AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 1

Transcription

1 AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 1

2 Table of Contents Executive Summary 4 Part 1. Introduction 5 Part 2. Incubation in Practice 10 Part 3. Agriculture Market Research 16 Part 4. Summary of Research 38 Part 5. Incubator Structure and Approach 40 Appendix I - Stakeholder Interview Notes 50 Appendix II - Agricultural Census 52 Appendix III - National Establishment Time Series 56 Appendix IV - Cluster Data 60 Appendix V - Survey Results 63 Appendix VI - Membership Application Template 70 References 72 Contact Information 75 AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 2

3 Prepared By Dr. Gerald McDougall, Ph.D. - Southeast Missouri State University John Gruidl, Ph.D. - Southeast Missouri State University Crystal Jones, MBA Jakob Pallesen, MBA Sierra Heil With Assistance From Dr. Michael T. Aide, Ph.D. - Southeast Missouri State University Greg Adkinson Johann Stuntebeck Peter Jacobsen About the Missouri Innovation Corporation The Missouri Innovation Corporation (MIC) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Southeast Missouri State University. Created in November 2003 as the Missouri Research Corporation, it is an IRS designated 501(c)3 corporation and provides a separate entity to expand the sponsored research activity of Southeast Missouri State University and develop partnerships with business, industry and government. To better reflect the organization's successful development into more entrepreneurial and economic development activity, the organization was renamed in June 2013 to Missouri Innovation Corporation. Governed by a Board of Directors from various private and public organizations/entities across the region appointed by the Board of Regents of Southeast Missouri State University, the MIC is a regional tool for economic development, commercialization of technology, and conduit for the University to create regional impact. The MIC shares staff with the Institute for Regional Innovation and Entrepreneurship (IRIE), as well as University staff, for the combined purpose of promoting innovation in business and creating regional opportunity for entrepreneurship. For more information, contact or team@innovationmic.org. AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 3

4 Executive Summary This study was conducted to determine the feasibility of developing an agriculture technology incubator in the Missouri Bootheel. Exploring new and innovative ways to support the agricultural ecosystem is an investment that needs to be made today to meet the increasing demand for food in decades to come. The Missouri Bootheel s agricultural history, resources, and regional experts puts it in a position to take a leading role in developing the next innovations and solutions to food production. The central purpose of this study was to find new opportunities to encourage entrepreneurial and innovative behavior within the agricultural ecosystem. The proposed concept for this purpose is to create an ag-tech incubator. An ag-tech incubator would be dedicated to exploring new ways to leverage existing resources and create new opportunities for the current and next generation of agricultural farmers and professionals. The feasibility for this ag-tech incubator in the Bootheel was evaluated using a combination of regional data concerning agricultural businesses, agriculture census, industry trends and clusters, and stakeholder interviews and surveys. The findings in this study suggest the following recommendation: Support the development of a virtual incubator serving farmers and agricultural entrepreneurs who are developing value-added agricultural initiatives and engaging in innovative activities in the region. It is recommended that the ag-tech incubator project is broken into two phases: Phase I - Develop a service-based virtual ag-tech incubator with the primary purpose of providing training, support, and resources for regional agricultural businesses to implement and use new ag-tech solutions. Phase II - Explore the need for a physical building to house a agriculture and technology focused incubator to support entrepreneurial ag-focused start-ups. The knowledge and feedback gained in Phase I will help determine if there is a true need and use to invest in Phase II. The current evidence suggests that most farmers and agriculture businesses would benefit the most from a resource center that can go on the road to meet clients at their operations. AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 4

5 Part 1. Introduction There is high interest in improving the economic prospects of the Bootheel region in southeast Missouri. The Bootheel consists of six counties, Dunklin, Mississippi, New Madrid, Pemiscot, Scott, and Stoddard (see Figure 1). Concern about the economy of the Bootheel has been heightened recently by the closure of an aluminum smelting plant in New Madrid County that resulted in the loss of nearly 900 jobs (Barker, 2016). One revitalization strategy to consider is entrepreneurship and small business development. Entrepreneurship has proven to be a key driver for economic recovery and long-term job creation. A recent publication by the Delta Regional Authority reported that locally owned businesses with nine or fewer employees were responsible for 91% of job gains in the Delta region over the past 18 years (Stapleton, 2012). Bootheel map w state borders Figure 1. The Bootheel Region of Missouri Scott County Stoddard County Mississippi County New Madrid County Dunklin County Pemiscot County Source: 2015 Esri. Source: Map created in Business Analyst Online, ESRI 2015 Esri February 09, 2016 Page 1 of 1 One industry in the Bootheel in which entrepreneurs might flourish is agriculture. The Bootheel is an agricultural powerhouse, producing 25% of the total agricultural product of the state of Missouri (Area Development, 2008). Leaders in the Bootheel believe that valueadded agriculture might be an avenue leading to additional income and jobs for the region. AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 5

6 Their idea is to encourage innovation and entrepreneurship in agriculture in order to capture more of the value of the massive agricultural production. Leaders have proposed the concept of an agricultural technology incubator to serve the region. A business incubator typically provides flexible space to companies and specialized technical assistance with production, marketing, and business planning. Recently, there has been an increase in the number of specialized incubators that focus on particular sectors. For example, an agricultural technology incubator specializes in companies that are bringing new technological innovations to farming and agriculture. Certainly, new technology will be required to feed the world s population. By 2050, the world s population will grow to 9 billion and the demand for food, feed, and fiber will nearly double. A growing middle-class in the developing world are increasingly consuming more meat, fish, dairy, and processed foods. These types of food in particular put high demands on agricultural production. It is estimated that to meet the increasing worldwide food demand, food production must increase by 70% over the next 40 years (FAO, 2009). This increased demand for agricultural products will put increased pressure on scarce resources, including water, soil, and nutrients. Agriculture will be required to produce more food with fewer resources and farmers. The Kauffman Foundation (Dutia, 2014) has identified five key reasons why investing in ag-tech innovations will be beneficial: (1) Grain consumption is increasing worldwide (2) Demand for sustainable energy is growing (3) Access to quality arable land and soil is constrained (4) Access to adequate water quality and quantity is decreasing (5) Current cultural practices are not sustainable in the face of increasing environmental challenges. Developments and innovations in agricultural technologies is the only way to meet these new demands. There must be a dedicated effort to reduce the need for fossil fuel, fertilizer, water, and land requirements for food production. The key word to longterm success for food production is sustainability. In practical terms this means increasing productivity without using up more resources, which can only be achieved through innovative solutions to food production practices. Fortunately, it appears that more and more stakeholders are waking up to the realization that these looming problems can and should be solved now. This is evident by looking at what is going on in both public and private initiatives and investments. In the first half of 2015 there AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 6

7 was approximately $2.06 billion invested in ag-tech companies. This is almost as much as the total amount invested in the entire year of 2014 (Tilney & Leclerc, 2015). Other evidence comes from Monsanto s venture capital group, Monsanto Growth Ventures (MVG), whose stated goal is to invest a minimum of $150 million in ag-tech related start-ups by 2020 (Feldt, 2016). In 2015 alone MVG invested in 11 ag-tech startups around the world, several of which were based in the Midwest. Another new trend supporting the agricultural industry is the emergence of ag/food focused incubators. St. Louis University recently launched a food incubator on their campus as a way to promote more entrepreneurial behavior in the food market. The Bootheel region is uniquely positioned to take part in solving these challenges. There are close to 2,500 farms in the region. While this is only around 2.5% of Missouri s farms, the land used for farming adds up to 6.5% of Missouri s farm land, showing that the concentration of agriculture is very high in the region. Data also shows that the average age of farmers in the region has been increasing, which means that now is the time for investing in revitalizing the agriculture industry and community. A significant increase in the number of students majoring in agricultural studies at regional colleges provides strong evidence for a growing interest in the field. Capturing this momentum of investment dollars, technological advances, and interest by the next generation is critical to the long-term success and health of the Bootheel region s economy. A recent initiative in the region provides more evidence for the importance of investing in agricultural technology innovations. Southeast Missouri State University received a Rural Business Development Grant (RBDG) of $40,000. This grant will be used to invest in new rice technology equipment that will support research and develop efforts for new, sustainable production methods for more efficient rice production. In addition to creating better production methods, it is also estimated that the new knowledge and innovations springing from the research opportunities will create 10 new agriculture related businesses in the next five years. Examples of Agricultural Technology Of course, the use of technology is agriculture is not a new thing. Ever since the invention of the metal hoe, farmers and scientists have been developing new ways to farm and new varieties of crops to produce. However, with advances in computing and information technology, there has been an explosion of new innovations in agriculture. Here are a few examples (Stiligo, 2014): AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 7

8 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). UAVs can reduce the time and expense of scouting fields to examine crop conditions and to determine the location of serious crop problems that need to be addressed. Variable-Rate-Application (VAR) Seeding. VAR seeding allows the farmer to vary the seed population and depth and change the genetics of the seeding. Interest in VAR seeding has been helped by the introduction of electric drives for seeding which reduce maintenance costs. Data Solutions. Growers are accumulating site-specific data from their own fields and integrating it with soils and weather databases. This is allowing farmers to be more precise in applying pesticides, fertilizer, and other inputs. Sensors and In-Cab Solutions. On-board sensors, air and soil sensors, monitors, and controllers capture data and improve management of data. These data can be shared with advisors and service providers to improve decision-making. Purpose of the study This study will examine the market feasibility for an agricultural-related incubator in the region and, if one is deemed feasible, to recommend an approach to establishing the incubator. Two key questions are considered: 1) What is the demand within the region for services offered by an incubator? and 2) which incubator concept, if any, can best meet that demand? Overview of the report The report proceeds in four more parts. In Part 2, different types of incubators and the services they provide are explored and discussed. Although there is not an incubator currently serving the Bootheel, those incubators closest to the region are identified and their characteristics are described. In Part 3, the market for incubator services in the region is analyzed. Two main methods of gathering information are used. First, secondary data sources describe the economy of the Bootheel region, especially the dynamics of business start-ups and industrial composition. A portrait of the agriculture sector in the Bootheel is also presented. The second source of information is from interviews and a survey conducted with knowledgeables, including farmers, economic developers, port authority managers, Extension agents, faculty from Southeast Missouri State, and other stakeholders from the region. AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 8

9 The market research evaluates the potential for ag-related entrepreneurship in the region, including: Characteristics of the region, including its location and access to nearby cities, such as St. Louis, Nashville, and Memphis Employment trends in the region, including job changes by size of firm Agricultural jobs in the region Measuring the importance of agriculture to the local economy Profile of the agriculture sector, including number and size of farms, production of crops, value of farms Number of business start-ups in the region Examples of innovations in new products, production methods by farmers in the region Regional resources available to support agricultural entrepreneurs Attitudes and future plans of young Bootheel residents now majoring in agriculture at Southeast Missouri State University Part 4 provides a brief summary overview of the key characteristics of the regions agricultural ecosystem. The summary outlines the core strengths and challenges identified during the research process presented in this report. In section 5, recommendations are presented for the type and structure of the incubator. The findings suggest that incubator services are in demand by farmers and entrepreneurs in the region. However, it is recommended that the incubator be broader in scope to include not just new technologies, but to include all innovations that potentially increase value added to ag production. For example, a farmer wanting to add a new crop or to become an organic producer would be eligible to receive assistance from the incubator. Furthermore, it is recommended that first step towards an ag-tech incubator is developed as a virtual incubator. At this time a building does not seem like a good investment. Instead, streamlined, coordinated services to agricultural entrepreneurs are the priority. Section 5 concludes with suggestions for the development of the virtual incubator concept. An outline of key considerations for a full ag-tech incubator with a dedicated building are presented as an option to be explored in the next decade. AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 9

10 Part 2. Incubation in Practice Business incubators were introduced in the 1950s, with their numbers expanding rapidly during the next two decades. The first incubators focused on manufacturing, a focus that continued until the 1990s. These incubators typically provided flexible, and inexpensive, space with access to specialized industrial equipment and technical assistance to firms in the early stages of their development. Startup firms were expected to graduate to conventional space after three to six years. However, a challenge faced by incubators is that many companies had difficulty leaving and establishing a site on their own (Place Dynamics, n.d.). Market specific incubators began to emerge in the 1990 s in the form of life sciences, biosciences, information technology and other technical and scientific fields. These incubators have been successful in markets where there is a grouping, or cluster, of related firms, such as the cluster of bio-technology firms in Madison, Wisconsin. More recently, creative arts incubators have been added as a specialized incubator to encourage interaction and fostering of new ideas among creative individuals in the arts, engineering, and design. In some cases, creative arts incubators offer retail space for clients to sell goods or services. Technology incubators have increased dramatically in recent years. Technology incubators often include open co-working spaces, access to high-speed Internet, special technical equipment, dedicated mentoring programs, business plan competitions, networking events, and other support resources. In the early 2000s, a new model of incubation arose when economic development organizations turned to virtual incubation. A virtual incubator does not offer multi-tenant space and, instead concentrates on delivering technical assistance and advice, often through a network of partner organizations each with its own area of expertise. A virtual incubator provides these services either through electronic means or personal contact. This strategy eliminates the need for the organization to raise capital for physical space and to pay for operating costs related to that space. AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 10

11 Regional Incubators Evaluating the market presence of existing incubators in the state and region is important when evaluating the feasibility of a regional ag-tech incubator. While there are no incubators currently in the Bootheel region, there are four nearby incubators within a 30 mile radius of the edge of the Bootheel. These incubators focus on manufacturing, service, technology, and creative arts. Each of the four incubators are described below: Ozark Foothills Development Association 3019 Fair St., Poplar Bluff, MO The Business Incubator provides new and expanding businesses with economical space and services. Its goal is to help start-ups and growing businesses through the critical period of product/process development and the establishment of markets. The incubator is currently 100% full with a 5,000 square foot expansion planned for Located within the Business Incubator are six industrial spaces ranging in size from approximately 2,000 square feet to 5,000 square feet. Rent for the spaces has been established at $2.05 per square foot per year. Spaces can be combined to provide larger area for companies requiring more square footage. Each unit is self-contained, separately metered, and has direct access to a loading/delivery bay area. Listed below are the approximate sizes for each space: Space ,300 square feet Ozark Work Steps Space ,700 square feet Ozark Foothills Industrial Medicine Clinic Space ,000 square feet Aramark Space ,000 square feet American Tool and Plastics Space ,700 square feet American Tool and Plastics Space ,300 square feet American Tool and Plastics The remaining spaces in the Business Incubator house offices for the support staff, a conference and kitchen facility, and other storage, bathrooms, etc. There are approximately 20,000 square feet in the industrial area, and 5,000 square feet in the office area. AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 11

12 Services include: Professional receptionist Telephone answering services Consulting services Computer services Business planning assistance Financial planning assistance Marketing assistance Office layout assistance Loan application assistance Tenant placement assistance Library & information center Seminars Copying/clerical services Secretarial/clerical services Conference room Douglas C. Greene Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship 920 Broadway St., Cape Girardeau, MO The Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship (CIE) incubator at Southeast Missouri State University houses two technology firms, one international student-based program, two entrepreneur support organizations, an educational training program, and the offices of the Institute for Regional Innovation and Entrepreneurship (IRIE). One of the entrepreneurship support organizations located inside the CIE is the Small Business and Technology Development Center (SBTDC). Their primary purpose is to provide free business consulting to entrepreneurs and small businesses throughout the Southeast Missouri region. The services in the CIE include: Training rooms Conference room Dedicated mail for tenants Multiple office space Catapult Creative House 612 Broadway, Cape Girardeau, MO AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY SBTDC counseling center Receptionist Educational training sessions High speed internet access 12

13 Catapult Creative House was launched in May 2015 as a student-driven creative incubator. The aim is to promote and support entrepreneurial students, as well as create a networking space between students of different disciplines. In its first year more than 30 students have become vendors at Catapult selling creations ranging from artwork to jewelry to clothing and coffee. Catapult services including: Coffee bar 3D printers Art gallery space Letterpress Photo and paint shop Conference space High speed internet Training room Retail store front Codefi 339 Broadway St., Cape Girardeau, MO Codefi opened their doors in late 2014 as the region s first co-working space. While not a traditional incubator, the main focus on providing opportunities for entrepreneurs to create and develop their ideas while building a network of likeminded entrepreneurs and supporters. The team behind Codefi have brought several entrepreneurship focused events to their facilities, including 1 Million Cups, Google Startup Weekend, meet the experts, and a business plan competition. AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 13

14 Members of Codefi have access to high speed internet, coffee, kitchen, meeting rooms, networking events, mail delivery, and more. Dedicated office space have also been added to startups in need of private office space outside of the open co-working area. Summary of the Neighboring Incubators The foci of these four regional incubators are summarized below. Name and Location of Incubator Focus Ozark Foothills Development Association, Poplar Bluff Greene Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Cape Girardeau Catapult Creative House, Cape Girardeau Codefi, Cape Girardeau Manufacturing Service Creative Arts Technology Obviously, none of these incubators has a specialization in agriculture. Furthermore, the only incubator that might have a workable space for an agricultural company is the Ozark Foothills Development Association. The other incubators are essentially composed of conference rooms and office spaces, not necessarily what is needed by an agricultural company. Furthermore, the incubators are significant distance from many towns in the Bootheel. It is difficult to see how entrepreneurs in Kennett (Dunklin County) or Portageville (New Madrid and Pemiscott Counties) could effectively utilize their services. These incubators have their clientele, but are not in a position to provide extensive services to agricultural entrepreneurs in the Bootheel. Ag-Tech Incubators There are currently no incubators in or near the Bootheel region with a direct focus on supporting and developing the ag-tech industry. There are, however, many examples of agtech focused incubators throughout the Midwest. Some follow a standard incubator model of providing a physical space for startups to work, while others function more as business support incubators with financial and business consulting services. The Yield Lab 1100 Corporate Square, Creve Coeur, MO 63132, St Louis The Yield Lab is an accelerator program that brings together new innovative technologies focused on improving productivity, enhancing knowledge, eroding boundaries, and merging historically independent ecosystems into a more cohesive agricultural system. When a AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 14

15 business is accepted into the accelerator they receive $100,000 in funding along with training, mentoring, and networking opportunities. Each year four to eight companies are accepted into the nine month program. Great Lakes Ag-Tech Incubator Fillmore Street, rm 260, West Olive, MI This ag-tech incubator opened in December 2014 after a USDA grant funded feasibility study was completed for their region. The study showed that their ag-tech industry did not need a physical space for the incubator, but rather have access to customized consulting services. The incubator vets each applicant and only selects those that fit with their mission to advance the ag-tech industry. Since opening they have accepted four ag-tech businesses into their 3- year process. During the process they help the business identify the equipment needed, develop the necessary software, and create a strong business plan. The Great Lakes Ag-Tech Incubator team currently consists of four people, with plans to add an additional member in the next 12 months. Agriculture Incubator Foundation Middleton Pike, Bowling Green, OH This incubator was developed by a group of farmers, agribusiness representatives, researchers and educators who wanted to create an agricultural facility that would incorporate teaching and research as well as crop production and processing. The facility includes rentable farmland for research and testing, six greenhouses, and a main building with offices and a conference room. The incubator also houses a kitchen incubator and industrial freezer capabilities. Ennovation Center 201 N Forset Ave, Independence, MO This is a mixed use incubator that provides commercial kitchen space to food-based startups. The kitchen co-working space includes six kitchens, fully stocked with all necessary equipment and appliances, freezing and storage, a doc area for large deliveries, and a resource room where members can conduct business meeting, print labels, and develop the business side of their startup. AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 15

16 Part 3. Agriculture Market Research Analyzing the regional economy is an important factor when determining the feasibility of an ag-tech incubator. The market structure, presence, and the ability to maintain such a concept is driven by the review and consideration of key regional data that projects if further study or investment are needed. Without this foundation and proper study, the opportunity for success is greatly diminished and can be demonstrated by projects or facilities that are underperforming or vacant. Bootheel Location The Bootheel region has a locational advantage in that it is positioned to serve markets in both the Midwest and the Mid- South. The Bootheel region has a favorable location for the shipment of agricultural commodities and for transporting fruits, vegetables, and specialized products to metropolitan markets. The Bootheel has nearly 200 miles of access on the Mississippi River with ports at Scott City (Southeast Missouri Regional Port), Caruthersville (Pemiscot County Port) and New Madrid (New Madrid County Port). Figure mile Radius from the Center of the Bootheel Source: Business Analyst Online, ESRI The region is served by both the BSNF and Union Pacific railroads. Interstate 55 runs northsouth through the middle of the region. There is also ready access to I-57 and I-155. For fresh vegetables, fruits, and specialized local foods, it is important to have access to metropolitan markets. As Figure 2 indicates, the Bootheel region is within 150 miles (a three-hour drive) of St. Louis, Nashville, and Memphis. Even Chicago is within a day s truck drive (450 miles from Kennett). AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 16

17 Agricultural Census The Agricultural Census provides an overview of agriculture in the Bootheel. Here are important facts about the industry overall in the Bootheel. More detailed information is provided in Appendix II. Farms size is increasing. In 2012 the total number of farms in the Bootheel was 2,485, with an average size of 743 acres. This was roughly 387 fewer farms than in 2007, equal to a decrease of 13.5%. While the number of farms had decreased, the average farm size had increased by 59 acres over that same time period. The same trend was seen across Missouri where the number of farms deceased by approximately 8%, but the average size increased from 269 acres in 2007 to 285 in This indicates a shift in the industry towards fewer, but larger farms. The county with the largest share of farms in the Bootheel is Stoddard with approximately 36-37% of regional farms. Farms are either small or very large. There are a approximately 1,638,547 acres of harvested cropland in the Bootheel, which makes up 12.7% of the harvested cropland in Missouri. There are many medium sized farms, with the majority of farms being between 50 and 179 acres. The second most common size category is 1,000 or more acres. Another aspect of farm dynamics is the number of operators per farm. In 2012 there were approximately 3,667 operators spread out over the region s 2,485 farms. Considering the decline in total farms from 2007 to 2012 it is no surprise that the number of operators declined by 596 operators over this period. The majority of farms, approximately 62%, have only one operator, while 21-22% have two operators. The remaining 16-17% have three or more operators. Large farms dominate sales. Approximately 40%, or 997, farms in the Bootheel have annual sales exceeding $100,000. Another 28%, 686 farms, have annual sales between $5,000 and $99,999. The remaining 32%, or 802 farms, have sales under $5,000. These number shows a strong presence of high volume farming in the Bootheel. The Bootheels main focus of production is on commodity crops; they produce about 20% of Missouri s corn, 9% of its wheat, and 25% of its winter wheat. Crop sales dominate. Sales from agricultural production in the Bootheel is a $1.2 billion industry annually. Sales can be split into two categories: crop and livestock. More than 90% of regional sales come from crop sales such as cotton, rice, wheat, soybeans, and corn. The other 10% from livestock sales is found almost exclusively in Scott and Stoddard counties, which both rank in the top 10 counties statewide on chicken inventory. AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 17

18 High value of land and machinery. The average market value of farm operations is significantly higher in the region as compared to the rest of farms in Missouri. In 2012 the estimated market value of farm land and buildings averaged $3.6 million in the Bootheel, while the Missouri average was $795,444. The 2012 estimated market value of farm machinery and equipment in the Bootheel averaged $348,103 per farm, while the state average was only $88,960. This shows that the region s farmers have tremendous wealth in their assets which needs to be protected by staying competitive and innovative. Significant income from farm operations. The average income per farm in the Bootheel is $194,206, while in Missouri the average is $20,053. This implies that farmers in the region have great economic impact, as compared to farms in the rest of the state. Averages, however, can only reveal so much. It is likely that the number of large farms in the region are pulling this average up significantly. This suggests the presence of several high networth farmers in the area. The long-term success of an ag-tech incubator is greatly increased if the region s wealthy farmers are interested in partnering or supporting the project. Farmers are aging. The average age of principle farm operators in the Bootheel in 2012 was 57 years old, up from an average of 55 years old in Approximately 93% of principle farm operators in the region are over the age of 35. The increasing age of farmers is a concern nationwide as both private and public groups research ways to attract young people to agricultural professions. Increasing agriculture intensive education/training is a good start towards promoting success and retention of the next generation of farmers. Irrigation is vitally important. Another strength in the Bootheel is the abundance of water. The six counties contain 860,669 acres of irrigated land which makes up 73% of all irrigated land in Missouri. Because a large percentage of cropland in the Bootheel already has established irrigation systems, increasing the efficiency of irrigation through advanced technology could be a major area of interest for ag-tech entrepreneurs and innovators. High-speed internet access is becoming more important. One critical condition to technological advancement is access to the internet. Rural areas have historically been at a disadvantage in getting access to internet services as compared to more urban areas. In 2012 a reported 71% of farms had internet access, and that number is likely higher today. As farms are becoming larger, information technology is becoming more important in their management and is a necessary tool in almost all operations. AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 18

19 Counties Vary in Agricultural Production Agricultural production in the Bootheel is a diverse endeavor in terms of crops and livestock. Because of the diverse nature of agricultural production it is important to review each county individually to identify key areas of agricultural strength in the region. 1. Dunklin County has the largest number of acres in Missouri dedicated to cotton production at more than 110,000 acres. Other major crops grown in the county include soybeans, rice, and corn for grain. For livestock inventory the county ranks among the highest for chicken and colonies of bees. 2. Mississippi County ranks in the top 5 on acres in Missouri on several crops including soybeans for beans, wheat for grain, and vegetables harvested. The county has more than 250,000 acres of farmland dedicated to these crops. The county also shows strong inventory numbers on chicken. 3. New Madrid County is another county with a large number of acres dedicated to crop production. The two biggest crops grown here are soybeans for beans and cotton. Corn and wheat are also grown in large numbers. The county has little in terms of livestock inventory. 4. Pemiscot County has the second largest number of acres in Missouri dedicated to rice crops. Similar to the rest of the region, the county also has large farmlands dedicated to soybeans, cotton, and corn crops. 5. Scott County is among the strongest in the state on farm acres for wheat crops, but also has a large number of acres dedicated to soybeans and corn. More unique to the region is Scott County s large inventory of broilers and other meat-type chickens, as well as roosters. 6. Stoddard County has more than 340,000 acres of farmland dedicated to soybeans, corn, cotton, and wheat. Beyond crop farming the county also has Missouri s sixth largest inventory of broilers and other meat-type chickens. Considering the region as a whole and it is clear that the Bootheel is one of the nation s major producers of several crops; soybeans, wheat, cotton, and rice. On the livestock side the region also produces a staggering amount of chicken. What all of these have in common is that they are high demand commodity products used in multiple food items. They are also the type of crops and livestock where even a little increase in production efficiency and sustainability can have massive impact on both the regional and national economy. AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 19

20 Jobs in Agriculture Jobs in agricultural occupations are important to the Bootheel. The Bureau of the Census defines agricultural occupations to include farmers, ranchers, agricultural managers, farm labor contractors, farmworkers and laborers, agricultural engineers, agricultural and food science technicians, agricultural inspectors, and agricultural equipment operators. From 2001 to 2015 the number of regional jobs in these occupations increased by 14.4%, compared to a national change of -3.9%. Obviously, this sector is performing very strongly in the Bootheel compared to the nation as a whole. This translates into roughly 622 jobs created over the time period reaching a total of 4,937 jobs in The average hourly earnings in 2015 was $11.76, nearly equal to the national average of $12.01/hr. Therefore, agricultural jobs comprise more than 7% of total employment in the Bootheel region. This does not include the auxiliary businesses supported by agriculture, such as equipment dealers. Overall, this indicates that the region has a strong foundation of skilled individuals in agriculture-related occupations. Employment Trends The National Establishment Time Series (NETS) data provides detailed insights into job dynamics in the region. NETS shows the number of jobs within different establishment sizes. The size breakdown is as follows: self-employed, 2 to 9 employees, 10 to 99 employees, 100 to 499 employees, and 500 or more employees. When looking at this data it is important to understand the definition of an establishment. An establishment is considered a business unit that provides goods or services at a single physical location. This means that if a company has two or more locations in the region, each location and corresponding jobs are counted separately. Additionally, the data looks at jobs rather than just full-time employees, so it includes part-time employees, undocumented workers, and people working more than one job (See Appendix III for detailed NETS data). Overall Trends The goal is to get a broad perspective on entrepreneurial/small business behavior in the region. An ag-tech incubator is more likely to be successful if there is an existing foundation of entrepreneurial activity, both within and outside of the ag-tech industries. Therefore, the first step is to look at overall job dynamics in the region. AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 20

21 40,000 30,000 Bootheel Employment Trends 31,886 29,596 20,000 10, ,548 16,823 11,199 12,525 7,316 2,616 2,613 3,448 Self-emplyed 2 to 9 10 to to Figure 3. Bootheel Employment Trends Source: National Establishment Time Series, " Overall, the region increased from 67,550 jobs in 2002 to 69,020 jobs in The increase of 1,470 jobs came entirely from establishments with fewer than 500 employees. In fact, jobs in the largest establishments with more than 500 employees declined by 3,868 jobs, while the number of jobs in establishments with fewer than 500 employees increased by 5,338. This fits with a general trend in the broader national economy where more and more jobs are found in small and medium sized companies. For the Bootheel region this analysis illustrates the crucial role of small businesses in driving the economy. Industry Trends The next step is to look more closely at jobs in industries relevant to entrepreneurial behavior in ag-tech related industries. The total employment in the Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting (henceforth shortened to agriculture ) industry accounted for 4.7% of regional jobs in This is equivalent to 3,244 jobs. The number of jobs did not change much over the last decade as there were only 6 fewer jobs in 2013 than in The breakdown of jobs based on establishment sizes reveals that all jobs in the agriculture industry are found in establishments with fewer than 100 employees. This is perhaps not surprising, but does reinforce the idea that support for agriculture businesses should be based on a small business format. AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 21

22 3,000 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting Employment Trends 2,250 1, Self-employed Figure 4. Ag Related Employment Trends Source: National Establishment Time Series, " From year to year there appears to be little change within each establishment size bracket. Any change is likely caused by some establishments reducing or adding a few people and thus changing to a new size bracket. For example, the downward trend in the 2-9 bracket from 2002 to 2006 corresponds with a small upward trend in the bracket, indicating that some establishments grew into the bracket in those years. 3,000 Accommodation and Food Services Employment Trends 2,250 1, Self-employed Figure 5. Food Related Employment Trends Source: National Establishment Time Series, AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 22

23 " Another industry to take a closer look at is Accommodation and Food Services, which accounted for 6.1% of regional jobs in This is equivalent to 4,202 jobs. The total number of jobs increase by 972 between 2002 and While this industry includes businesses such as hotels and bed & breakfast s, it also accounts for jobs from restaurants and caterers. These are possible stakeholders that can contribute and benefit from an increased focused on ag-tech and food innovations in the region. The trend in recent years points directly to an increase in jobs from establishments with 2 to 9 and 10 to 99 employees. These are the ideal candidates for supporting the concepts discussed in this study. The last industry to observe is manufacturing. While this industry includes jobs from a wide range of manufacturing companies, it is included for two reasons: (1) food/animal product manufacturing is part of the data, and (2) ag-tech innovations often need access to various manufacturing components and knowledge in the development stage. In 2013, jobs in manufacturing accounted for 10.5% of regional employment. The biggest challenge in this industry is the high job loss over the last decade, with jobs in the Bootheel region declining by 3,734 from 2002 to The challenges facing manufacturing are not limited to the Bootheel region, as the industry has experienced a large job loss throughout the entire country. 5,000 Manufacturing 3,750 2,500 1, Self-employed Figure 6. Manufacturing Related Employment Trends Source: National Establishment Time Series, AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 23

24 The data reveals that the majority of manufacturing jobs are found in medium and large establishments. Jobs from establishments with fewer than 10 employees amounted to only a little over 500 in But as mentioned above, the value of having manufacturing companies in the region comes from both small and large companies. The large ones are more likely to have relevant resources, equipment, expertise, and connections that can support entrepreneurial and innovative ideas being developed in an ag-tech incubator. Looking at the trends in these three industries, along with the overall job pattern, and there appears to be good evidence for a market in the Bootheel region that could support the development and success of an ag-tech incubator. More jobs in small and medium sized establishments indicates a need for more focus on small business support. A strong presence of industry that can support such a concept appears to be evident as well. Business Start-Ups in the Bootheel A critical question is whether there is enough entrepreneurial activity in the Bootheel to justify the expenses related to an incubator. Will there be a sufficient number of entrepreneurs seeking assistance? Table 3 indicates that entrepreneurship is alive and well in the Bootheel. In fact, over a tenyear period ( ), entrepreneurs started 7,930 establishments in the Bootheel. This means that 800 businesses were started in the average year. Undoubtedly, many were homebased businesses started in spare rooms or garages to bring in extra income. More than 90% of these companies started with 1-9 employees. Unfortunately, the data do not permit us to separate out the number of agriculture-related businesses. Table 1. Total Start-Up Establishments in the Bootheel ( ) County Total number of start-ups over 10 years Dunklin 1,960 Mississippi 670 New Madrid 1,060 Pemiscot 760 Scott 1,840 Stoddard 1,640 Total Region 7,930 Source: National Establishment Time Series and authors calculations (data from youreconomy.org) AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 24

25 Industry Cluster The concept of industry clusters was developed to help get a better understanding of how businesses interact across sectors. Cluster data also recognizes that industries in related sectors tend to cluster together geographically. This can provide a more detailed look into a region s competitive strength. The tool used for this report comes from the Economic Modeling Specialists Intl. (EMSI). This data uses a static overview from rd quarter Bureau of Labor Statistics Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data. The cluster definitions are based on the U.S. Cluster Mapping Project methodology for cluster definitions. The region s average cluster score is 26 (out of 100) points. This is not a benchmark against other regions; it only compares the relative performance of regional clusters to each other. Clusters ranked higher than 26 are above average for the region, while clusters ranked lower than 26 are below average. Top clusters must have a score of at least 34, while bottom clusters must have a score of 18 or less. These thresholds are determined by applying the average deviation (plus or minus 8) to the average cluster score 26. As described above, the cluster data from EMSI only compares the relative performance of the region s clusters to each other. This means that cluster scores don t directly show anything about how competitive a cluster is on a broader scale, i.e. against the rest of the economy. However, while the ranking is not a direct benchmark against the national market, the performance metrics used to calculate the cluster scores have been set to emphasize job growth and competitiveness (where competitiveness is measured by regional job growth as compared to the national average job growth from the cluster). This allows the rankings to favor clusters with exceptional job growth more heavily. The main conclusion that can be drawn from these cluster scores is which clusters are most likely to have the foundation to create regional competitive strengths. From the top 10 regional clusters there are three that clearly would support the development and long-term success of an ag-tech incubator. These three have been highlighted in bold. AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 25

26 " Table Clusters Bootheel - Top 10 Upstream Metal Manufacturing 79 Food Processing and Manufacturing 48 Electric Power Generation and Transmission 46 Local Government Services 42 Local Education and Training 41 Agricultural Inputs and Services 41 State Government Services 40 Furniture 36 Local Financial Services 35 Local Utilities 34 Source: Economic Modeling, Inc., 2015 Score The Food Processing and Manufacturing cluster would help ensure access to a foundation of skills, knowledge, and experience in how food processes can be optimized. The strength of this cluster may also prove valuable for developing a network within the food processing value chain (e.g. supplier relationships, access to logistics networks, etc.). The Local Education and Training cluster is less directly involved in ag-tech or food innovations, but important to this study because ensuring a strong foundation of educational resources will be vital to programs and training opportunities within the ag-tech incubator. The Agricultural Inputs and Services is perhaps the most relevant cluster for the purposes of this study. Proving that the region does indeed have a strong foundation in agricultural processes, production, cultivation, farming, etc. is essential to showing that the region has the right foundation for fostering its ag-tech industry. With a score of 41 this cluster is among the top performing industry clusters in the Bootheel. Regional Resources Supporting Agriculture Industry There are many resources in the region that might be able to help a farmer or entrepreneur seeking to innovate with a new product. AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 26

27 Three Rivers Community College (TRC) has its main campus in Poplar Bluff, with satellite campuses in Dexter, Kennett, Malden, and Sikeston. Three Rivers Community College offers an associate degree in agriculture. There were 59 students were enrolled in agriculture focused majors in Fall 2014 and 61 in Fall 2013 (Three Rivers College, 2016). Furthermore, Three Rivers has a grant-sponsored project in precision agriculture. Southeast Missouri State University has its main campus at Cape Girardeau and satellite campuses in Kennett, Malden, and Sikeston. Southeast offers a bachelor s degree in agribusiness through the Department of Agriculture. The number of students declaring agribusiness as a major has grown to 430 in Fall 2015 from 160 in Fall The department has the facilities to support these growing student numbers. These facilities include an 11,660-square-foot greenhouse, an agriculture research center, a 110 acre rice research farm, and an alternative agriculture garden. Southeast just recently opened a new horticultural laboratory in Kennett that will be used for soil and plant science courses, but also will be used to provide extension services to farmers. The university also recently announced that they will add a drone program to their curriculum, which will be in collaboration with the agriculture department. Career and Technology Centers are located in Hayti, Kennett, and Sikeston. These provide educational and training opportunities for both youth and adults. The University of Missouri Extension Service has an office in each county with staff and educators providing training on agriculture topics. For example, the MU Extension office in Dunklin supports pesticide applicator training, a community garden, and individual consultation. The Stoddard office has assisted entrepreneurs in expanding or starting their agricultural businesses by providing technical support and helping access sources of startup capital. The MU Extension offices also support the 4-H program, which is a youth development program that builds skills in leadership, family life, arts, and farming for the next generation of leaders in rural America. The Fisher Delta Center is part of the Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station system of the University of Missouri. The Center has Ph.D. level staff in agronomy, soil science, weed science, and entomology who are researching cotton and rice production, irrigation, soybean and corn cropping systems, and weed, insect and disease-control systems. Research projects are funded through grants from private companies and public agencies. The Delta Center is an outstanding resource for commodity farmers to learn of the best approaches to maximize yields on their farms. The nearest Small Business Development and Technology Center (SBDTC) is located in Cape Girardeau but serves the Bootheel with regularly scheduled visits to Kennett, AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 27

28 Malden, and Sikeston. The SBTDC offers free business consulting to entrepreneurs or those operating a small business. The SBTDC provides assistance with business plans, financial plans, marketing plans, and specific problem-solving. Furthermore, the SBDTC also prepares entrepreneurs for meetings with bankers and other funders and, also can link entrepreneurs with revolving loan programs, such as one offered by the Missouri Innovation Corporation. The Bootheel Regional Planning and Economic Development Commission has two revolving loan funds (RLF) available. The RLFs serve as gap financing tools that can help provide the needed funding to a business that can only obtain part of the desired loan from a bank or other lender. Outside of the Bootheel region there are also RLFs available to can be used by businesses located in the Bootheel. The Missouri Innovation Corporation have two RLFs available to help fund small and medium sized businesses. Chambers of Commerce are important business organizations in Dexter, Kennett, Scott City, and Sikeston. The Chambers are valuable in creating networking opportunities with business owners and in promoting new enterprises. They also may be able to direct entrepreneurs to professionals who provide legal, accounting, marketing, and other assistance. Professional economic developers are available in Kennett, Malden, and Sikeston, among other towns. Economic developers are well-connected to opportunities and resources within the business community. They also may be able to provide business advice and counseling. Private agribusinesses, such as Monsanto and Pioneer, have tremendous expertise in agricultural production and are a valuable resource for farmers and entrepreneurs. Stakeholder Survey A survey was created to measure multiple aspects of the agricultural industry in the Bootheel. The survey was distributed to agricultural stakeholders from the region to get their input on specific needs, challenges, and opportunities related to ag-tech. For the survey results to be relevant, it was important to ensure that the demographic profile of respondents was representative of the region s agricultural stakeholders. In choosing our sample, we made sure to include a normal age distribution, geographic distribution, educational attainment distribution, and variety in respondent s employment. Regional representativeness was largely met on all four aspects. Respondent s ages ranged from 25 to AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 28

29 74. A majority of respondents had college degrees, but at least 15% had less than a college degree. Every county in the Bootheel was represented, although Dunklin County was somewhat overrepresented. Respondent s employment included farmers, business owners, service providers, non-farm business employees, and others. The survey was split into five sections. Each section is intended to help analyze and describe a specific aspect of the agricultural industry in the region. Bootheel Competitiveness The survey asked respondents several questions to measure the region s competitiveness in the agricultural industry. The first question rated the region as a place to start and run an agricultural business. More than 70% considered the Bootheel to be an above average or excellent place to have an agricultural business. The next two questions focused on the willingness of agricultural companies and farmers to invest in advanced technology and job creation. Respondents were very positive about the willingness to invest in advanced technology with almost 60% rating this above average or excellent. The willingness to invest in job creation was rated less favorably with only a little over 30% rating this above average or excellent. The last question concerning the region s competitiveness asked respondents to rank which entities should put the most effort into job creation in the region. Respondents were very clear on who should take the lead on this; individuals, small business owners, cities, and counties were ranked highest. Among the other options were federal government agencies, the state of Missouri, universities/community colleges, corporate ag donors, and nonprofits. Some respondents considered these important for efforts towards job creation, however the general consensus seems to be that local and regional efforts are the most impactful. The option "Federal government agencies" was ranked particularly low. In other words, regional stakeholders expect to see job creation investment coming from within the region without having to rely on state or federal initiatives. Demand for and Support of Ag Services This section asked respondents to indicate which business services are in demand in the Bootheel. Some of these services go beyond supporting the agricultural industry, but can be important in evaluating the regional business ecosystem. According to respondents, the two services with the strongest demand are linkages to education and training for new agricultural technologies and business loans. These two areas are critical for fostering any type of entrepreneurial behavior. Without a strong focus on AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 29

30 education and training it is difficult to stay up-to-date on new innovations, technologies, and opportunities. Without access to capital it is nearly impossible to foster economic growth. The other business services included in the survey were mostly ranked with half of respondents saying strong demand and the other half little demand. These business services include business plan development, market research, IT support, accounting and legal services, networking/mentoring, private investors, and export assistance. While these were not ranked highest, they may still be relevant for the success of the region s agricultural industry. Ag-Tech Incubator This section focused on the practical implications of developing an ag-tech incubator in the region. First and foremost was a question about the actual desire to see an ag-tech incubator developed somewhere in the region. Respondents were overwhelmingly positive about the idea with more than 88% stating that an ag-tech incubator would be worth the investment to help create new jobs and advance agricultural technologies. The next question asked respondents to indicate where in the Bootheel would be the optimal location for an ag-tech incubator. Dunklin and New Madrid counties split the majority of votes on this. The most likely cities to find a suitable facility within these counties would be Kennett, Sikeston, or Malden. While this does not eliminate the option for another location, it does help identify where the most support is likely to be found. The third question in this section asked more generally about what else can be done in the region to help new and existing ag-related businesses grow and create jobs. This was an open-ended question to give respondents an opportunity to share any ideas not identified in the general survey questions. The ideas mentioned the most frequently were to increase promotion of regional resources and assets, invest in new educational and training opportunities for both farmers and future agricultural workers, and invest more heavily in advanced technologies as well as ensuring proper training and eduction about any new technologies. Next, the survey asked respondents to indicate their potential level of participation in the agtech incubator. The two most chosen types of participation were I am a service provider that is interested in providing my services to tenants of the incubator and I am willing to refer others to the incubator. These are both important ways for the community to support an agtech incubator. Service providers will help ensure a high level of quality training, networking, knowledge sharing, etc. Referrals are another important way to ensure enough community support and participation. Less positive is the lack of respondents indicating they would be AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 30

31 interested in becoming tenants. Without entrepreneurs and startups as tenants there is no need for an actual incubator building. To elaborate on the question about potential participation levels the survey also asked respondents in which business sectors they have expertise and if they would be willing to provide mentorship. The business sector that received the most responses indicating willingness to provide mentorship was "management skills". The second most chosen sector was split between "professional services" (lending, legal, insurance, etc.) and "precision agriculture." While the demand for management consulting wasn t identified as a top priority in the survey question about regional service needs, it is still a great resource to have available for farmers and ag-tech start-ups. Even more important is the strong indication of people stating they would be willing to provide mentorship with professional services. One of the big challenges identified in the earlier section of the survey is the need for business loans. With more efforts towards helping farmers and ag-tech start-ups understand how to apply for loans and get investors interested, the region will be better prepared to grow its agricultural industry. Willingness to provide mentorship about precision agriculture is perhaps the most promising result from this question. The positive response in this area indicates that the region has individuals that have the knowledge to help and are willing to share that knowledge. A few other business sectors received several respondents saying they d be willing to provide mentorship; crop farming, and computer hardware and software technology. This shows that the region has access to people willing to help in several key areas. To gain a better understanding of what resources and physical features an ag-tech incubator should provide the survey included a question where respondents could indicate if a specific feature is must have, useful, or not necessary. Office space received the most must have votes, indicating a desire for a physical building to house the incubator. Office space may be relevant to both potential start-ups, as well as for a place to house an ag-tech support organization. The resource that received the second most must have votes was planting/ test plot area. This is a hugely important aspect of ag-tech, because it is incredibly difficult to preform the necessary research for innovation without testing grounds. If each farmer must sacrifice acres of his own farmland to test new crops and methods it would cut into crop yields. Access to testing ground provides an opportunity to identify new, better crops and methods that can be shared with all farmers across the region; without adding unnecessary risk to each farmers daily operations. The third most must have voted resource was shared services such as a conference room, receptionist, and printer. Other physical features that received a large portion of must have votes included a loading dock, warehousing, and greenhouse space. AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 31

32 Food Hub The survey included questions related to the possible development and support for a food hub. A food hub would be an natural extension of an ag-tech incubator. A food hub would, however, require different resources and support than an ag-tech incubator, but there is some overlap in terms of the broader industry. For example, a food hub would benefit from a strong regional farming industry to ensure supply of quality raw materials. To keep the survey at a reasonable length there was only room to dedicate two questions to the interest and need for a food hub. The first question asked respondents what they thought would make individuals more likely to participate in selling produce and livestock through a local food hub. While few respondents had strong feelings about this, the general trend was that most seemed interested in having the food hub as a local, grower-owned entity. The second question asked respondents about the demand for regional produce by regional restaurants or food production companies. Approximately 65% felt that there is some or strong demand for this. This leaves 35% with the opinion that there is little or no demand for regional products by regional buyers. The general conclusion we drew from these two questions is that a food hub may not be a priority from the perspective of the agricultural industry. This is not to say the idea of a food hub shouldn t be explored further, but the results from this limited survey neither supports or denies its feasibility at this moment. Access to Capital The final section of the survey focused on the need for capital from investors. This was included to get a better understanding of access to capital beyond traditional banking resources. The first question concerning access to investment capital asked about the demand for an angel investor group. The question emphasized that this concept goes beyond investments in ag-tech related businesses, but can be used for any new, high-growth businesses in the Bootheel. Approximately 56% of respondents felt that there would be a strong demand for an angel investor group in the region. An additional 32% said there would be some demand, while 12% felt there would be no demand. This indicates that regional stakeholders feel their entrepreneurial start-up community in the region is strong enough to justify having an angel investor group. The second question asked respondents directly about their potential contribution to an angel investor group. The selection options for this question were whether or not the respondent is a high net worth individual and whether or not the respondent sees a need for a angel investor group. Close to 90% of respondents indicated that they are not a high net worth AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 32

33 individual, but they do see a need for such a group. This is an encouraging sign. While very few individuals participating in the survey indicated they would be able to contribute financially to an angel investor group, the interest and need for these type of financing options was clearly identified. See Appendix V for detailed data overview of the survey. Focus Group Session The purpose of the focus group was to get direct feedback and ideas from the next generation of agriculture industry workers. The focus group was conducted on March 10th, 2016 at Southeast Missouri State University s Sikeston Campus. The group was made up of 12 students majoring in agriculture. Nine open-ended discussion questions were used to prompt conversations about agriculture and ag-tech in the Bootheel. The first question focused on why they had chosen to study agriculture. The overwhelming majority stated that it was a family tradition and they wanted to stay in the region to work on the family farm. Most of those who didn't come from a farming family still came from a family with work-tradition in the agriculture industry. Several emphasized that they felt that working in agriculture would provide them job security because they see the farming and agri-business as a stable industry that will always need human inputs. A follow-up question asked about their personal and professional plans for after graduation. More than 75% were certain they wanted to stay in the region. Most were focused on getting a stable job with a good paycheck either as a farmer or somewhere else in the agriculture industry. The next question asked about their general perception of the agricultural economy and community in the Bootheel. The majority felt that the region is a great place to live and work in the agriculture industry. They emphasized the high quality farm land and access to the Mississippi for transportation. Many also felt that the family-orientated communities are an important feature for them to want to stay. The negative aspects of the regional economy and community were mostly focused on the lack of opportunities for entertainment and hobbies. In other words, there s not much to do outside of work. Some also indicated that they would like to have more educational resources. This was both in terms of traditional education and future job training opportunities. The fourth question guided the conversation towards what makes young adults want (or not want) to go into the agriculture business. As mentioned earlier, several were going to farm because they were planning on taking over their families' farm. Very few indicated they AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 33

34 wanted to buy farm land because of the high costs associated with starting to farm from scratch. Those that didn t have or plan to take over a family farm felt there were good opportunities for young adults to find jobs on other regional farms or in agriculture businesses. It was also indicated that those who chose to leave the region typically do so because they want pursue opportunities that are not non-agriculture related that are difficult to find in the Bootheel. After the initial questions about their personal plans, the focus shifted to broader inquiries about the agriculture ecosystem in general. Participants were asked to consider the potential impact of new technology solutions on agriculture. Participants recognized that automation through new software and hardware is a reality, although they felt that the new technologies wouldn t replace the human component of agriculture. Instead they note the changing requirements for running an agriculture operation. New technology means new knowledge and skills will be needed to fix problems and improve output. Most seemed confident that their generation is tech-savvy and therefore fairly well-prepared to work in the modern agriculture business. From their experience, technology is underutilized in agricultural practices and still relies on outside services to be called in when something doesn t work. While they were positive about the general impact of technology on agriculture, there was still some hesitation about its reliability. The next question asked which agriculture resources would be beneficial to the region. The first thing mentioned was educational resources: more FFA (Future Farmers of America) activities and more opportunities to get hands-on experience with farm equipment and technologies. Several felt it was important to learn how to use and repair old tractors and machines because they will still be around for several years to come. They also wanted to learn how to use and fix newer machines and equipment that relies more heavily on computers and technology. The overreaching consensus on this question was the need for more resources where the next generation of agriculture workers can practice and get experience. It was also brought up that many would like to see a stronger focus on keeping inputs and outputs regional by finding ways for local farmers to buy seeds from local vendors and sell their produce and meat to local buyers. A follow-up question about regional resources asked participants about regional networking opportunities. The general consensus was that in the agriculture industry networking is something that is mostly done on an informal, face-to-face basis. While many said they go to public agriculture networking events, they seemed to favor the personal approach more. The group was then asked about the biggest challenges in agriculture. The question asked about both broad agriculture challenges and regional challenges. The first thing mentioned was fluctuations in commodity prices. These fluctuations make it difficult for a farmer to AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 34

35 strategically run their operations and make decisions that are in their best interest. The next issue that was brought up was changes to the global environment. Many believe that the United States will be able to adapt to changing environmental circumstances, but most felt the burden on the agricultural industry is particularly large. A third challenge was the large increase in capital needed to get started with farming. With modern equipment being so expensive and farmland owned by fewer, larger farm operations, it is increasingly difficult for new farmers to get off the ground in the industry. They fear that not enough young people are going into farming and that a lack of farmers will make it increasingly difficult to meet production demands. As far as regional challenges, the group felt that flooding in the region is a major issue for the agricultural industry. Economic stagnation and job loss issues were also brought up because they impair the region s ability to attract good workers and keep their communities thriving. The final question concerned agricultural entrepreneurship in the region. Participants felt that entrepreneurial behavior and activity plays a major role in their agricultural industry, but more can be done to support ag-entrepreneurship. The two main areas of concern for agricultural entrepreneurship in the region were access to capital and educational/training resources. Participants felt that these areas are of major importance for their own future careers as farm owners and agriculture workers. Stakeholder Interviews To get a better understanding of trends and opportunities in the agricultural ecosystem several interviews were conducted. Interviews were conducted with both stakeholders from the Bootheel region as well as agriculture industry experts from outside the region so that the trends and opportunities identified reflect both regional and broader economic needs. Because of low commodity prices, the increased demand for locally grown products, and many other reasons, some farmers in the Bootheel are changing what they grow and how they grow it. They are also processing their commodities further, thus adding value to their marketed product. Of course, some farmers are more innovative and open to changes than are others. Information for this section of the report is from interviews with key stakeholders, or knowledgeables in the region, including farmers, economic developers, Extension agents, University faculty, officials from port authorities, etc. A list of those interviewed, along with notes from each interview, can be found in Appendix I. AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 35

36 There was a general consensus among stakeholders that the Bootheel is a good place for an agricultural business. In fact, 70% of survey respondents rated the Bootheel as above average or excellent as a site for agriculture. The rich soils and bountiful supply of water are often given as reasons for this. However, many stakeholders also believe that additional valueadded enterprises should be developed in the Bootheel so that more income and jobs are captured by the region. There was a sense that the region was limiting itself if it only produced commodities and shipped them elsewhere for production. As one individual stated, For the region to develop, value-added has to be the wave of the future. Farmers are going to innovate, find new options, and add value. The region needs to capitalize on that. Otherwise, the Bootheel might become just one huge farm, with many owners, and almost no people left in the towns. Stakeholders provided many examples of farmers who were innovating in various ways. Here is a partial listing: Biodiesel facility Non-GMO organic rice, several varieties, grown and prepared by rice mill Potato production, chipping facility, sweet potato production Fresh produce, including sweet corn, watermelons, pumpkins, peppers Cotton seed sold as feed for dairy cattle Organic popcorn, corn meal made from organic popcorn Hydroponics to provide year-around produce Greenhouse tomatoes Non-GMO, organic feed for livestock produced at soybean crushing plant Blueberry production Specialty rice grown and milled at rice mill Irrigation consulting and product sales Consulting on precision ag, such as moisture sensing stations, prescription mapping, etc. Grazing cattle production Peanut production Invention of new feature for irrigation pivots Notice that most innovations do not really involve developing new technology, and therefore are not agricultural technology in the narrow sense. Instead, the innovations involve creatively developing new products that can be sold for more income than traditional grains. In turn, this requires changes in what farmers are growing and changes in production methods or the addition of processing facilities near the farm. Obviously, these changes are complicated and require learning about new crops, new production methods, new markets, and estimating the net benefits of making the change. AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 36

37 Stakeholders were asked about where farmers currently received information to help in their operation. Farmers typically turn to local bankers, representatives from companies such as Monsanto and Pioneer, Extension agents, and the Fisher Delta Center. The Fisher Delta Center in Portageville is an agricultural research center that examines cropping systems, weed, insect and disease-control systems, and other factors in growing cotton, rice, soybeans, and corn. Stakeholders were also asked what services farmers needed to spur more innovation or expand their current production. This question is designed to help identify the specific services that an incubator would provide. Several commented on how the skills and knowledge needed to run a modern day farm have changed substantially in the last decade due to technology. Farmers now collect massive amounts of data, but need help in fully utilizing the data. Several stakeholders contended that farmers need more training and education to analyze the data and turn it into applicable knowledge in order to optimize their crop yields. Stakeholders also indicated that farmers who are developing a new product need assistance in finding the markets for that product. Establishing new markets is a major concern for the farmers. For example, if they have a unique meat product, they need to link to restaurants in St. Louis, Nashville, or other cities that would purchase the meat. Also, technical advice on best production methods is also needed by farmers if they are to grow something that they have no prior experience growing. It seems then that farmers have a range of needs from data analysis to market development to horticulture that could be better met. However, there was a consensus among stakeholders that an incubator need not include a physical building. Economic developers, in particular, made the point that the region has many vacant buildings and abundant land on which a specific type of building could be constructed. The investment in a building was not viewed as cost effective. The point was also made that farmers have land and space themselves and that their innovations usually take place on their farms, rather than in an industrial space. AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 37

38 Part 4. Summary of Research The list below summarizes the major findings from the investigation into the feasibility of developing an ag-tech incubator in the Bootheel region. The first list identified main strengths: Regional farmers produce a diverse type of crops and livestock The Bootheel covers 12.7% of Missouri s harvested cropland The Bootheel is home to 73% of all irrigated land in Missouri Sales from agricultural production in the Bootheel is a $1.2 billion industry annually The number of jobs in ag related occupations increased by 14.4% from 2001 to 2015 Increase in number of students majoring in agricultural studies at regional colleges Agriculture and ag related clusters are strong in the region Nearly 800 businesses are started on an annual basis each year The are many innovative value-added initiatives taking place among Bootheel farmers The region is favorably located within driving distance to several metro areas Increased focus on agriculture education and research from regional colleges Regional stakeholders consider the Bootheel a great place to have an ag business Local and regional entities should lead the effort on job creation Training about new ag technologies and business loan services are in high demand An ag-tech incubator is considered a worthwhile investment by most stakeholders Stakeholders surveyed indicated willingness to provide mentorship in management skills, business services, and precision agriculture Regional farmers want to implement and utilize better technology and software Multiple organizations in the region could help support the ag-tech incubator A few alternative lending opportunities already exist in the region Investments in advanced rice technology and research has recently been announced Ag-tech companies need access to farmers, which the Bootheel can supply The region is located between two major ag-research hubs: St. Louis and Memphis Ag-tech start-ups in St. Louis need access to farmers Four alternative incubators are located near the region for potential collaboration Jobs from small and medium sized businesses has grown in the last decade AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 38

39 Some of the challenges or weaknesses that could make the ag-tech incubator concept harder to implement include: The average age of farmers has been increasing in recent years and was 57 in 2012 Dwindling support and impact from the MU Extension offices Regional stakeholders think there is a lack of willingness by ag companies/farmers to invest in job creation Few stakeholders surveyed indicated they d want to participate in an ag-tech incubator as regular members While there appears to be a strong interest in creating an investor group we have not identified anyone with the capital to help support it Educational attainment in the region is relatively low The young adult population is decreasing and residents are migrating out of the region at a faster pace than people are moving in Access to high speed internet is still relatively low High poverty and unemployment rates AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 39

40 Part 5. Incubator Structure and Approach One of the main considerations that needs to be addressed is whether or not the ag-tech incubator needs a dedicated, physical facility for operational purposes, or if a virtual incubator will suffice. The main benefits of having a physical building with dedicated space for the ag-tech incubator includes office space, possible research space/land, access to resources, and networking. Developing the incubator in an actual building will also make it easier to create training opportunities for regional stakeholders. Some of the downsides to a physical building are the higher investment cost, less flexibility in location, and uncertainty about membership participation. Some of the main benefits of using a virtual concept are much lower investment cost, less risk, higher focus on identifying specific needs by farmers, more flexibility in reaching the entire region, and ability to adapt the concept in the future. The market analysis in Part 3 yields several key findings: There is not sufficient market demand for an agricultural technology incubator that focuses narrowly on technology startups in such areas as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), Variable-Rate-Application Seeding, Data Solutions, or other tech-driven agriculture innovations. There is sufficient agricultural and entrepreneurial activity for a more broadly targeted incubator that provides services to support value-added agricultural initiatives in the region. The value-added incubator should be a virtual incubator at least at this point. That is, it should provide services to farmers and entrepreneurs, but not operate a multi-tenant building. Recommendation: Create a virtual incubator serving farmers and agricultural entrepreneurs who are developing valueadded agricultural initiatives and engaging in innovative activities in the region. AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 40

41 While the main recommendation is to initially develop the ag-tech incubator as a virtual concept, the outline below provides guidelines for a phase I and phase II. Phase I is dedicated to the virtual service incubator concept, while Phase II explores how an ag-tech incubator in a dedicated building could be set up. Phase 1 - Virtual Service Incubator Program Clients and Services Clients for the incubator will be farmers and entrepreneurs at various stages of their projects. Some will be just exploring an idea. Others may have started growing a new crop and encountered problems. Others may have a well-developed concept for a new enterprise and need to purchase equipment for processing. Others may have a successful business, but are struggling to connect to markets in nearby cities. In other words, the incubator will need to provide customized assistance to individual farmers and entrepreneurs. Among the possible services to be provided: Marketing Agronomy Using precision agriculture techniques Farm management Cropping systems, weed control, etc In addition, the incubator will connect farmers to program partners with special expertise. For example, experts at the Fisher Delta Center might provide technical advice of selection of corn seeds. Or students from Southeast Missouri State University or Three Rivers Community College might perform a marketing study for a specialized food product. The Small Business and Technology Development Center (SBTDC) can provide business planning and other strictly business services. So the incubator should have its core competence in agricultural production and marketing. Furthermore, the market analysis suggested that farmers want assistance with the new technologies. The incubator could potentially provide consultation and workshops with farmers on the new techniques of precision agriculture. Location The virtual incubator would focus on providing professional consulting to agriculture businesses in the Bootheel. Ag-tech professionals would operate as business consultants who can be contacted remotely and go "on the road" to visit clients and observe their businesses first hand. AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 41

42 The main advantages of operating virtually include: lower operational costs, more flexibility in services offered, and lower risk. In addition, consultants would better be able to connect with clients and gain an understanding of their specific strengths and needs. Not having a dedicated space means that the consultants would consistently be emerged in the business cultures of clients and gain a deep understanding of their operations. While the virtual incubator doesn t have a dedicated building it will still require a general office space for administrative purposes. This office could be located inside the Greene Center of for Innovation and Entrepreneurship building. The Small Business and Technology Development Center is also housed in this building. Combining these two entities would help support the ag-tech and entrepreneurship ecosystem. Partners The support of the agriculture community will be vital to the success of the incubator. Partnerships should be formed with the resources identified in the Market Analysis, including: Three Rivers Community College Southeast Missouri State University University of Missouri Extension Service Fisher Delta Center Small Business and Technology Development Center Missouri Enterprise Career and Technology Centers Bootheel Regional Planning and Economic Development Commission Chambers of Commerce Economic developers Monsanto Pioneer Other agribusinesses Local banks Others The contributions of the partners will vary, some have technical expertise in agriculture, others have access to funding, some have access to business networks, and others can engage students and young people. For example, Southeast or Three Rivers could provide meeting or office space in their facilities. Or University of Missouri Extension could help in writing a grant proposal for startup funding. AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 42

43 Furthermore, the incubator could create a pipeline between agriculture researchers and farmers. There are several research centers nearby, including the Fisher Delta Center in Portageville, the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in St. Louis and Memphis BioWorks in Memphis, TN. These research centers utilize the best technology and minds to find solutions that make agriculture less expensive, more nutritious, and more sustainable. The idea is to connect these centers to local farmers so that new innovations can be tested on Bootheel farms. This might open up possibilities for cutting-edge crops or processes to be diffused to the Bootheel. Online Activities and Resources The virtual incubator should include an online platform where ag companies can find resources and information about the services offered. It would also serve as a tool to brand and promote the region s strong agriculture industry and attract the interest from stakeholders outside of the region. A good example is Memphis Regional Megasite: The website shows what the region has to offer in terms of land, employment, education, and cost of living. The homepage has these laid out in a visually appealing way, offering a map, graphics, and a short video describing some of the advantages of moving to the area. Some features of the region that should be highlighted on the website are the quality of land, the low cost of living, proximity to large metropolis areas, educational resources, local expertise, and examples of local success stories. The online platform should also include maps, images, and links to other relevant resources, such as the SBTDC website. Revenue Streams and Funding Several sources of revenue are required to support a successful incubator, especially in its early stages. These can include private donations, state and federal grants through agencies such as the Economic Development Administration, USDA Rural Development, Delta Regional Authority, and Missouri Department of Agriculture. Other sources include Community Reinvestment dollars provided by banks, tax credits, fees, memberships, and sponsorships. It is generally recommended to have six to eight sources of revenue. The key is to be able to tell potential investors and lenders what the incubator has done and will do for clients and the community. In the initial phase, clients or members would pay a fee in order to receive business advising. Ag-tech experts will personally observe each client s business and make recommendations on how to better implement methods, technology, or diversity to improve their businesses. While fees will make up a large portion of funding in the early phases of the incubator, several other revenue streams will be necessary to get it off the ground. AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 43

44 It is necessary for us to identify high net-worth individuals in the area who may be interested in investing in either the incubator itself or the businesses of our clients. One way to attract investment is to ensure we have a strong online presence and that stakeholders in both the public and private sectors within the region are aware of our services. Phase one of the incubator may be able to operate with fewer revenue streams due to lower costs. Staffing At least initially, the incubator would have only one staff member who serves as Executive Director. The person chosen for this position must have extensive knowledge and skills in agriculture coupled with significant business experience. Preferably, the person selected would be living in the Bootheel and would start the position with an established network of agribusiness connections. Organizational Structure The suggested organizational structure for the incubator is a new non-profit organization. Establishing a separate organization to manage the incubator has several advantages: An organization independent of government and universities will have greater flexibility to act quickly with fewer restrictions on the activities in which it can engage. An organization with 501(c)(3) status is capable of receiving tax-deductible donations of cash, goods, or services. This may be an important consideration for many potential contributors and is usually a requirement for receiving grant support. A separate organization will encourage collaboration with all potential partners and will reduce the pressure to favor one organization or another. An organization not controlled by government or universities will be in a better position to maintain confidentiality of client records, since it is not subject to open records laws. Phase 2 - Physical Building Location If it is determined that there is demand for a physical location, the incubator will move into Phase 2. This would involve investing in a physical building with room for offices, shared workspace, workshops, and training rooms. This option would be more focused on AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 44

45 providing mentoring, networking, professional services, training, and facilitation of events throughout the region. Developing an ag-tech incubator with a physical building comes with a different set of advantages, including: more focus on creating connections between stakeholders, dedicated space for startups, and facilities for networking and training purposes. If/when funding and support can be found for a physical location for an ag-tech incubator the regional survey, feedback from focus groups and interviews, and considerations of existing resources point to Sikeston, Kennett, or Malden as the strongest candidates for the location. Roles & Responsibilities If there is demand for a physical building the incubator will have to expand to a more structured model and hire staff to oversee the day to day running of the incubator. Board of Directors: To oversee the long-term strategy and goals of the ag-tech incubator a board of directors must be identified. The board of directors should include a set of members with diverse expertise in the areas of business development, education, research, agriculture, and ag-tech. The board will be responsible for ensuring quality assistance programing in the incubator, connecting clients with a broader network of resources, and program oversight. The board should consist of 7-10 individuals with a mix of the following types of professionals: (1) technology expert (2) representative of the finance community (3) local economic development official (4) university/college affiliate (5) experienced entrepreneur (6) business lawyer (7) farm manager. Executive Director: The board of directors will be responsible for hiring an executive director to oversee the day to day functions of the ag-tech incubator. The executive director should have both management experience and a background the agriculture industry. The board will develop short-term and long-term strategies, develop the vision, oversee the budget, and advise the executive director. Mentors and Partners: A network of mentors should be created to provide professional advice and training to clients of the ag-tech incubator. These mentors should include entrepreneurs, economists, agronomists, IT experts, university professors and staff, and financial and legal professionals. While these people would not be involved in the day to day running of the incubator, they would help members expand their networks and find needed resources. Partnerships should be created with Three Rivers College, Southeast Missouri State University, and regional resource centers/organizations, to give ag-tech incubator members access to the latest research, technology, and expertise. AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 45

46 Key Activities & Resources Business Support and Training: The primary activity of the incubator would be providing business advising and training to potential entrepreneurs. The incubator would seek to connect clients with mentor groups with expertise in finance, technology, marketing, and other businesses. The incubator would offer training that implements the latest software technology in agriculture. There are many types of software available to farm managers and training would allow them to employ the full potential of this technology. This training could also be offered to university students or recent graduates entering the ag-tech industry. Ag Science and Farmers: The ag-tech incubator would create a pipeline between agriculture researchers and farmers. There are several research centers near the region, including the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in St. Louis and Memphis BioWorks in Memphis, TN. These research centers utilize the best technology and minds to find solutions that make agriculture less expensive, more nutritious, and more sustainable. The value of this research is lost if these innovations do not make it from the lab to the fields. The incubator would serve to partner these organizations with local entrepreneurs so they can bring the latest findings to the Bootheel region. The incubator will serve to connect the rich natural resources in the region with the advanced technology used in large plant research centers and foster communication about the challenges and breakthroughs of both groups. AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 46

47 University Involvement: The incubator will take part in linking local entrepreneurs with university resources. Southeast Missouri State University and Three Rivers College both offer degrees in agriculture. However, there is still a need for continuous education to keep new graduates up to date on the latest technology and innovation in the ag-tech field. The incubator would offer training programs in the latest software and technology for students and graduates entering the agriculture industry. The universities have several valuable physical assets, such as the Charles Hutson Horticulture Greenhouse and the David M. Barton Agriculture Resource Center. These exist for the benefit of students, but they could also be leased out to allow potential local entrepreneurs to do testing and experiments. In addition, the expertise of agriculture professors is a valuable asset to those who are entering the field. Revenue Streams and Funding In addition to the funding streams identified on page 43 for the virtual incubator, more funding would be required to create and sustain a physical incubator. However, there are some advantages to having a physical building that could make it easier to identify revenue streams. First of all, the building would provide a physical space for entrepreneurs and investors to connect on a personal level. Investors would be able to see the physical results of their investments and would be more inclined to contribute. In addition, there are several types of funding that are reliant upon physical location, such as tax credits and rental of space. Another possibility is using tax increment financing to generate funds. Tax increment financing involves imposing an extra real estate tax on land within a certain radius of the incubator, or, adding a small sales tax to businesses within that radius. This is typically implemented to fund development projects within economically depressed areas. The idea is that the project will eventually add value to the surrounding real estate by adding jobs and bringing investment to the area. The incubator could apply for the Missouri Small Business Incubator Tax Credit. The purpose of this tax credit is to establish a business environment of growth where small businesses can collectively operate during their start-up period. The tax credit can be applied to income taxes, corporate franchise taxes, bank taxes or insurance premium taxes. These tax credits can go up to 50%, leveraging donations. The incubator could bring in revenue by charging for public use of facilities. Renting out conference rooms and shared workspace is a good way to maximize return on investment of these facilities and support other businesses in the process. The incubator could also seek sponsorships for funding by selling advertising space to private investors. AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 47

48 People want to give to worthwhile causes. Fundraising involves telling a good story, matching your needs to the donors, understanding strategic philanthropy, and telling the donors the results of their donations. Following these best practices can help the incubator create sustainable revenue streams. Although more expensive to maintain, a physical facility in which events could be hosted and potential investors could be shown something tangible may encourage more investment. Member Selection & Graduation Process To ensure that members of the ag-tech incubator contribute to the long-term goals of fostering more ag-tech innovations and support, it is important to review the process of selection and graduating members. A throughout selection process is mostly relevant if/when the incubator has a physical building. For the virtual phase the main criteria for members is simply to ensure that they operate in the agriculture industry. The selection process should involve an extensive review of each applicant s business plan, industry experience, and purpose of incubator membership. A major component of the assessment is to identify the specific needs and challenges the member is going to face. Understanding member needs and challenges will help the executive director and staff in developing relevant services and programming for all members. If an applicant is wanting to start a business or is in the early phases of doing so, it will be beneficial to identify growth potential, quality and background of management, capital needs, persistence, and motivation. The incubator also wants clients with a commitment to stay local or regional in the long run. Additionally, for small businesses that want to be members an expected graduation timeframe should be discussed. The standard graduation time for incubator tenants is three years. To make a recommendation on if a business will survive on its own, the ag-tech incubator s management looks at each client s growth, sales revenue, capital, and adherence to their specific milestones and business plan. If an applicant is looking to contribute and/or learn about new technologies, resources, networks, etc., but will not be starting a business at the incubator, it is more important to look at what knowledge, experience, and resources they can bring to the ag-tech incubator community. Non-business startup members will likely be existing business owners or farmers looking to identify ways to improve their operations through collaboration and sharing of their own experience and data. Membership Application Template See appendix VI for a template of a membership application AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 48

49 Tenant Client Benefits The ag-tech incubator needs to offer a variety of services to its members. Some benefits are relevant for both the virtual phase and the later physical building phase. The list below includes the most important benefits that should be included in the ag-tech incubator: Phase 1: Professional Services including a network of accountants, lawyers, bankers, etc. Networking Events opportunities for internal and external networking Business Training Including access to programs such as InnovateU, Liveplan, etc. Mentoring from professionals in fields of agriculture, business, and technology Access to Capital assistance in finding investors, grants, and other funding Phase 2: Access to Equipment connecting farmers to the emerging technologies Access to University Resources including greenhouses, land for testing, etc. Marketing and Promotion Office Space Shared Workspace Conference Rooms Expected Impact When the ag-tech incubator has successfully been developed it is important to develop impact metrics to measure ongoing success. Impact metrics may include measurable factors such as: This list is only intended as a general guideline to relevant impact metrics. Several other metrics will likely be important and should be identified in the early stages of the ag-tech incubator inception. AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 49

50 Appendix I - Stakeholder Interview Notes The following stakeholders were interviewed and contributed to the development of the study: Matt Plummer, The Yield Lab (2/10/16) Melanie Bernds, Donald Danforth Plant Science Center (2/10/16) Dan Jennings, Ag Advisory Group (2/16/16) Charles Larry Williams, HOLT Agribusiness (3/10/16) Nicholas Thiele, director of Southeast Missouri State University Malden campus (3/10/16) Greg Adkinson, Southeast Missouri State University (3/28/16) Dr. Michael Aide, Southeast Missouri State University (3/28/16) Van Ayers, University of Missouri Extension (3/29/16) Ed Dust, Economic Development Directors, Sikeston, Phone Interview (4/12/16) John Ferguson, Pemiscot County Port Authority, Phone Interview (4/12/16) David Madison, Pemiscot County Port Authority, Phone Interview (4/12/16) Jim Grebing, Director of Economic Development CLGW, Phone Interviewe (4/12/16) Mike Marshall, Alternate Federal Co-Chair DRA, Phone Interview (4/21/16) AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 50

51 Sample of Bootheel Regional Agriculture Industry Companies AG Distrubtors inc: Chemicals AG Distrubtors inc: Fertilizers-Manufacturers Ag Technologies Agri Systems Of Cape & Jackson, Inc Agxplore Bean & Bean Cotton Company Bootheel Tractor Parts Bruce Martin Construction, Inc. Cargill Inc Consolidated Grain & Barge (Charleston) Irrigation Central, Inc. J P Ross Cotton CO Kennett Irrigation & Equipment Company Legacy Equipment, LLC Macke's Equipment, Inc. Martin Rice Company Mid Valley Irrigation Monsanto Mrm Ag Services Nesselrodt & Campbell Gin Consolidated Grain & Barge (East Prairie) QMI Fertilizer and Grain Co Crowder Gin CO Inc Delta New Holland Dexter Ag Services Inc. Dudley Grain Warehouse Dupont (Pioneer) French Implement Company, Inc. Holt Agribusiness Sikeston Reinhart Foodservice Llc Rolwing-Moxley Co Southland Irrigation Tyson Foods Inc Tyson Fresh Meats Inc Vanduser Gin Co Yellow Gold, Llc (Pride Gold Dealer) Agriculture Industry Companies in the surrounding areas ADM Growmark Bunge Grain Hillshire Brands Unilever Best Foods Bunge Oilseed Processing AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 51

52 " " Appendix II - Agricultural Census Bootheel Farm Trends - Number and Size Number of Farms Average Size of Farm in Acres Dunklin Mississippi ,134 1,195 New Madrid ,088 1,087 Pemiscot ,203 1,344 Scott Stoddard 1, Bootheel 2,419 2, Missouri 107,825 99, Source: Bootheel Farm Trends - Farms by Size (2012) 1 to 9 acres 10 to 49 acres 50 to 179 acres 180 to 499 acres 500 to 999 acres 1,000 acres or more Dunklin Mississippi New Madrid Pemiscot Scott Stoddard Bootheel 3,544 21,706 37,013 23,301 7,819 5,788 Missouri Source: AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 52

53 " Bootheel Farm Trends - Farms by Number of Operators (2012) 1 Operator 2 Operators 3 Operators 4 Operators 5 Operators Total Number of Operators " Dunklin Mississippi New Madrid Pemiscot Scott Stoddard ,410 Bootheel 1, ,667 Missouri 54,055 38,889 4,811 1, ,817 Source: Bootheel Farm Trends - Farm Market Value (2012) Average Age of Principal Farm Operator 2007 Average Age of Principal Farm Operator 2012 Dunklin Mississippi New Madrid Pemiscot Scott Stoddard Bootheel Missouri Source: AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 53

54 " Bootheel Farm Trends - Farm Market Value (2012) Estimated Average Market Value of Land and Buildings per Farm Estimated Average Market Value of Machinery and Equipment per Farm " Dunklin $3,056,876 $425,836 Mississippi $4,962,234 $473,245 New Madrid $4,819,981 $524,942 Pemiscot $4,861,689 $516,801 Scott $1,878,113 $237,058 Stoddard $2,169,983 $245,479 Bootheel $3,624,813 $348,103 Missouri $795,444 $88,960 Source: Bootheel Farm Trends - Farms by Annual Value of Sales (2012) Less than $5,000 $5,000 to $9,999 $10,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Dunklin Mississippi New Madrid Pemiscot Scott Stoddard Bootheel Missouri 41,522 11,206 15,841 10,822 7,365 12,415 Source: AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 54

55 Bootheel Farm Trends - Market Value of Products Sold (2012) Crop sales Livestock Sales Total Sales Average Sales per farm Dunklin $199,012,000 $2,099,000 $201,111,000 $576,848 Mississippi $153,775,000 $3,255,000 $157,030,000 $766,000 New Madrid $216,974,000 $170,000 $217,144,000 $684,995 Pemiscot $185,947,000 $138,000 $186,085,000 $819,757 Scott $130,314,000 $58,463,000 $188,777,000 $390,035 Stoddard $256,080,000 $58,900,000 $314,980,000 $347,277 Bootheel $1,142,102,000 $123,025,000 $1,265,127,000 $591,181 Missouri $4,566,953,000 $459,793,300 $5,026,746,300 $92,415 Source: " AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 55

56 " " Appendix III - National Establishment Time Series Bootheel Establishment Trends Self employed 2,616 2,634 3,012 3,927 4,391 4,848 2 to 9 emps. 16,823 16,529 16,517 17,303 17,811 18, to 99 emps. 29,596 29,072 28,967 29,694 29,751 29, to 499 emps. 11,199 12,905 13,495 13,016 12,366 13, emps. 7,316 6,679 6,679 7,065 6,977 5,904 Total emps. 67,550 67,819 68,670 71,005 71,296 72,384 Source: National Establishment Time Series, Bootheel Establishment Trends Self employed 5,093 4,609 5,962 4,504 3,391 2,613 2 to 9 emps. 18,869 17,349 18,581 18,723 18,800 18, to 99 emps. 29,228 28,511 27,955 29,568 29,476 31, to 499 emps. 13,018 12,150 12,049 12,382 12,344 12, emps. 5,904 4,604 4,104 4,104 3,448 3,448 Total emps. 72,112 67,223 68,651 69,281 67,459 69,020 Source: National Establishment Time Series, AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 56

57 " " Bootheel Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting Establishment Trends Self employed to 9 emps. 2,023 1,995 1,928 1,852 1,793 1, to 99 emps to 499 emps emps Total emps. 3,250 3,195 3,171 3,150 3,103 3,131 Source: National Establishment Time Series, Bootheel Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting Establishment Trends Self employed to 9 emps. 1,820 1,787 1,789 1,816 1,974 1, to 99 emps to 499 emps emps Total emps. 3,166 3,076 3,203 3,199 3,450 3,244 Source: National Establishment Time Series, AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 57

58 " " Bootheel Accommodation and Food Services Establishment Trends Self employed to 9 emps to 99 emps. 2,307 2,217 2,205 2,318 2,242 2, to 499 emps emps Total emps. 3,230 3,141 3,099 3,232 3,285 3,154 Source: National Establishment Time Series, Bootheel Accommodation and Food Services Establishment Trends Self employed to 9 emps , to 99 emps. 2,209 2,299 2,396 2,373 2,619 2, to 499 emps emps Total emps. 3,077 3,028 3,129 3,080 3,328 4,202 Source: National Establishment Time Series, AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 58

59 " " Bootheel Manufacturing Establishment Trends Self employed to 9 emps to 99 emps. 2,591 2,477 2,323 2,447 2,676 2, to 499 emps. 3,658 3,748 3,306 3,342 2,947 3, emps. 4,125 4,125 3,425 3,900 3,900 3,350 Total emps. 10,994 10,959 9,634 10,288 10,129 10,291 Source: National Establishment Time Series, Bootheel Manufacturing Establishment Trends Self employed to 9 emps to 99 emps. 2,453 2,258 2,076 2,000 1,717 1, to 499 emps. 3,203 2,858 2,888 3,291 2,816 3, emps. 3,350 2,050 2,050 2,050 2,050 2,050 Total emps. 9,659 7,735 7,558 7,845 7,097 7,260 Source: National Establishment Time Series, AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 59

60 Appendix IV - Cluster Data EMSI Cluster Data The average cluster score for the region is Clusters Bootheel Score Upstream Metal Manufacturing 79 Food Processing and Manufacturing 48 Electric Power Generation and Transmission 46 Local Government Services 42 Local Education and Training 41 Agricultural Inputs and Services 41 State Government Services 40 Furniture 36 Local Financial Services 35 Local Utilities 34 Distribution and Electronic Commerce 31 Local Community and Civic Organizations 29 Automotive 28 Wood Products 27 Plastics 27 Downstream Chemical Products 27 Trailers, Motor Homes, and Appliances 27 Paper and Packaging 26 Production Technology and Heavy Machinery 25 Livestock Processing 25 AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 60

61 2015 Clusters Bootheel, continued Score Local Retailing of Clothing and General Merchandise 25 Downstream Metal Products 25 Local Logistical Services 25 Construction Products and Services 25 Water Transportation 25 Oil an Gas Production and Transportation 24 Transportation and Logistics 24 Local Health Services 22 Leather and Related Products 22 Federal Government Services 21 Business Services 21 Vulcanized and Fired Materials 21 Local Real Estate, Construction, and Development 21 Financial Services 20 Insurance Services 20 Apparel 20 Local Industrial Products and Services 20 Metalworking Technology 20 Local Motor Vehicle Products and Services 20 Local Commercial Services 18 Communications Equipment and Services 18 Local Food and Beverage Processing and Distribution 18 Hospitality and Tourism 17 Education and Knowledge Creation 17 AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 61

62 2015 Clusters Bootheel, continued " Score Local Entertainment and Media 16 Local Household Goods and Services 15 Local Hospitality Establishments 15 Printing Services 14 Performing Arts 13 Local Personal Services (Non-Medical) 13 Source: Economic Modeling, Inc., 2015 AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 62

63 Appendix V - Survey Results Demographics What is your age? Under % 18 to % 25 to % 35 to % 45 to % 55 to % 65 to % 75 or older 0.00% What is the highest level of school you have completed or the highest degree you have received Still in high school 0.00% Less than high school degree 0.00% High school degree or equivalent 2.63% Some college but no degree 7.89% Associate degree 5.26% Bachelor degree 42.11% Graduate degree 42.11% What is your age? Dunklin 44.74% Mississippi 7.89% New Madrid 2.63% Pemiscot 10.53% Scott 7.89% Stoddard 13.16% Other 13.16% AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 63

64 Which of the following best describes the state of your business business or you interest in starting a business? You can mark more than one answer I already farm 21.05% I am considering farming someday 2.63% I own a non-farm business 10.53% I am considering starting a non-farm business 2.63% I am already in the process of starting a non-farm business 0.00% I work for a service provider that helps farmers, aspiring farmers, and/or local businesses (Co-cop, fertilizer company, bank, USDA, Missouri Extension, teacher, etc.) 55.26% I work for a business that doesn't interact with the agricultural industry very much 15.79% I currently work for a manufacturer 0.00% I used to work for a manufacturer 5.26% Other 23.68% Bootheel Competitiveness How would you rate the Bootheel region as a place to start and run an agriculture business? Excellent 5.88% Above average 64.71% Average 23.53% Fair 2.94% Poor 2.94% Indicate the willingness of the agriculture companies/farmers in the Bootheel region to invest in advanced technology. Excellent 11.76% Above average 47.06% Average 26.47% Fair 14.71% Poor 0.00% AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 64

65 Indicate the willingness of the agriculture companies/farmers in the Bootheel region to invest in job creation. Excellent 2.94% Above average 29.41% Average 50.00% Fair 14.71% Poor 2.94% Who should put the most effort into job creation investments in the Bootheel region? (Please rank 1 for most effort and 5 for least effort) Cities and counties 21.21% 21.21% 30.30% 18.18% 9.09% Federal government agencies 3.13% 18.75% 9.38% 28.13% 40.63% State universities, and community colleges 12.50% 25.00% 18.75% 31.25% 12.50% Individuals, small business owners, and co-ops 46.88% 12.50% 15.63% 6.25% 18.75% Corporate ag donors and nonprofits 18.18% 27.27% 27.27% 12.12% 15.15% Demand for and Support of Ag Services Please indicate which business services are in demand in the Bootheel. Strong Demand Little Demand No Demand Business plan development and market research 51.52% 48.48% 0.00% Linkages to education/training for new ag technologies 75.76% 24.24% 0.00% IT-support 45.45% 48.48% 6.06% Accounting, bookkeeping, and legal services 42.42% 48.48% 9.09% Networking/mentoring 45.45% 54.55% 0.00% Private investors 51.52% 39.39% 9.09% Business loans 75.76% 24.24% 0.00% Export assistance 45.45% 48.48% 6.06% AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 65

66 What is an Ag Tech Incubator and what services should it provide the people of the Bootheel? In general, do you think an AgTech Business Incubator located in the Bootheel is worth the investment to help create new jobs and advance ag technologies? yes 88.46% No 3.85% Uncertain 7.69% Where in the Bootheel would be the optimal location for an AgTech Incubator? Dunklin 40.00% Mississippi 4.00% New Madrid 28.00% Pemiscot 8.00% Scott 8.00% Stoddard 12.00% What else should the Bootheel region do to help new and existing ag-related businesses grow and create new jobs? Work with the chamber of commerce, state to promote the tremendous resources available (water, inexpensive land, labor) available to the vegetable producing companies Mentoring, education, financing Publicity and financial support Showcase our assets -- fertile, affordable land and available water and skilled labor Not sure educated, provide technology Outreach programs, opportunity to learn about technological advances and how they could benefit not sure Create a longterm strategic plan to invest in new technology and innovations that support the agriculture industry Notify of all government subsidies, grant or loan options available Cut taxes and regulations to allow higher prices and capitial to flow AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 66

67 Train people how to be work-ready make businesses aware of tax credit opportunities expand crops grown or research plots grassroots on hands agriculture people instead of policy makers Help market Demostrate dviersity training on hireing and personnel management Provide networking opportunities look to the future on opportunities and willingness to go outside of "tradition" market development 1/19/2016 4:52 PM Better funding for roads rail and port Identify training needs for the AgTech area. assist agriculture education in high schools Please indicate your potential level of participation in the incubator (mark all that apply): I am interested in becoming a tenant in the Incubator 3.85% I am very likely to use services at the Incubator, but not become a tenant 3.85% I am somewhat likely to use services at the Incubator, but not become a tenant 3.85% I would consider locating in the Incubator as an anchor tenant (defined as a firm not needing all the business services provided but would help support the facility by my business presence) I am a service provider that is interested in providing my services to tenants of the incubator 7.69% 46.15% I am willing to refer others to the Incubator 57.69% I would not use the Incubator 11.54% Other 7.69% AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 67

68 Which business sectors do you have expertise, and how would you be willing to provide mentorship? I m willing to provide mentorship I cannot mentor but I would provide referrals I don t have any experience or connections in this area Crop farming 19.23% 53.85% 26.92% Livestock and/or poultry 7.69% 38.46% 53.85% Agriculture engineering 7.69% 57.69% 34.62% Management skills 34.62% 50.00% 15.38% Ag inputs (seeds, fertilizer, fuel, etc) 15.38% 46.15% 38.46% Precision agriculture 23.08% 38.46% 38.46% Computer hardware, software, or data 19.23% 50.00% 30.77% Construction 0.00% 38.46% 61.54% Energy 0.00% 42.31% 57.69% Environmental expertise 7.69% 42.31% 50.00% Food service, packaging, and distribution 0.00% 30.77% 69.23% Professional services (lending, legal, etc.) 23.08% 38.46% 38.46% Please indicate which physical features would be must have, useful, or not necessary to an incubator in the Bootheel region: Must Have Useful Not Necessary Manufacturing/assembly space 30.77% 53.85% 15.38% Office space 61.54% 19.23% 19.23% Commercial kitchen 7.69% 65.38% 26.92% Planting/test plot area 53.85% 38.46% 7.69% Greenhouse space 42.31% 50.00% 7.69% Cold storage 26.92% 57.69% 15.38% Loading dock 42.31% 46.15% 11.54% Warehousing/storage space 42.31% 46.15% 11.54% Shared services (meeting space, receipt, etc.) 50.00% 38.46% 11.54% Food learning and packaging equipment 23.08% 57.69% 19.23% AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 68

69 Please answer the following question only if you participate in the production or preparation of any food products: What would make you more likely to participate in selling produce and livestock through a local food hub? Very Likely Likely Neutral Not Very Likely Not at all Likely If Hub were grower-owned 33.33% 16.67% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% If Hub were owned by local residents/business If hub were a grower owned cooperative If you were offered the opportunity to become an investor in or a part owner of the hub If you were able to sell your produce or livestock through the hub If the hub was a nonprofit organization 33.33% 0.00% 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 16.67% 33.33% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 66.67% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 50.00% 16.67% 0.00% How would you rate the current demand for regional produce by regional restaurants or food production companies? Strong demand 26.92% Some demand 38.46% Little or no demand 34.62% What do you feel the demand is for an angel investor group, which would be used to help finance new and high-growth businesses in the Bootheel region? Strong demand 56.00% Some demand 32.00% Little or no demand 12.00% Please indicate your potential contribution in an angel investor group: I m a high net worth individual who s interested in being part of an Angel Investor Group 0.00% I am a high net worth individual, but I do not see the need for such a group 8.00% I am not a high net worth individual, but I see the need for such a group 88.00% I am not a high net worth individual, but I do not see the need for such a group 4.00% AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 69

70 Appendix VI - Membership Application Template Ag-Tech Incubator Membership Application Contact Information Name Company Name Mailing Address Address Phone Membership Level Startup business - $250/month Includes memberships for up to 3 individuals 1 private office + utilizes Access to shared workspace Networking events Discounted prices on training and seminars Mail delivery Existing business - $400/month Includes memberships for 4 to 8 individuals (additional cost for more members) 1 to 2 private offices depending on needs + utilizes Access to shared workspace Networking events Discounted prices on training and seminars Mail delivery Community member - $50/month Includes membership for one individual Access to shared workspace Networking events Discounted prices on training and seminars Corporate sponsor - $1,000 to $10,000 Name and logo in shared workspace Access to shared workspace and meeting rooms for employees AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 70

71 Business Profile Type of business New business Existing business Primary industry Agriculture Manufacturing Food Business Service Technology Number of partners and employees Business needs (check all that apply) Mentoring Networking Professional services (accounting, legal, marketing, etc.) Office space Access to equipment, tools, and machines Other Payment Information Check - Check Number Cash Credit Card (Visa, MasterCard, Amex) Card number Expires ccv Credit Card Signature AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 71

72 References Area Development, Oct/Nov Location Profile: Missouri s Bootheel Region. Downloaded on April 26, 2016 from missouri/missouri-bootheel-region.shtml Barker, Jacob, February 8, New Madrid Smelter to Shut Down Next Month after Noranda Files for Bankruptcy. St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Downloaded on April 26, 2016 from Business Analyst Online (2016), Esri Business Analyst, Community Profile report. Bureau Of Labor Statistics (2016), Local Area Unemployment Statistics, lau/#cntyaa Dutia, Suren G. (2014), Agtech: Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Growth, Kauffman Foundation, Federal Communications Commission (2016), Fixed 25 Mbps/3 Mbps Broadband Deployment Map, 2015 Broadband Progress Report, maps/fixed-25-mbps3-mbps-broadband-deployment-map-2015-broadband-progress-report Feldt, Brian (2016), Monsanto has invested millions in these 11 startups, St. Louis Business Journal, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations (2009), How to Feed the World in Downloaded April 2016 from wsfs/docs/expert_paper/how_to_feed_the_world_in_2050.pdf Place Dynamics, n.d. Business Incubator Feasibility Study - River Falls, Wisconsin. Sfiligo, Eric, September 2, Precision Agriculture Top 5 Technologies. Downloaded on April 27, 2016 from Southeast Missouri State University (2016), Fact Book, factbook.html AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 72

73 Stapleton, James, Transforming Community Economies: Delta Regional Authority Small Business Policy Framework. Published by the Delta Regional Authority. Tilney, Melissa, and Rob Leclerc (2015), AgTech Investing Report Mid Year Report 2015, AgFunder, Three Rivers College (2016), About Us, Fast Facts, AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 73

74 USDA Nondiscrimination Statement In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C ; (2) fax: (202) ; or (3) program.intake@usda.gov. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 74

75 Contact Information 920 Broadway Cape Girardeau Missouri, AG TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 75