Practice · No. 14

Cover Crops on the Gulf Coast: What Works Where Winter Barely Comes

Aubrey McCoy · Founder & Principal · VK Capital Ventures Inc. · October 2026 · 9 min read

On the Gulf Coast the valuable cover window is summer, not winter. The national survey, SARE cost figures, and Texas A&M AgriLife species work show what to plant, what it costs, and which job makes it pay in year one.

The question

Which cover crops, in which window, at what cost, make sense where winter barely comes?

Method & data

CTIC / SARE / ASTA National Cover Crop Survey (2026 release, 2025 planting data); SARE Final Report OS17-110 (2019) for operating costs; Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension reporting on warm-season mixes, grazing returns, and the Ace cowpea release; USDA Census of Agriculture (2022) for adoption scale. Survey yield figures are presented as farmer-reported experience, not trial effects.

By the numbers

$69–$88/acre

Cover-crop operating cost range

Fall–winter covers $69–$78 and summer–fall covers $80–$88 per acre, excluding irrigation (SARE, OS17-110, 2019)

+3.5 bu/acre

Reported corn yield after covers

Mean reported increase, with soybeans at +1.5 bushels per acre, among survey respondents (CTIC / SARE / ASTA, 2026)

87%

Planting-green growers reporting better weed control

Compared with 31.2 percent of all cover-crop users reporting better weed control (CTIC / SARE / ASTA, 2026)

$38–$44/acre

Added net return from grazing summer covers

Increase versus non-grazed cover crops in Texas A&M AgriLife Rolling Plains work (Texas A&M AgriLife, 2024)

~18M acres

U.S. cover-crop acres

Counted in the Census of Agriculture, up 17 percent from 2017; Texas led at about 1.55 million acres (USDA Census of Agriculture, 2022)

397.9 acres

Average cover acres per respondent, 2025

Up from 377.5 acres the prior year among 657 respondents in 46 states and Puerto Rico (CTIC / SARE / ASTA, 2026)

What the data shows

  • Summer is the Gulf Coast windowAgriLife warm-season mixes use sorghum-sudangrass, millets, cowpeas, mung beans, guar and sunn hemp for the window winter covers never see in Texas (Texas A&M AgriLife, 2018–2025).
  • Costs are tens of dollars, summer higherOperating costs ran $69–$78 per acre for fall–winter and $80–$88 for summer–fall covers, excluding irrigation (SARE, OS17-110, 2019).
  • Weed control is the reported workhorseBetter weed control was reported by 31.2 percent of users and 87 percent of growers who planted green (CTIC / SARE / ASTA, 2026).
  • A second job pays fastestOne in three users grazed or harvested covers, and 77 percent of grazers said it increased net profit (CTIC / SARE / ASTA, 2026).
  • Texas grazing offset is measuredGrazing summer covers raised net return by as much as $38–$44 per acre versus non-grazed covers (Texas A&M AgriLife, 2024).
  • Texas-bred species existAgriLife's Ace cowpea, released in 2018, was bred in Texas for forage and cover use with high biomass and an extended season (Texas A&M AgriLife, 2018).

What it means for operators, funders & growers

Choose the summer fallow first, plant Texas-tested warm-season species anchored by sunn hemp and cowpea, budget at the SARE range until a local seed quote replaces it, and give the cover a paying job — weed suppression, nitrogen, or forage — in its first season. VK documents those choices in Farm2Chef farm profiles as practice records, so buyers can see what was planted and why, season after season.

Soil & Regenerative Practice · No. 15

Compost Systems for Urban Farms: Closing the Loop Inside the City

Aubrey McCoy · Founder & Principal · VK Capital Ventures Inc. · October 2026 · 10 min read

Food waste is 24 percent of what America landfills and the source of an estimated 58 percent of landfill methane. Compost turns that stream into the organic matter urban soils lack — if the system is sized to the farm, not the ambition.

The question

What does compost measurably do in urban soil, and what scale of system can a Houston farm actually sustain?

Method & data

U.S. EPA food-waste reports (From Farm to Kitchen, 2021; From Field to Bin, 2023); Maynard compost trials (1994, 2000) via ATTRA (2002), labeled by date; USDA ARS urban-soil hydrology research; Houston pilot reporting (Zero Waste Houston / Sierra Club, 2024; Houston Chronicle via EIN, 2025) and Rice University / BioCycle (2026). No general dollar return for small-farm compost was found in a verifiable primary source, so none is claimed.

By the numbers

24%

Food share of landfilled waste

Wasted food's share of landfilled municipal solid waste; 22 percent of combusted waste (U.S. EPA, 2021)

58%

Landfill methane from food waste

Estimated share of methane emissions from municipal solid waste landfills attributable to food waste (U.S. EPA, reported 2023)

60%

Wasted food sent to landfill

Share of wasted food from retail, food service and households landfilled in 2019 (U.S. EPA, 2023)

2.5×

Water-holding capacity with leaf compost

Three inches of leaf compost versus native sandy soil, with almost a seven-day plant-available water supply (Maynard, 1994, via ATTRA, 2002)

1.9 vs 1.3 in

Water held in the plow layer

Compost-amended versus unamended soil at field capacity in the eight-inch plow layer (Maynard, 2000, via ATTRA, 2002)

2M+ lb

Food waste composted at Rice University

Composted since November 2020 across 15 campus locations with Moonshot Compost (Rice University, reported by BioCycle, 2026)

What the data shows

  • The waste stream is the feedstockMore than one-third of U.S. food is never eaten and food is the most common material landfilled (U.S. EPA, 2021).
  • Landfill fate carries the emissions costFood waste accounts for an estimated 58 percent of landfill methane emissions (U.S. EPA, reported 2023).
  • Water benefit is largest on poor soilLeaf compost raised water-holding capacity 2.5 times on sandy soil in controlled trials (Maynard, 1994, via ATTRA, 2002).
  • Structure improves measurablySurface compost lowered bulk density to 0.87 versus 1.34 g/cm3 and sped infiltration in USDA ARS column studies (USDA ARS).
  • Houston pilots prove participation, not scaleHouston's 2024 drop-off pilot drew 262 residents and diverted over 9,800 lb in six weeks (Zero Waste Houston, 2024).
  • Institutions are Houston's working pathRice University composted over 2 million lb since 2020, starting back-of-house before public bins (BioCycle, 2026).

What it means for operators, funders & growers

Start with one or two clean institutional feedstock partners, compost in a contained system sized to the beds it serves, and expand only when the stream is clean and the labor is costed. VK's kitchen and demo operations generate exactly the kind of controlled, back-of-house scrap stream this model needs, and Farm2Chef profiles can document a farm's compost practice as part of its practice record.

Soil & Regenerative Practice · No. 16

Water in the Heat: Irrigation Efficiency for Harris County Summers

Aubrey McCoy · Founder & Principal · VK Capital Ventures Inc. · October 2026 · 10 min read

Irrigation takes 118 billion gallons a day nationally. The gap between a graded furrow at 65 percent efficiency and subsurface drip at 90 percent is water a Harris County grower pumps and never uses — in the state whose plan projects 73 percent more people on 18 percent less reliable supply.

The question

How much water does irrigation use, what does efficiency mean method by method, and what should a Harris County grower do before the state plan's future arrives?

Method & data

USGS Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2015 (Circular 1441, 2018) and USGS Water Science School; field-efficiency table in the USGS / Bureau of Reclamation diversion methodology citing USDA (2003); Texas Water Development Board 2022 State Water Plan (adopted 2021); SARE OS17-110 (2019) for cost per acre-inch. Efficiency figures are presented as ranges with averages, not single marketing numbers.

By the numbers

118 Bgal/day

U.S. irrigation withdrawals

Irrigation withdrawals in 2015, 42 percent of total freshwater withdrawals (USGS, Circular 1441, 2018)

63.5M acres

Irrigated acres, United States

Irrigated in 2015 at a national average application rate of 2.09 acre-feet per acre (USGS, 2018)

65% vs 90%

Furrow versus subsurface drip efficiency

Average field efficiency for graded furrow versus subsurface drip in the USDA-cited efficiency table (USDA, 2003, via USBR / USGS)

+73%

Projected Texas population growth

From 29.7 million in 2020 to 51.5 million in 2070, with existing supplies projected to decline 18 percent (TWDB, 2022 State Water Plan)

~50%

Conservation share of state strategy volume

Conservation and reuse share of the 2022 State Water Plan's roughly 5,800 strategies (TWDB, 2021)

$80B

Estimated cost of the state water plan

Estimated capital cost of implementing the 2022 State Water Plan (TWDB, 2021)

What the data shows

  • Irrigation is the farm water decisionIrrigation was 42 percent of U.S. freshwater withdrawals in 2015, split almost evenly between surface water and groundwater (USGS, 2018).
  • Method sets the ceiling, management sets the resultAverage field efficiency runs from 65 percent for graded furrow to 90 percent for subsurface drip, with wide ranges inside each method (USDA, 2003, via USBR / USGS).
  • Airborne loss is the heat taxSpray irrigation loses a large portion to evaporation and wind; drip delivers at the root zone with very little evaporation loss (USGS Water Science School).
  • Texas demand rises as reliable supply fallsThe state plan projects 73 percent population growth and an 18 percent decline in existing drought-reliable supplies by 2070 (TWDB, 2022).
  • Conservation is the state's own largest leverConservation and reuse make up nearly 50 percent of strategy volumes in the 2022 State Water Plan (TWDB, 2021).
  • Drip remains a small national shareMicroirrigation covered 5.49 million of 63.5 million irrigated acres in 2015, concentrated in high-value production (USGS, 2018).

What it means for operators, funders & growers

Build the soil's holding capacity, deliver water at the root zone at low pressure, irrigate in the cool hours, zone by crop need, and schedule by measured soil moisture rather than by calendar. VK documents irrigation method in Farm2Chef farm profiles as part of each farm's practice record, so a buyer's water question has a written answer that can be updated as systems change.

Soil & Regenerative Practice · No. 17

Integrated Pest Management: Farming with the Chemistry Turned Down

Aubrey McCoy · Founder & Principal · VK Capital Ventures Inc. · October 2026 · 10 min read

IPM is a decision procedure — prevent, avoid, monitor, then suppress only above a threshold — applied to a national pesticide bill measured in billions of pounds and dollars. Its value is the treatment that monitoring proves unnecessary.

The question

What is IPM in the federal definition and practice standard, how much pesticide does U.S. agriculture use, and what changes when treatment waits for a threshold?

Method & data

U.S. EPA IPM definition and Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program; EPA Pesticides Industry Sales and Usage 2006–2007 estimates; USDA ERS EIB-124 (2014) 21-crop history; USDA National Roadmap for IPM; USDA NRCS CPS 595 / Enhancement E595B (2023) PAMS framework; EPA summary of NRCS cost-share (2014, flagged as dated). No general dollar return for IPM on Gulf Coast vegetables was verified, so none is claimed; vendor precision-spray trials were dropped.

By the numbers

1.1B lb

U.S. pesticide use

Total U.S. pesticide use in 2007, with about 80 percent in agriculture (U.S. EPA, Sales and Usage Estimates, 2007 data)

$12.5B

U.S. pesticide sales

U.S. sales in 2007, 32 percent of a nearly $40 billion world market (U.S. EPA, 2007 data)

516M lb

Use on 21 selected crops

Pesticide active ingredient on 21 crops in 2008, down from a 632 million lb peak in 1981 (USDA ERS, EIB-124, 2014)

−44%

Organophosphate use decline

Decline in organophosphate insecticide use from 2002 to 2007 (U.S. EPA, 2007 data)

Up to 75%

EQIP cost-share for IPM

NRCS Environmental Quality Incentives Program share of IPM implementation cost in the program summary (U.S. EPA / USDA NRCS, 2014)

Up to $20/acre

CSP high-level IPM enhancement

Conservation Stewardship Program enhancement payment on cropland in the program summary (U.S. EPA / USDA NRCS, 2014)

What the data shows

  • Prevention before productEPA defines IPM as combining biological, cultural, physical and chemical tools, focusing on prevention and using pesticides only as needed (U.S. EPA, PESP).
  • The cost line is national and largeU.S. pesticide use was 1.1 billion lb in 2007 with $12.5 billion in sales (U.S. EPA, 2007 data).
  • Volume already fell once, partly on better practiceUse on 21 crops fell from 632 million lb in 1981 to 516 million lb in 2008, attributed in part to better pest management (USDA ERS, 2014).
  • PAMS gives IPM an auditable orderNRCS CPS 595 organizes IPM as prevention, avoidance, monitoring and suppression, in that order (USDA NRCS, E595B, 2023).
  • Beneficials are part of the standardAvoidance criteria include maintaining populations of beneficial species to limit infestations (USDA NRCS, E595B, 2023).
  • Programs paid part of adoptionEQIP paid up to 75 percent of IPM implementation cost and CSP offered up to $20 per acre for high-level IPM in the summarized terms (U.S. EPA / USDA NRCS, 2014).

What it means for operators, funders & growers

Document the procedure, not just the label: scouting dates, what was found, the threshold, and the tool chosen. That record is what VK's Farm2Chef practice-ledger concept is designed to hold — a dated pest-practice record a buyer can check, with no savings or reduction claim attached until a farm's own records support one.

Crops & Specialties · No. 18

Mushroom Economics: Oyster and Lion's Mane, Costed Like a Crop

Aubrey McCoy · Founder & Principal · VK Capital Ventures Inc. · October 2026 · 11 min read

A $1.10B national mushroom crop splits into a $1.64/lb commodity business and a $5.83/lb specialty business — and extension math, not brochures, decides whether a small grower survives in the second one.

The question

What does the federal data and the extension enterprise record actually say a small specialty mushroom grower can earn, and at what cost?

Method & data

USDA NASS and ERS crop reports for market size and price, Cornell University mushroom program enterprise figures for production cost and yield, all cited inline with source and year.

By the numbers

$1.10B

U.S. mushroom sales value, 2024-25

670 million lb at $1.64/lb average grower price (USDA NASS, Mushrooms, 2025)

$5.83/lb

Specialty mushroom grower price, 2024-25

Specialty sales $95.0M, up 10% (USDA NASS, 2025)

654M lb

Agaricus volume, 2024-25

About $1.00B value; Pennsylvania 69% of volume (USDA NASS, 2025)

$4.74/log

Cost to inoculate one shiitake log

Materials + labor; a good log yields 4-5 lb over 3 seasons grossing $40-$80 (Cornell Mushrooms / SARE)

~5 weeks

Oyster-on-straw crop cycle

Inoculation to harvest on straw substrate (Cornell Mushrooms / Fungi Ally)

$12-16/lb

Observed fresh specialty retail price

Shiitake retail $12-16/lb, wholesale $10-12/lb (Cornell Small Farms Program, 2018-2023)

What the data shows

  • Two crops, one nameAgaricus is an industrial commodity crop; specialty mushrooms earn roughly 3.5x the average per-pound price on a small share of volume (USDA NASS, 2025).
  • The premium is the businessSmall-scale production only pencils as a specialty, direct-channel crop; at the national average price it cannot carry its labor (USDA NASS, 2025; Cornell).
  • Log math is multi-year mathA $4.74 inoculated log returns $40-$80 gross over three seasons, with profitability achievable in year 2-3, not season one (Cornell Small Farms Program).
  • Systems are not interchangeableStraw oysters cycle in ~5 weeks, logs repay over seasons, and indoor lion's mane carries energy and monitoring costs a log budget cannot describe (Cornell Mushrooms).
  • Shelf life is a costFresh specialty mushrooms lose quality in days; a missed channel can convert a harvest to compost, a risk no price quote shows.
  • Texas budget gapNo citable Texas A&M enterprise budget for small-scale oyster production was found; local growers budget from Northeast extension data and their own ledgers.

What it means for operators, funders & growers

Buy specialty mushrooms as a named, dated, local product and pay for the short chain; grow them only with per-unit costing that prices labor.

Crops & Specialties · No. 19

Mycelium as Infrastructure: The Remediation Science, Stated Carefully

Aubrey McCoy · Founder & Principal · VK Capital Ventures Inc. · October 2026 · 10 min read

White-rot fungi really can break down diesel, dyes, and stubborn organic pollutants — and they accumulate heavy metals rather than destroying them. This paper keeps both halves of that sentence.

The question

What has mycoremediation demonstrably done, at what scale, and what does the evidence not yet support?

Method & data

Peer-reviewed reviews and documented field-trial reporting, with lab results, pilot trials, and popular claims explicitly separated by scale.

By the numbers

~95%

Hydrocarbon breakdown in the Battelle/WSDOT diesel trial

Soil at 10,000-20,000 ppm treated with oyster mycelium over ~16 weeks (BioCycle; Ohio State ScienceBites)

<200 ppm

Final petroleum concentration, treated pile

Down from up to 20,000 ppm in the same trial (Ohio State University, Environmental ScienceBites Vol. 2)

92.4%

Congo Red dye degraded in lab study

Phlebia acerina under optimized conditions; Eriochrome Black T 50% (Kumar, Negi et al., 2018)

What the data shows

  • The enzymes are realWhite-rot fungi secrete laccases and peroxidases that oxidize lignin-like pollutants including PAHs, chlorophenols, and dyes (mycoremediation reviews, 2024-2025).
  • Degradation is not accumulationOrganic pollutants can be broken down; heavy metals are only biosorbed or accumulated into fungal tissue that must then be disposed of.
  • One famous trial, honestly readThe Battelle/WSDOT oyster trial cut diesel hydrocarbons ~95% in ~16 weeks — a single small controlled pile trial, not a commercial field record (BioCycle).
  • Do not eat the cleanupTrial researchers advised against eating mushrooms from remediated petroleum soil; culinary and remediation mushrooms must never meet (BioCycle).
  • Scale is the gapDelivery methods are well described, but replicated commercial-scale field trials with published cost data remain scarce (RSC Sustainability, 2024).
  • Cost claims are unprovenMycoremediation may prove cheaper than excavation for suitable sites, but audited per-site cost comparisons are not yet published in number.

What it means for operators, funders & growers

Teach mycoremediation as named studies at stated scales — and offer no remediation claims or services the field record cannot carry.

Crops & Specialties · No. 20

From Farmgate to Cup: The Economics of a Pound of Coffee

Aubrey McCoy · Founder & Principal · VK Capital Ventures Inc. · October 2026 · 10 min read

Counter Culture printed its 2025 prices — $4.18/lb FOB on average, $5.04 for single-origin, against a $3.39 C market. This paper traces what those numbers mean, and what they still don't show: the farmgate.

The question

How far does a published export price go toward proving a coffee farmer was paid enough, and what benchmark answers the rest?

Method & data

Counter Culture Transparency Report 2025 transaction data read against Fairtrade Living Income Reference Prices, with units and price bases stated for every figure.

By the numbers

$4.18/lb

Average FOB price, all coffees, 2025

Weighted average (Counter Culture Coffee, Transparency Report 2025)

$5.04/lb

Single-origin FOB price, 2025

Year-round components $4.13/lb (Counter Culture, 2025)

$3.39/lb

Average C-market price, 2025

Benchmark printed in Counter Culture Transparency Report 2025

$3.59 / $3.99

Fair Trade minimums, conventional / organic

Average FOB minimums (Counter Culture, 2025)

$3.89/kg

Honduras Living Income Reference Price

Per kg dried parchment at farmgate, organic (Fairtrade International, 2023)

78%

Coffee from partners of 5+ years

30% from partners of 15+ years (Counter Culture, 2025)

What the data shows

  • Published beats pledgedCounter Culture prints supplier prices, benchmarks, and relationship duration; most competitors publish program claims without transaction prices (Counter Culture, 2025).
  • FOB is not farmgateExport prices are per pound of green coffee at port; Living Income Reference Prices are per kilogram of parchment at farmgate — conversion is required before any comparison.
  • The living-income testFairtrade reference prices price a decent living plus sustainable production on a viable farm: Colombia ~$2.75/kg parchment conventional (2021); Honduras $3.89/kg organic (2023).
  • Volatility is the injuryFairtrade notes market prices met reference levels in strong years but cannot be banked on; households cannot eat an average price.
  • Unverified shares are droppedThe widely repeated farmer-share-of-retail claim could not be verified against a primary source and is not printed in the paper.
  • Duration audits the premium78% of Counter Culture's 2025 coffee came from 5+ year partners and 30% from 15+ year partners — the receipt behind the price (2025).

What it means for operators, funders & growers

Six Rows Coffee's standard: name the producer, ask the farmgate question, benchmark against the origin's Living Income Reference Price, and publish per lot with its basis.

Crops & Specialties · No. 21

Sweet Potatoes and Southern Heritage Crops: The Case for Growing What Belongs Here

Aubrey McCoy · Founder & Principal · VK Capital Ventures Inc. · October 2026 · 10 min read

North Carolina has grown over 60% of America's sweet potatoes since 1971 — a triumph of climate fit and a warning about concentration. The crop's nutrition, storage, and slip-saved heritage make the case for a second region.

The question

Why does one Southern state dominate this crop, and what would it take for the Gulf South to grow more of what belongs in its climate?

Method & data

State commission and USDA-derived production and trade figures, USDA FoodData Central nutrition, and university and seed-saving sources on heritage varieties.

By the numbers

>60%

North Carolina share of U.S. sweet potato production

Leading state since 1971 (North Carolina Sweetpotato Commission, 2024)

1.83B lb

North Carolina harvest, 2021

Of a 2.9B lb U.S. harvest (USDA figures via industry reporting, 2025)

214% DV

Vitamin A in one baked sweet potato

1,922 mcg RAE per 200 g, with 6.6 g fiber and 950 mg potassium (USDA FoodData Central)

$129.3M

North Carolina sweet potato exports, 2024

NCDA&CS commissioner statement, reported 2025

-20 to -30%

Estimated 2024 yield decline

Industry-wide despite slightly increased acreage (NC Sweetpotato Commission, 2024)

What the data shows

  • Concentration is the riskOne state supplying over 60% of a national staple since 1971 means one state's weather is a national supply event (NC Sweetpotato Commission, 2024).
  • Climate fit is the causeHeat, long season, and sandy soils match the crop; slip propagation preserves varietal identity without a seed purchase.
  • Heritage is a systemSlip-saved and seed-saved Southern varieties encode local adaptation; they persist only while growers keep growing and kitchens keep cooking them.
  • Nutrition is federal dataA 200 g baked sweet potato delivers 214% of daily vitamin A, 6.6 g fiber, and 950 mg potassium (USDA FoodData Central).
  • Storage is infrastructureCuring and cool storage keep a fall harvest edible for months without a cold chain — a distinct food-security profile.
  • Old statistics retireThe ~47% NC share in circulation traces to ~2010 reporting; the current commission figure, supported by 2021 poundage, is over 60%.

What it means for operators, funders & growers

Build regional demand for named Southern crops: menus, demos, and classes that buy what the climate grows and credit the people who kept the varieties.

Crops & Specialties · No. 22

Okra, Field Peas, and the Climate-Fit Southern Pantry

Aubrey McCoy · Founder & Principal · VK Capital Ventures Inc. · October 2026 · 10 min read

A 60-day legume that fixes 100-150 lb of nitrogen per acre and sets seed in midsummer heat, and a mallow that fruits through August: the Southern pantry was climate adaptation before the term existed.

The question

What do extension sources say okra and field peas actually deliver — agronomically, nutritionally, and historically — for a hotter Texas?

Method & data

University extension profiles (Hawai'i CTAHR, USDA ARS, UGA, Texas A&M AgriLife) for production figures, and the New York Botanical Garden's sourced history for foodways attribution.

By the numbers

100-150 lb/ac

Nitrogen contributed by cowpea

Plus 2,500-4,500 lb/ac/yr dry matter (University of Hawai'i CTAHR)

60-70 days

Cowpea maturity

Heat- and drought-tolerant varieties (Texas A&M AgriLife Research)

40-50 lb/ac

Typical applied nitrogen for cowpeas

Growers apply no more in typical production (University of Georgia Extension)

40-50 lb/ac

Cowpea seeding rate, drilled

Iron Clay cowpea profile (USDA ARS)

What the data shows

  • A fertilizer factory you plantCowpea fixes 100-150 lb N/acre while needing little applied nitrogen, leaving fertility for the following crop (CTAHR; UGA Extension).
  • Heat is the nicheCowpeas set seed under midsummer highs when other beans fail to pollinate, and mature in 60-70 days in hot, dry conditions (UGA; Texas A&M AgriLife).
  • Okra fruits when little else doesA warm-soil mallow harvested near-daily at peak, okra's climate fit is bought with real harvest labor that honest costing must count.
  • African crops, African handsOkra and black-eyed peas were carried by enslaved people from West Africa and became main components of Southern cuisine (NYBG Steere Herbarium, 2022).
  • Selection is the technologyVarieties kept by Southern growers encode two continents of hot-climate selection; seed saving carries that adaptation forward.
  • No invented state dataCurrent, citable Texas okra and field-pea acreage series were not found, so none are claimed; the supported claim is agronomic fit plus documented demand.

What it means for operators, funders & growers

Menus, demos, and classes built on the crops a Texas summer can actually harvest — costed honestly, credited accurately.

Crops & Specialties · No. 23

Pollinators and Yield: The Insects Are a Line Item

Aubrey McCoy · Founder & Principal · VK Capital Ventures Inc. · October 2026 · 10 min read

$235-577 billion of world crop production is directly attributable to animal pollination, over $15 billion of it in the U.S. — supplied in a year when beekeepers lost 55.6% of their colonies.

The question

What is pollination worth in published figures, how stressed is the workforce that supplies it, and what should a food business book against both?

Method & data

IPBES assessment values, USDA APHIS and USDA pollinator summaries, and the Auburn-led U.S. Beekeeping Survey loss series, each figure stated with its method and limits.

By the numbers

$235-577B

Global crop value directly attributable to pollination

5-8% of global production, 2015 USD (IPBES, 2016)

35%

Share of global crop production volume from pollinator-dependent crops

More than 75% of leading crop types rely to some extent (IPBES, 2016)

$15B+

Added U.S. crop value from bee pollination

USDA APHIS, updated June 2025

55.6%

U.S. managed colony losses, 2024-25

Highest since tracking began in 2010-11; 55.1% the prior year (U.S. Beekeeping Survey)

39.9%

U.S. managed colony losses, 2025-26

Winter losses 30.3% vs 15-20% considered acceptable (U.S. Beekeeping Survey, 2026)

2.7M colonies

Colonies required by California almonds alone

For 1.4M acres — almost all U.S. honey bees (USDA APHIS, 2025)

What the data shows

  • Attributable, not totalIPBES values only the production pollinators account for: 5-8% of world output worth $235-577B — the honest method behind the range (IPBES, 2016).
  • One crop, national supplyCalifornia almonds alone need almost 2.7M colonies against a national stock USDA estimated at 2.4M colonies in 2025 (USDA APHIS; U.S. Beekeeping Survey).
  • Record losses, chronic crisisLosses hit 55.6% in 2024-25 after 55.1% in 2023-24, then 39.9% in 2025-26 — still double the acceptable level (U.S. Beekeeping Survey).
  • Loss is a cost, not a headcountBeekeepers rebuild by splitting colonies, so counts hold near 2.4-2.8M while the rebuilding tax lands in pollination fees and food prices.
  • Varroa leads the stackUSDA traced early-2025 collapses to mite-vectored viruses, with amitraz-resistant mites in nearly every sample, atop pesticides, forage loss, and weather.
  • Habitat is a capital decisionCRP grassland conversion measurably reduced apiary landscape suitability in a million-colony region; flowering cover protects booked revenue (Otto et al., PNAS, 2018).

What it means for operators, funders & growers

Treat pollinator-dependent ingredients as supply-risk items in costing, and let farm programming describe partner practices accurately instead of decorating events with slogans.

White Paper 24 · Protein & Livestock · Houston

The Community Steer Share: Anatomy of a Pool

Aubrey McCoy · Founder & Principal · VK Capital Ventures Inc. · October 2026 · 11 min read

A whole steer, split by surveyed demand instead of shelf space: how VK's Community Protein Pool measures household need first, forms pools by ZIP code, publishes the yield and price math of one animal before money moves, processes only under inspection — and discloses its own 15 percent platform fee on the same invoice as the rancher's price.

The question

How does a community steer share actually work — mechanically, legally, and economically — and what does the platform running it charge, compared to everyone else?

Method & data

Program design documentation and VK house research (October 2026) benchmarked against published platform pricing (Farmigo, Barn2Door, Local Line), Texas DSHS meat-safety rules, USDA dietary and food-security instruments, and university Extension beef-yield references. The program is described as designed and launched; no participation or outcome figures are claimed.

By the numbers

2–7%

Platform fee band, CSA/farm platforms

Published farm-platform pricing band for the software layer alone, excluding payment processing (VK house research, October 2026).

15%

VK's Community Protein Pool fee

VK's adopted platform fee — 15% of pool beef value, set October 15, 2026, disclosed to both sides in the contracts, processing passed through at cost.

~500 lb

Take-home beef, one planning steer

From a 1,200 lb live steer at ~63% dressing and 65–75% of hanging weight as packaged beef (Extension references, via VK house research, 2026).

$9.55/lb

All-in planning cost per take-home pound

Midpoint of 2025–2026 direct-from-rancher price research: ~$4,775 whole-steer all-in (VK house research, October 2026).

90%

Pool closing threshold

A pool closes when requested pounds reach 90% of the animal's expected take-home — 450 lb whole / 225 lb half (program design, 2026).

1.6–2.2 lb

Weekly meat, poultry & eggs per adult

USDA Dietary Guidelines / Thrifty Food Plan ounce-equivalent benchmarks for adults (USDA, 2020–2025 guidelines).

What the data shows

  • Demand is surveyed, not assumedThe pool's first instrument is a household needs survey — beef dishes per week benchmarked against USDA guidance, with the USDA six-item food-security screen driving donation-lane priority, never a family's price.
  • Pools close on pounds, not datesZIP-code pools close when requested pounds reach 90% of one animal's expected ~500 lb take-home, so the rancher's steer is committed and pre-sold before scheduling.
  • Yield math is published firstA 1,200 lb live steer plans to ~756 lb hot carcass and ~500 lb packaged beef; cutting choices move the number, so actual pounds are set at the rail and never promised to the pound.
  • Inspection is the gatePaid shares are a retail sale in legal substance: pool beef is processed only under USDA or Texas DSHS inspection. Custom-exempt 'Not for Sale' meat can never fulfill paid orders.
  • The software band is 2–7%Farmigo charges 2% of sales; Barn2Door 1–3% by volume; the CSA/farm platform band is 2–7% for software alone — the farmer still does the matching, contracting, and administration.
  • VK charges 15%, disclosedVK's adopted fee is 15% of pool beef value — a managed-marketplace price, itemized separately from the meat price and processing on every invoice, never blended into the per-pound figure.

What it means for operators, funders & growers

A steer share earns trust at the level of its paperwork: demand measured before supply is promised, yield and price components published before money moves, inspection treated as a gate, and the platform's own cut printed beside everyone else's.

White Paper 25 · Protein & Livestock · Houston

Texas Beef, Inspected: The Supply Chain and Its Legal Landscape

Aubrey McCoy · Founder & Principal · VK Capital Ventures Inc. · October 2026 · 11 min read

Texas holds 12.2 million head of cattle — first in the nation, 14 percent of the U.S. herd. What its households can actually buy from its ranchers is decided by a much smaller thing: the grant of inspection on the processing plant, and the 'Not for Sale' line that separates an owner's freezer from a market.

The question

How does Texas beef move from a dispersed cow-calf herd to a lawful retail sale — and why does the inspection status of one facility decide what can be sold, where, and to whom?

Method & data

USDA NASS January 2025 cattle and cattle-on-feed releases read against the Texas inspection framework as published by Texas DSHS (grants of inspection and custom exemption, application requirements, Directive 8160.1), Texas Health and Safety Code Chapter 433, 25 TAC Chapter 221, and 9 CFR §303.1, with SNAP payment gates from USDA FNS guidance in VK house research.

By the numbers

12.2M head

Texas cattle and calves, Jan 1, 2025

Rank 1 in the nation; 14% of the U.S. inventory of 86.7M head (USDA NASS, Cattle Inventory, January 2025).

4.08M

Texas beef cows, Jan 1, 2025

Within 4.75M cows that had calved statewide (USDA NASS, January 2025).

4.35M head

Texas 2024 calf crop

Up 2% from the 2023 calf crop (USDA NASS, January 2025).

2.78M head

Texas cattle on feed, Jan 1, 2025

Feedlots of 1,000+ head capacity; 89% in the Northern High Plains (USDA NASS, Cattle on Feed, January 2025).

2

DSHS grants of inspection

Full Grant of Inspection for intrastate commerce, and Grant of Custom Exemption for the owner's personal use (Texas DSHS, 2026).

<10,000

Low-volume poultry/rabbit registration

Producers raising and processing under 10,000 poultry and/or rabbits a year register with DSHS (Texas DSHS, 2026).

What the data shows

  • Texas anchors the national herd12.2 million head on January 1, 2025 — first in the nation and 14% of the U.S. total — with finishing concentrated in Northern High Plains feedlots, far from Gulf Coast consumers (USDA NASS, 2025).
  • Two grants, two productsA DSHS Grant of Inspection authorizes slaughter and processing for intrastate commerce; a Grant of Custom Exemption authorizes work only for the livestock's owner and their personal use (Texas DSHS).
  • 'Not for Sale' is the market boundaryCustom-exempt products must be plainly marked 'Not for Sale' and returned to the owner (25 TAC §221.14); they cannot be sold or used to fulfill paid customer orders.
  • Substance beats labelsIf a person simply pays a fee and receives a specified quantity of beef, the transaction looks like a sale of meat and the custom exemption fails (Texas DSHS guidance). Only genuine pre-slaughter co-ownership bridges the line.
  • Inspection allocates geographyTexas-inspected beef may be sold statewide but cannot cross a state line; interstate commerce requires USDA FSIS inspection — which makes ZIP-first, Texas-only matching a compliance architecture, not just logistics.
  • Payment law selects the model tooSNAP pays for eligible food only — never processing, shipping, shares, or slaughter fees, and only within a 14-day pre-delivery window for CSA-style sales (USDA FNS) — pushing access programs toward the inspected retail model.

What it means for operators, funders & growers

For direct beef programs, inspected processing capacity — verified before any pool is matched — is the binding constraint, and contract, geography, and payment design all have to be built inside the grant that authorizes the sale.

White Paper 26 · Protein & Livestock · Houston

Pasture in Southeast Texas: Managing Grass Where the Rain Comes Sideways

Aubrey McCoy · Founder & Principal · VK Capital Ventures Inc. · October 2026 · 11 min read

Houston averages about 50 inches of rain a year — as an average of a 23-inch drought year and a 79-inch flood year, with one storm, Harvey, that dropped 60.58 inches by itself. This paper lays out the forage system that fits those facts: bahiagrass where the water stands, bermudagrass where it drains, stocking set to the dry year, and rotation run as a feedback loop, not a calendar.

The question

What forage species, stocking rates, and grazing systems actually fit Southeast Texas — where the constraint is not rainfall totals but rainfall timing?

Method & data

Southeastern forage guidance from University of Georgia Extension Bulletin 1362 and LSU AgCenter read with Texas A&M AgriLife prescribed-grazing standards (SP-415), AgriLife Research at Overton and the nine-year multi-paddock commercial-ranch study, AgriLife South Texas stocking models, NOAA/NHC Harvey records, and Houston's forty-year rainfall record.

By the numbers

~50.0 in

Houston average annual rainfall

Forty-year record (1983–2022) ranges 22.93 in minimum to 79.69 in maximum (Houston rainfall records analysis).

60.58 in

Harvey's peak rainfall, Nederland, TX

Highest U.S. tropical-cyclone rainfall total on record (National Hurricane Center, Harvey Report, 2018).

0.75–1.25 AU/ac

Bahiagrass carrying capacity

Animal units per acre per year; bermudagrass 1.00–1.50 AU/ac (University of Georgia Extension, B1362, Table 1).

54–56% TDN

Bahiagrass quality, grazed 2–6 in

With 10–11% crude protein in the managed window (University of Georgia Extension, B1362).

+25%

Tifton-9 bahiagrass vs. Pensacola

Up to 25% more forage at equal digestibility (University of Georgia Extension, B1362).

1:5 to 1:30

Texas stocking-rate span by rainfall

Acres per cow: ~1:5 in Gulf Coast–type rainfall to 1:30 in dry regions (Texas A&M AgriLife grazing-lease model).

What the data shows

  • Drainage draws the species mapBahiagrass grows on soils too poorly drained for bermudagrass and starts earlier in spring and later in fall; bermudagrass carries more animal units and roughly double the stocker gains where drainage and fertility allow (UGA Extension, B1362).
  • Stock to the dry yearWith a forty-year rainfall floor of 22.93 inches against a 50-inch average, the base herd should be sized to the drought year; wet-year surplus belongs in hay and stockers, not permanent cow numbers.
  • Stocking rate is the load-bearing decisionAgriLife's prescribed-grazing standard leads with stocking rate plus rest periods and grazing intensity, frequency, duration, and season (SP-415); a pasture stocked within its forage supply forgives other errors, and one stocked beyond it degrades under any rotation.
  • Rotation is a feedback loopNine years of Texas AgriLife Research on commercial ranches found adaptively managed multi-paddock grazing superior to continuous grazing for vegetation, soil, and animal production — the management loop, not the fence pattern, is what the research supports.
  • Flood discipline is part of grazingPrescribed grazing pairs moderate stocking with deferred grazing on creek and low pastures during rainy periods, cutting trampling damage and bacterial runoff when ground is saturated (AgriLife SP-415).
  • Winter is bridged, not enduredBermudagrass is dormant from first killing frost to after last spring freeze; the system bridges the gap with summer hay reserves and cool-season annuals overseeded into the sod (AgriLife Overton; LSU AgCenter).

What it means for operators, funders & growers

Southeast Texas forage is a relay — bahia early, bermuda at summer peak and into the hay barn, overseeded ryegrass and clover through winter — run at a stocking rate the driest year can carry, because the rain's timing, not its total, is the real input.

Workforce & Business

The ROI of Culinary Workforce Training: What a Trained Cook Is Worth

Aubrey McCoy · Founder & Principal · VK Capital Ventures Inc. · October 2026 · 11 min read

Culinary training is usually framed as a social good. The published record — BLS occupational data, placement and retention outcomes from established community-kitchen programs, and hospitality turnover research — frames it as an economic input with a measurable return for graduates, employers, and the city.

The question

What is a trained cook actually worth — to the graduate, to the employer who hires them, and to the public — when measured only against published outcomes and federal data?

Method & data

Desk research from primary sources opened and verified in October 2026: BLS Occupational Outlook Handbook (2025 pay, 2025–35 projections), DC Central Kitchen FY2017 annual report, Catalyst Kitchens member outcomes, FareStart figures as reported, Cornell Center for Hospitality Research and TDn2K turnover-cost estimates as reported. VK's own TSU program is described structurally only; no VK graduate outcomes are claimed.

By the numbers

2,705,800

Cook jobs in the U.S., 2025

Total employment for cooks, projected to grow 7% from 2025 to 2035. Source: BLS Occupational Outlook Handbook: Cooks, 2025.

$36,640

Median annual pay, cooks (May 2025)

$17.62 per hour median; lowest 10% under $12.85/hr, highest 10% over $22.84/hr. Source: BLS, Cooks, May 2025.

$62,470

Median annual pay, chefs and head cooks (May 2025)

The rung above the cook line — a gap of roughly $25,800 a year. Source: BLS, Chefs and Head Cooks, May 2025.

393,200

Projected openings for cooks per year

Average annual openings 2025–35, driven largely by replacement need rather than growth. Source: BLS, Cooks, 2025–35 projections.

87% / 85%

DC Central Kitchen placement / 1-year retention

Job placement among Culinary Job Training graduates, and share retaining jobs one year post-graduation. Source: DC Central Kitchen Annual Report FY2017.

$5,864

Estimated cost to replace one hospitality employee

Hiring, training, and lost productivity per lost employee. Source: Cornell Center for Hospitality Research, as reported by QSR Magazine.

What the data shows

  • Replacement is the marketBLS projects about 393,200 cook openings a year against 183,200 net new jobs over the decade — kitchens hire mainly because they lose people, which is the problem training and retention solve.
  • A visible wage ladderThe median cook earns $36,640 and the median chef or head cook $62,470 (BLS, May 2025); advancement runs through experience plus the costing, sanitation, and supervisory skills training can front-load.
  • Placement is published, and highEstablished community-kitchen programs report placement of 82–92%: DC Central Kitchen 87% (FY2017), Community Kitchen Pittsburgh 92% (Catalyst Kitchens), FareStart 82% within 90 days as reported.
  • Retention is the employer metricWhere published, one-year retention is about 85% at both DC Central Kitchen and Community Kitchen Pittsburgh — the figure that determines whether an employer recovers hiring cost.
  • Churn has a price tagReplacement cost estimates run from about $2,000 per hourly hire (TDn2K, 2019) to $5,864 per employee (Cornell CHR) and nearly $15,000 per manager — avoidable departures are a P&L line.
  • Evidence has limitsPublished outcomes describe program completers, carry selection effects, and pair skills with wraparound support; VK publishes no TSU placement or retention rates because none have been measured yet.

What it means for operators, funders & growers

Houston employers should hire for retention, not just placement, and workforce programs — VK's included — should be judged on published one-year retention. Training that combines production skills, costing numeracy, and post-placement support is the design the evidence backs.

Workforce & Business

Food-Costing Literacy as an Outcome: Numeracy That Shows Up on a P&L

Aubrey McCoy · Founder & Principal · VK Capital Ventures Inc. · October 2026 · 10 min read

A third of U.S. adults score at the lowest numeracy level in the federal PIAAC assessment, yet food businesses run on ratios, unit prices, and percentages. Costing a dish is applied numeracy an employer can audit the same afternoon — which is why VK treats it as a headline workforce outcome.

The question

Why should food-costing skill count as a workforce-training outcome in its own right — what does numeracy research say it is worth, and what industry benchmark does it let a worker manage?

Method & data

Extends White Paper #1 (Costed to Sell) without re-teaching its method. Sources opened and verified in October 2026: NCES PIAAC 2023 U.S. results, an AEI analysis of PIAAC 2023 labor-market patterns, industry food-cost benchmark reporting, and BLS cook/chef pay data. Correlations are labeled as correlations; no causal wage claim is made for costing instruction specifically.

By the numbers

34%

U.S. adults at numeracy Level 1 or below, 2023

Lowest PIAAC proficiency band, up from 29% in 2017; 38% scored Level 3 or above. Source: NCES, Highlights of the 2023 U.S. PIAAC Results.

$19 vs. $42

Median hourly wage by numeracy level

Level 1 vs. Levels 4/5 in PIAAC 2023; labor force participation 62% vs. 93%. Source: American Enterprise Institute analysis of NCES PIAAC 2023.

28–35%

Benchmark restaurant food cost percentage

Share of total food sales, varying by concept — the diagnostic band costing literacy manages toward. Source: FastCasual, restaurant food cost benchmarks, 2026.

$5.70 → $7 → $15

The TSU teaching case, in one line

Computed cost per portion, carried cost with breathing room, and menu price for the class's batch of loaded nachos. Source: VK Capital Ventures, Costed to Sell, White Paper #1, October 2026.

$36,640 / $62,470

Median pay: cooks / chefs and head cooks

The advancement ladder costing and supervisory skills feed. Source: BLS Occupational Outlook Handbook, May 2025.

What the data shows

  • The numeracy gap is large and growing34% of U.S. adults ages 16–65 performed at PIAAC numeracy Level 1 or below in 2023, up from 29% in 2017 (NCES) — the multi-step ratio and percentage work costing requires sits above that band.
  • Numeracy tracks work and wagesPIAAC 2023 patterns show labor force participation of 62% at Level 1 vs. 93% at Levels 4/5 and median hourly wages of $19 vs. $42 (AEI analysis) — correlation, stated as such, but a strong one.
  • There is a benchmark to manageIndustry reporting places benchmark food cost at 28–35% of food sales; a costing-literate cook can compute a dish against that band and find leakage in purchasing, waste, or portioning.
  • Small percentages are large dollarsOn $20,000 of monthly food sales, five points of food cost is $1,000 a month — decided daily by cooks' purchasing and portioning, not quarterly by accountants.
  • The skill transfers intactThe costing sequence is identical across restaurants, institutions, catering, and home-based selling, and it is the language of the supervisory roles on the BLS ladder from cook to chef.
  • The claim stays narrowNo published controlled study yet measures wage gains from costing instruction specifically; VK claims an observable classroom outcome and a research-backed rationale, not measured graduate wage effects.

What it means for operators, funders & growers

Workforce programs should teach and test costing as applied numeracy — from a defined recipe, at real local prices, against the 28–35% benchmark — and then measure graduates' employment outcomes with the same rigor the field's best programs publish.

Workforce & Business

Permits Before Pots: Food-Business Licensing in Houston, Mapped

Aubrey McCoy · Founder & Principal · VK Capital Ventures Inc. · October 2026 · 13 min read

Houston food licensing is four systems, not one: a risk-tiered city Food Dealer permit for fixed kitchens, a $52 temporary permit with a hard 14-day filing deadline, Texas cottage food rebuilt by SB 541, and — since July 1, 2026 — a single statewide DSHS license for anything on wheels. Every figure is from an official city or state page.

The question

What permits, fees, deadlines, and 2026 rule changes must a Houston food business satisfy before its first legal sale — at home, at an event, on wheels, or in a storefront?

Method & data

Practical map built only from official sources opened in October 2026: Houston Health Department permit and fee pages, Houston Permitting Center permit records HHD1003 and HHD1005, and Texas DSHS cottage food and retail permit pages, with the DSHS mobile-vendor announcement as reported. Where two official pages differ on a fee, both figures are shown and the difference is named.

By the numbers

$258 / $515 / $773

Houston Food Dealer (Fixed) fees by risk

Low / medium / high risk tiers under the restructured fee schedule. Source: Houston Health Department, Retail Food Safety Inspections — Fee Structure Changes.

$52

Temporary Food Dealer permit, per event

Covers 1 day up to 14 consecutive days for a single event; applications due at least 14 days ahead from June 1, 2026. Source: Houston Health Department, Temporary Food Permits.

$150,000

Texas cottage food annual sales ceiling

Gross income threshold under SB 541, effective September 1, 2025; local permits and fees for cottage production are prohibited. Source: Texas DSHS, Texas Cottage Food Production.

July 1, 2026

Mobile food authority moves to DSHS

HB 2844 transfer: mobile vendors need an annual statewide DSHS license; Houston temporary permits to mobile vendors ended June 30, 2026. Source: Houston Health Department, Temporary Food Permits.

$258 / $515 / $773

DSHS retail permit fees by sales volume

Under $50,000 / $50,000–$149,999.99 / $150,000+ gross annual food sales, for premises under DSHS jurisdiction. Source: Texas DSHS, Permits for Retail Food Establishment.

5 years

Houston Food Service Manager certificate validity

A certified manager is required during all stages of operation; pass mark 70; certificate valid in Houston only. Source: Houston Permitting Center, HHD1005.

What the data shows

  • Fixed kitchens: risk-tiered city permitHouston Food Dealer (Fixed) fees are $258 low / $515 medium / $773 high risk (Houston Health), with the Permitting Center itemizing admin ($33.56) and inspection ($112.57 or $225.14) charges on top — budget both pages, confirm the invoice.
  • Plan review and inspection gate openingNew construction, change of use, and remodels require plan review and a preoperational inspection; the permit is valid one year, processing up to 15 business days (Houston Permitting Center HHD1003).
  • Events run on a deadline, not just a feeThe temporary permit is $52 for up to 14 consecutive days, but from June 1, 2026 applications filed less than 14 days before the event will not be reviewed (Houston Health Department).
  • Cottage food widened — with dutiesSB 541 allows almost any food except six excluded categories up to $150,000, bans local permit/fee demands, but requires food-handler training, exact labeling, and DSHS registration for refrigerated (TCS) foods (Texas DSHS).
  • Wheels are now a state licenseFrom July 1, 2026, one annual DSHS Mobile Food Vendor license replaces per-city mobile permits statewide under HB 2844; fire, zoning, and location rules still apply locally.
  • People permits are separateA certified food service manager must be present during all stages of operation in Houston; the city certificate lasts five years — a kitchen can hold a valid dealer permit and still be out of compliance on staffing.

What it means for operators, funders & growers

Choose your layer before your menu: home producers start with SB 541 duties, pop-ups with the 14-day filing clock, trucks with the statewide DSHS license, and storefronts with plan review, risk-tiered fees, and a certified manager on every shift. Verify each figure on the official page before filing.

Workforce & Business

The Cooperative Option: Chef and Farmer Co-ops as Business Structure

Aubrey McCoy · Founder & Principal · VK Capital Ventures Inc. · October 2026 · 10 min read

Between working for someone else and owning everything alone sits a third structure: a business owned by the people who use it, governed one member one vote, with surplus returned by patronage. The sector counts some 30,000 U.S. cooperatives — and Texas law gives the word a precise meaning VK is careful to use accurately.

The question

What is a cooperative, legally and economically — how big is the sector, how do farmer and chef models work in practice, and where does VK's TVK Chef Co-op honestly sit relative to the formal structure?

Method & data

Built from USDA Rural Development and USDA Agricultural Cooperative Statistics (FY2024 bulletin, January 2026), University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives impact research, Texas Business Organizations Code Chapter 251, and VK house research on 2025–2026 community food co-op models. VK's own program is described factually, including the legal distinction between a membership cohort and a formed cooperative association.

By the numbers

30,000+

Cooperatives operating in the U.S.

Nearly 2 million jobs, 350 million memberships, and more than $660 billion in annual revenue. Source: USDA Rural Development, National Co-op Month.

1,620

Farmer, rancher & fishery cooperatives, FY2024

Down from 1,699 in 2021 as the sector consolidates into larger member-owned firms. Sources: USDA Agricultural Cooperative Statistics 2024 and 2021.

$275.8B

Agricultural cooperative revenues, 2024

With net income before taxes of $11.0 billion — surplus available for patronage returns, equity redemption, or reinvestment. Source: USDA Ag Co-op Statistics 2024 bulletin, Jan. 20, 2026.

$140,881

Farmer sales via one aggregation program, 2025

Southside Community Land Trust Produce Aggregation Program sales for 13 farm businesses. Source: Southside Community Land Trust, via VK house research, 2026.

1 member, 1 vote

The governance rule

USDA cooperative criteria cap voting by capital and limit dividends on membership capital (8% threshold); Texas BOC §251.001 ties net savings to patronage. Sources: USDA Ag Co-op Statistics methodology; Texas Business Organizations Code Ch. 251.

$5/mo

TVK Chef Co-op membership

VK's chef cohort membership — flat, transparent, for access and community, not a patronage dividend. Source: VK Capital Ventures Inc. program terms, 2026.

What the data shows

  • The sector is large and measuredUSDA counts more than 30,000 U.S. cooperatives with nearly 2 million jobs and over $660 billion in revenue; UW Center for Cooperatives research finds over $3 trillion in assets across nearly 30,000 co-ops.
  • Farmer co-ops consolidate, surplus stays with members1,620 agricultural cooperatives did $275.8 billion in business in 2024 with $11.0 billion net income, which USDA notes funds patronage returns, equity redemption, or reinvestment (USDA, 2026).
  • Three mechanics define the formMember ownership, democratic governance (one member, one vote; capped return on capital), and patronage-based distribution of net savings — the same skeleton Texas BOC Chapter 251 writes into law.
  • Aggregation is the food use caseFarmer-owned hubs like Wisconsin Food Hub Cooperative turn small farms into institutional-scale sellers; community aggregation programs publish real, modest sales ($140,881 for 13 farms, SCLT 2025).
  • The form has honest costsDemocratic governance is slower, patronage requires a surplus, and the USDA count shrinks most years through merger and failure — a co-op is a discipline, not a subsidy.
  • VK names its structure accuratelyThe TVK Chef Co-op ($5/mo) is a membership cohort applying cooperative principles — shared infrastructure and collective market access — and is not a cooperative association formed under Texas BOC Chapter 251.

What it means for operators, funders & growers

Chefs and farmers whose bottleneck is market access, purchasing power, or shared infrastructure should evaluate the cooperative form seriously — and any program using the word should state plainly whether it is a formed cooperative association or, like VK's cohort, a first step built on its principles.

White Paper 31 · Climate, resilience & land · Houston

Growing in the Heat Dome: Gulf Coast Seasons Are Moving

Aubrey McCoy · Founder & Principal · VK Capital Ventures Inc. · October 2026 · 11 min read

NOAA's 1991–2020 normals raised Houston's baseline temperature, the USDA's 2023 hardiness map moved Houston from Zone 9a to 9b, and Texas just recorded its hottest year on record. This paper reads the federal and state-climatologist record and translates it into what changes for a Gulf Coast grower's calendar, crops, water, shade, and labor.

The question

How much have Houston's growing conditions measurably changed — in normals, extremes, nighttime temperatures, and hardiness zones — and what should a grower change in response?

Method & data

Primary-source review of NOAA/NWS climate normals for Houston stations, Texas State Climatologist data reported from NOAA records, the USDA 2023 Plant Hardiness Zone Map and extension summaries, and Texas A&M AgriLife Extension heat guidance. Every figure carries its source and year; no projections are presented as measurements.

By the numbers

+0.7°F

Houston's new normal

Rise in annual average temperature at Bush Intercontinental (IAH) in NOAA's 1991–2020 normals vs. 1981–2010; Hobby +1.0°F, Galveston +1.1°F. Source: NOAA/NWS Houston normals via Space City Weather, 2021

68.1°F

Texas's hottest year

Statewide average temperature in 2023, the hottest year on record — 0.3°F above the 2012 record and 3.5°F above the 20th-century average. Source: NOAA data, State Climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon, 2024

46 days

100-degree record

Days at or above 100°F in Houston in 2011, breaking the 1980 record of 32; 2023 had already reached 44 by mid-September. Source: NOAA station data via Space City Weather, 2023

9a → 9b

Houston's zone shift

USDA's 2023 Plant Hardiness Zone Map moved Houston to Zone 9b (25–30°F average annual extreme minimum) from 9a. Source: USDA, 2023

13,625

Stations behind the map

Weather stations used for the 2023 USDA hardiness map, built on 1991–2020 data vs. 1976–2005 for the 2012 edition. Source: USDA, 2023, via Iowa State Extension

+1.5°F+

Warmer coastal nights

Rise in Galveston's average overnight lows in the 1991–2020 normals vs. the prior set. Source: NWS Houston normals via Space City Weather, 2021

What the data shows

  • The baseline movedNOAA's 1991–2020 normals warmed Houston at every station (IAH +0.7°F, Hobby +1.0°F, Galveston +1.1°F) and lengthened the average 90°F season by roughly a week, to May 29–September 18.
  • Consistency, not one hot yearTexas's 2023 record (68.1°F statewide average) sits on a run in which every year since 2000 has exceeded the state's 20th-century average, per NOAA data reported by the state climatologist.
  • Extremes are recurringHouston's two highest 100-degree-day seasons on the NOAA station record — 46 days in 2011 and at least 44 by mid-September 2023 — both fall within the last fifteen years.
  • Nights are the sharp edgeGalveston's average lows rose more than 1.5°F in the new normals, and AgriLife guidance shows plants lose photosynthetic function once days pass the upper 90s and nights stay in the mid-70s — recovery time is disappearing for plants and workers alike.
  • The zone map moved — read it narrowlyHouston's shift to Zone 9b widens the perennial palette for an average winter, but zones measure winter cold only; they say nothing about summer heat, and single hard freezes remain possible.
  • Adaptation is techniqueExtension guidance — drip irrigation, 2–3 inches of mulch, shade cloth off the foliage, heat-tolerant varieties such as okra and peppers, morning labor — is the practical operating system for the new normal.

What it means for operators, funders & growers

Houston growers are no longer farming the climate in older calendars and zone charts. Planning to the 1991–2020 normals — a longer, hotter season, warmer nights, a higher winter cold floor, and freeze risk retained — is now basic competence, and programs that teach growing in Houston should teach to the new baseline.

White Paper 32 · Climate, resilience & land · Houston

After the Water: Storm and Flood Resilience for Urban Farms

Aubrey McCoy · Founder & Principal · VK Capital Ventures Inc. · October 2026 · 10 min read

Hurricane Harvey dropped 60.58 inches of rain and flooded 154,170 structures in Harris County — 68 percent of them outside the mapped 100-year floodplain. This paper takes the Flood Control District's own numbers, the FDA's flooded-crop rules, and extension soil guidance, and turns them into a design and recovery standard for urban farms.

The question

What does Harris County's measured flood record require of an urban farm's site choice, design, and post-flood recovery — before, during, and after the water?

Method & data

Primary-source review of National Weather Service and National Hurricane Center Harvey records, Harris County Flood Control District flood accounting, FDA flooded-crop food-safety guidance, and University of Vermont Extension post-flood soil guidance. Every figure carries its source and year.

By the numbers

60.58 in

Harvey's rainfall record

Highest storm-total rainfall, near Nederland, Texas — a U.S. tropical cyclone record, above Hiki's 52.00 in (1950) and Amelia's 48.00 in continental record (1978). Source: National Weather Service / NHC, 2017

154,170

Structures flooded in Harris County

Harris County Flood Control District accounting of Hurricane Harvey — about 11% of all structures in the county. Source: HCFCD, 2019

68%

Flooded outside the map

Share of Harvey-flooded Harris County structures (105,340) located outside the mapped 1% annual-chance floodplain. Source: HCFCD, 2019

3 in 3 years

'500-year' floods

Major flood events in the Houston area in 2015, 2016, and 2017, as described by Harris County officials after Harvey. Source: Harris County officials, 2017

$2.5B

The county's answer

Flood-control bond approved by Harris County voters in August 2018 with nearly 86% support, the largest in county history. Source: Harris County Clerk results, reported 2018

30 days

Minimum soil wait

Extension guidance: let flooded soil dry and wait at least 30 days before planting; a full cover-crop season is the very-low-risk strategy. Source: UVM Extension, 2024

What the data shows

  • Harvey reset the ceilingHarvey's 60.58-inch storm total is the U.S. tropical cyclone rainfall record (NWS, 2017); Gulf Coast farm design now plans against a demonstrated ceiling, not a theoretical one.
  • The floodplain map understates risk68 percent of the structures Harvey flooded in Harris County were outside the mapped 1% floodplain (HCFCD, 2019) — site diligence must go beyond the FEMA line.
  • Frequency labels are failing locallyThree '500-year' events in three years (2015–2017) show historical frequency tables understate present Harris County risk, a point county officials themselves raised.
  • A flooded crop is a lost cropFDA guidance treats edible portions exposed to floodwater as adulterated, with no practical reconditioning — the standing crop in the water is an economic write-off by rule, not by choice.
  • Recovery is measured in seasonsTesting (metals screen plus pH and nutrients), a minimum 30-day wait, and possibly a cover-crop season mean a serious flood can cost a small farm a year, not a week (UVM Extension, 2024).
  • Elevation and protocol are the designRaised beds and infrastructure, planned drainage, a written post-flood protocol, and off-site records convert some total losses into partial ones and shorten the return.

What it means for operators, funders & growers

In Harris County, flood resilience is a site-selection and design discipline: read the Flood Control District's data rather than the map alone, build elevation and drainage in, and keep the FDA/extension recovery sequence as a written protocol. Buyers and funders should plan for a partner farm's post-flood season to start with recovery, not deliveries.

White Paper 33 · Climate, resilience & land · Houston

Food Waste, Diverted: The Economics of the Last Mile of Food

Aubrey McCoy · Founder & Principal · VK Capital Ventures Inc. · October 2026 · 11 min read

The U.S. generated 73.9 million tons of surplus food in 2023, worth $382 billion — and donated 2 percent of it. This paper follows USDA, ReFED, and EPA data through the economics of each destination, from prevention (the only negative-cost pathway) to landfill (the most expensive habit), and checks Houston's young diversion infrastructure against the national scale.

The question

What does surplus food actually cost, where does it go, and what is the economically correct order of destinations — for a kitchen, an event, and a city?

Method & data

Primary-source review of USDA food loss estimates, ReFED's 2025 U.S. Food Waste Report (2023 data) including its solutions-investment modeling, EPA's 2023 Wasted Food Scale and 2030 reduction goal, and reported results of Houston's 2024 food waste drop-off pilot. No Houston-wide diversion tonnage is stated, because none was verified from a primary source.

By the numbers

73.9M tons

U.S. surplus food, 2023

31% of the food supply, valued at $382 billion (1.4% of GDP); 442 pounds per person. Source: ReFED, 2025 U.S. Food Waste Report

30–40%

Share of supply lost or wasted

USDA's standing estimate, based on 31% loss at retail and consumer levels (133 billion pounds, $161 billion in 2010). Source: USDA

2%

Donated

Share of 2023 surplus food donated; 9% went to livestock feed and 85% to waste destinations. Source: ReFED, 2025

3.8×

Modeled return on solutions

$16B annual investment over 10 years could net $60.8B, divert 20M tons a year, and avoid 79M metric tons CO2e. Source: ReFED modeling, 2025

58%

Landfill methane share

Wasted food's share of landfill methane emissions to the atmosphere; food is 24% of landfilled material. Source: EPA Wasted Food Scale, 2023

9,800 lb

Houston pilot diversion

Food waste diverted in the six-week Jan–Feb 2024 City of Houston / Zero Waste Houston drop-off pilot, with 262 residents participating. Source: Zero Waste Houston via Sierra Club Houston, 2024

What the data shows

  • The leak is a third of the systemUSDA's 30–40% range and ReFED's measured 31% (73.9M tons, $382B in 2023) agree: nearly a third of U.S. food is produced and never eaten.
  • Households are the largest sourceResidential surplus is 35.2% of the total and consumers waste nearly 35M tons a year at a cost of $261B (ReFED, 2025) — prevention is a kitchen discipline, not only an industry program.
  • The last mile is the failureOnly 2% of surplus food was donated in 2023 while 85% went to waste destinations (ReFED, 2025) — the system produces food far better than it completes its delivery.
  • EPA's order is an economic orderThe 2023 Wasted Food Scale ranks prevent, donate, and upcycle highest and landfill, incineration, and drain lowest — the same sequence that preserves the most dollar value per ton.
  • Diversion pays on paperReFED models a 3.8× net return on scaled solutions investment, against just over $900M actually invested in U.S. food waste solutions in 2024.
  • Houston has mechanics, not yet scaleThe 2024 pilot (262 residents, 9,800+ lb in six weeks) proves resident participation and drop-off mechanics; no verified citywide diversion tonnage exists yet, and that measurement gap is a finding in itself.

What it means for operators, funders & growers

For any Houston food business, the correct operating sequence is EPA's: prevent through costed purchasing, donate what is edible, feed animals, digest, compost — and treat landfill as the failure mode, priced accordingly. Cities and buyers should fund the last-mile infrastructure (collection, cold chain for donation, compost capacity) that the national return modeling says pays for itself.

White Paper 34 · Protein & Livestock · Houston

The Egg Cycle: What a 40 Percent Month Teaches About Protein Prices

Aubrey McCoy · Founder & Principal · VK Capital Ventures Inc. · October 2026 · 12 min read

Eggs fell 39.7 percent in one month of 2026 — eighteen months after retail prices hit a record $6.23 a dozen. This paper traces the full cycle: a 20-week biological fuse that no price can shorten, the 2014–2015 shock that took 50 million birds, the 2022–2025 regime that took 168.6 million, and the rebuild that overshot into glut — the same lag structure, at different speeds, in every protein market.

The question

Why do egg prices swing from record scarcity to below-cost abundance inside two years — and what does the mechanism teach about protein supply generally?

Method & data

Extension of VK White Paper 2 (BLS PPI September 2026; USDA ERS Food Price Outlook; USDA WASDE October 2026) into cycle mechanics: Congressional Research Service R48518 built on USDA APHIS confirmations and NASS flock data, USDA ERS and APHIS accounts of the 2014–2015 outbreak, Penn State Extension layer biology, and USDA AMS/ERS 2025–2026 loss, inventory, and forecast series.

By the numbers

−39.7%

Producer egg prices, September 2026

One month; eggs for fresh use −66.0% over twelve months (BLS, PPI September 2026, USDL-26-1576).

20 weeks

The replacement fuse

Pullets rear 16–17 weeks and begin laying around 20 weeks; a depopulated flock takes up to 20 weeks to replace into production (CRS R48518, 2025; Penn State Extension).

168.62M

Birds affected, Feb 2022–Apr 2025

Across 1,689 confirmed flocks in all 50 states and Puerto Rico (USDA APHIS, via CRS R48518, 2025).

75%

Layers' share of 2022–25 poultry losses

Table-egg layers were 75% of total domestic poultry loss while under 4% of the poultry population (CRS R48518, 2025).

50M+

Birds lost, 2014–2015 outbreak

≈43M chickens (mostly layers/pullets) and 7.4M turkeys; layers ~12% of inventory (USDA APHIS Final Report; USDA ERS LDPM-282-02).

103.5¢

2026 wholesale egg forecast per dozen

Against a 2025 average of 373.7¢ (USDA WASDE, October 2026).

What the data shows

  • Supply runs on a 20-week fuseA chick hatched in response to today's price lays her first egg in roughly 20 weeks; replacement decisions are therefore always made on forecasts, and the industry structurally overshoots in both directions.
  • 2015 taught the wrong lessonThe 2014–2015 outbreak — 50M+ birds, 12% of the layer inventory — ended in a season and filed HPAI away as episodic. The 2022 virus persisted for years instead, holding the national layer flock 5% below its pre-outbreak average for three straight years.
  • Layers took 75% of the 2022–25 losses168.62 million birds across 1,689 flocks by April 2025, concentrated in the longest-lived, most exposed flock type — which is why eggs, not chicken meat, carried the price shock (CRS/APHIS).
  • The rebuild manufactured the glutBy February 2026 the layer inventory reached 312.9M hens, above the pre-outbreak average, production rose 5.1% year over year, and USDA cut the 2026 wholesale average to ~102.6¢ — the lowest since 2019 — before September's 39.7% monthly fall.
  • Price is a lagging photo of biologyMarch 2025's record $6.23 retail dozen photographed flock losses from months earlier; WASDE's collapse from a 373.7¢ 2025 average to a 103.5¢ 2026 forecast was driven by countable flock and pullet series that moved before price did.
  • Every protein has its own fuse lengthBroilers adjust in weeks, layers in ~20 weeks, cattle over years — the egg cycle is the general law of biological supply lags at its fastest and most visible, not an exception.

What it means for operators, funders & growers

Operators survive protein cycles by reading flock and herd counts instead of price headlines, refusing long contracts at shortage prices, and building margin for the overshoot — because the other side of every shortage is already hatched.

White Paper 35 · Climate, resilience & land · Houston

Land to Farm: Getting Urban Growers onto Houston Ground

Aubrey McCoy · Founder & Principal · VK Capital Ventures Inc. · October 2026 · 11 min read

Urban farming's binding constraint is tenure. USDA's urban agriculture advisors call suitable urban land 'very limited and very costly' and answer with easements and long leases; Houston's Land Bank shows how a mission holder writes the rules for land; Southside Community Land Trust shows aggregation revenue nearly tripling on two decades of secure tenure. This paper assembles the models into a sequence a Houston grower can follow.

The question

Which land-access structures — land banks, community land trusts, long leases — actually put urban growers on durable ground, and how do they apply in Houston?

Method & data

Primary-source review of the USDA Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production Advisory Committee's 2023 final report, USDA land access program documentation, reporting on the Houston Land Bank's history and terms, and Southside Community Land Trust's published aggregation results. No Houston vacant-lot count is stated, because none was verified from a primary source.

By the numbers

$300M

Federal land-access investment

USDA's intended Increasing Land, Capital, and Market Access investment across 50 projects for underserved producers. Source: USDA, 2023

500+

Houston Land Bank homes

Affordable homes produced since 2004 by the Houston Land Bank (created 1999; independent nonprofit 2019), for buyers at or below 120% of area median income. Source: Next City reporting Houston Land Bank data

~$9,500

Average land bank lot price

Houston Land Bank average lot sale price, 50–90% of market value, with resale price caps attached. Source: Houston Land Bank via Next City

$49k → $140k

Aggregation on secure tenure

Southside CLT network farmer revenues through its Produce Aggregation Program, 2021 to 2025, with 20+ farm operations selling through it. Source: Southside Community Land Trust, 2026

Since 2002

The lease underneath it

Southside CLT's long-term lease at Urban Edge Farm with the Rhode Island DEM — the tenure base under its aggregation growth. Source: Southside Community Land Trust, 2026

2 of 14

USDA recommendations on land

Share of USDA UAIPAC's 2023 recommendations devoted to land access: an urban ag easement program and long-term leasing of federal urban land. Source: USDA UAIPAC Final Report, 2023

What the data shows

  • Tenure is the first inputSoil building, irrigation, and perennials are multi-year investments; USDA's advisors state suitable urban farm land is frequently very limited and very costly, making secure tenure the precondition for everything else.
  • Federal answers are easements and long leasesUSDA UAIPAC's 2023 land recommendations propose an easement program modeled on NRCS ALE and long-term leasing of federally held urban land — duration and price-at-agricultural-value are the mechanisms.
  • Mission holders write the rulesThe Houston Land Bank moves vacant, tax-delinquent land at 50–90% of market value with conditions attached — the instrument a city needs to put idle parcels into productive, conditional use, including food.
  • Trust tenure compoundsOn a lease held since 2002, Southside CLT's aggregation grew farmer revenues from $49,000 (2021) to $140,000 (2025) across 20+ operations — published proof that tenure plus aggregation builds a market.
  • Houston's context cuts both waysNo zoning removes a common use-permission barrier, but flood history, soil status, and deed terms carry more weight — cheap ground that floods is the county's most expensive ground.
  • The inventory gap is the opportunityNo verified, grower-grade public inventory of Houston parcels (holder, flood history, soil, water, available term) exists; building it is a precondition for matching growers to ground at scale.

What it means for operators, funders & growers

Houston growers should start with mission-driven holders, negotiate term before crop plans, test soil as part of access, aggregate early, and use USDA's land-access programs as standing infrastructure. Institutions holding vacant land should treat long, conditional agricultural terms as a productive use they already know how to write.

The library grows

New papers, published quarterly.

White papers publish on the same quarterly cadence as our field research — each one worked end to end from a real classroom, kitchen, or market. For the shorter form, read the five field briefs on the Research page, or bring us a subject: workforce training, menu economics, and farm-to-chef sourcing engagements start at contactus@vkculinary.tech.