Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility*...

98
1 Feasibility Study; Meat Processing Facility A Collaborative Cooperative Salmon ID, Challis ID, MacKay ID

Transcript of Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility*...

Page 1: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

1  

Feasibility  Study;  Meat  Processing  Facility  A  Collaborative  Cooperative  

Salmon  ID,  Challis  ID,  MacKay  ID    

   

 

Page 2: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

2  

Project  Team:    

• Daniel  R.  Robles;  PE,  MBA,  Director  of  Coengineers,  PLLC,  A  professional  engineering  and  business  analysis  corporation  located  in  the  State  of  Washington    

• John   Harper,   under   contract   to   Coengineers,   University   of   California   Cooperative  Extension  Mendocino  &  Lake  Counties  California  

• Dr.   Robert   Needham;   Project   Manager   and   advisor   to   the   Salmon   Valley   Meat  Processing  Cooperative,  

• Salmon   Valley   Meat   Processing   Cooperative   Steering   Committee,   representing   the  towns  of  Challis,  Salmon,  and  MacKay  Idaho  

 Reference  As:    Robles,   D.R.   2014;   Feasibility   Study;   Meat   Processing   Facility,   Salmon   Valley   cooperative,  Challis,  Mackay,  Salmon  Idaho.    Community  Engineering  Services,  PLLC  and  adaptations  of  the  following  works  by:   (1)  Hardesty,  S  and   J.  Harper  2013  University  of  California  Cooperative  Extension;   Mendocino   County   Meat   Plant   Study   –   Staying   Local;   Public   Domain   per   U.S.  Department   of   Commerce   Award   No.   07   79   06702;   (2)   University   of   Idaho:   Strategies   to  Increase  Prosperity  For   Small   Farms  Through  Sustainable  Livestock  Production,   Processing  And  Marketing  2014.  (3)  Oklahoma  State  University,  Dr.  Rodney  Holcomb,  Templates  for  meat  plant  feasibility  studies.            Acknowledgements:    Community   Engineering   Services,   PLLC   is   especially   grateful   to   the   general   openness   and  spirit  of  collaboration  among  small-­‐scale  food  producers  who  contributed  generously  to  this  report.      A  large  volume  of  data,  information,  knowledge,  innovation,  and  wisdom  was  readily  and  openly  available  from  hundreds  of  groups  and  researcher  who  have  tried  many  different  ways  to  achieve  the  ideal  of  small-­‐scale  meat  plant  production.        We   offer   a   special   thanks   to   John   Harper   from   the   University   of   California   Extension   for  consulting  to  this  project.  His  deep  knowledge  and  experience  in  ranching  a  meat  processing  was   the   ideal   compliment   to   our   engineering   and   operations   focus.     His   prior   work   in  California   was   a   near   perfect   match   upon   which   to   base   a   feasibility   document   for   his  neighbors  in  Salmon  Valley,  Central  Idaho.      The   following   list   is   not   exhaustive   since   these   people   all   cite   the   experience   of   those  who  came  before  them,  and  in  many  cases,  they  cite  each  other’s  work.    The  small  meat  processing  movement  is  blessed  with  a  true  spirit  of  collaboration.      

Island  County  Cooperation  Puget  Sound  Meat  Processing  Co-­‐op  

CPoW  Livestock  Processors  Coop–Odessa  WA  Taos  Economic  Development  Corporation  

 

University  of  California,  Extension  Svcs  Polar  King  Industries  

Mike  Callicrate;  Ranch  Foods  Direct  TriVan  Conversions  

Page 3: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

3  

CONTENTS:    Project  Team                       2  Reference  as                       2  Acknowledgements                     2  Contents                       3  Executive  Summary                   5  Introduction                       9  Analysis  and  Demand  For  USDA  Processing             10  General  Trends  in  Local/Specialty  Meat               10  Demand  for  local  Meat  Processing                 11  Livestock  Production  in  Central  Idaho                 12  Rancher  Survey  of  Potential  Utilization               16  Cooperative  Business  Structure                 17  What  Works  /  What  Doesn’t                 17  Case  Studies                       20  

Island  Growers  Farmer’s  Cooperative             20  Taos  County  Research  Institute               22  Mike  Callicrate  MPU                   23  Puget  Sound  Meat  Producers  Cooperative             26  Cooperative  Processors  of  Washington             29  Mendocino  County  Feasibility  Study             30  

SVC  Plant  Requirements                   32  USDA  Regulations                   32  Wastewater  Management                 33  Composting  and  Rendering                 34  SVC  Plant  Options                   36  

Three  Phase  Approach                   40  Option  A;  Phase  1                   40  Option  A;  Phase  2                   42  Option  A;  Phase  3                   44  Option  B                     45  

Risk  Assessment  and  Mitigation                 47  Degree  of  Processing                     48    Site  Selection                         51  Coop  Shared  Responsibility                   52  Summary  Conclusion                   54    APPENDIX  A:  Position  Descriptions;  Management/Staff           51  APPENDIX  B:  Financials;  Worksheets               62  APPENDIX  C:  Additional  Case  Studies               78  APPENDIX  D:  Meat  Processors  In  Idaho               84  APPENDIX  E:  Resources,  Training,  And  Consultants           87    Bibliography                       91    

Page 4: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

4  

TABLES:    Table  1-­‐1:  Summary  Of  Options                 6  Table  1-­‐2:  Risk  Adjusted  Returns                 6  Table  2-­‐1:  U.S.  Retail  Beef  Sales  between  2012-­‐2013           11  Table  3-­‐1  Processing  Scenarios  and  Markets  Served           15  Table  4:  Cost  Estimates  for  fixed  facility,  Mendocino  County  Feasibility  Study     31  Table  5:  Estimate  of  Upfront  Start-­‐up  Project  Costs  for  Two  Options       39  Table  6A  and  6B;  Conversion  Tables  for  EAU  and  total  Head  Count       40  Table  7:  Operating  Assumptions  for  Revenue  Calculations         40  Table  8:  Option  A,  Phase  1:  Personnel  Costs             41  Table  9:  Option  A,  Phase  1:  Start-­‐up  and  Personnel  Costs           41  Table  10:  Option  A,  Phase  2:  Personnel  Costs             42  Table  11:  Option  A,  Phase  2:  Start-­‐up  and  Personnel  Costs         42  Table  12:  Option  A,  Phase  3:  Personnel  Costs             44  Table  13:  Option  A,  Phase  3:  Start-­‐up  and  Personnel  Costs         44  Table  14:  Option  B,  Personnel  Costs               45  Table  15:  Option  B,  Start-­‐up  and  Personnel  Costs             45  Table  16:  Financial  Performance  all  options             46    Table  17:  Production  Cycle  for  Cattle  in  Central  Idaho             46    Table  18:  Risk  Adjusted  Return  pegged  at  @10%             47  Table  19:  Summary  of  Equipment  for  Beef  Processing  Operation       49  Table  20:  Summary  of  Equipment  for  Pork  Processing  Operation       49  Table  21:  Options  For  Each  function  of  Meat  Processing  Operation       53    Table  22a:  Possible  phase  1  and  2  function  corresponding  Coop  Locations       53  Table  22b:  Possible  phase  3  function  corresponding  to  Coop  Locations       53  Table  22c:  Option  B  functions  corresponding  to  Coop  Locations         53    

FIGURES:    Figure  1:  Early  Mobile  Slaughter  Unit  by  The  Island  Grown  Farmers'  Cooperative   20  Figure  2a:  Polar  King  Cooler  Module.    2b:  Reefer/MSU  unloading  to  Module     22  Figure  3:  Callicrate  System  Mobile  Kill  Box             24  Figure  4:  Mike  Callicrate  System  for  Mobile  /  Modular  Processing       25  Figure  5:  Mobile  Slaughter  Unit  By  TriVan  Conversions           26  Figure  6:  Fixed  Facility;  Cooperative  Processors  of  Washington,  Odessa,  WA     29  Figure  7:  Two  Site  Modular  Meat  Processing  Illustration  of  Flow       30  Figure  8:  Polar  King  Cut  and  Wrap  Module  with  added  cooler/freezer       36    Figure  9:  TriVan  Conversions  Mobile  Slaughter  Unit  on  Medium  Cab       37  Figure  10:  Modular  Slaughter  Unit  set  in  place  with  integrated  building     37  Figure  11:  Insulated  Metal  Building  typical  for  fixed  processing  facility       38  Figure  12:  Carcass  hangs  for  cooling/aging  or  cut  into  primals         48  Figure  13:  Wrapped  Meat  Aging  on  Racks               48  Figure  14:  Cut  and  Wrap  Operations  in  Clean  Cooled  USDA  Insp.  Environment   48  Figure  15:  individually  wrapped  cuts  Req’s  tracking,  logistics,  and  QC       48  Figure  16:  Mike  Callicrate  has  had  considerable  success  with  retail  sales     50  

Page 5: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

5  

Salmon  Valley  Meat  Processing  Facility  Feasibility  Study  -­  Executive  Summary    The  proposed  project   is   for  a  small-­‐scale  multi-­‐species  USDA   inspected  meat  plant   that  will  primarily   serve   ranchers   in   the   Salmon  Valley   area   of   Central   Idaho.     It  will   process   cattle,  sheep,   hogs,   and   lamb.     This   proposed   project   is   different   from  many   case   studies   because  most  of   the  ranchers  who  would  be  served,   currently  sell   their   livestock  at  auction   to   large  processors.    They  will   primarily  be   shifting   their   sale  of   live   animals   for  deferred  payment,  albeit   possibly   higher   margins,   by   becoming   participants   in   the   business   of   processing   of  meat.        Recent   studies   indicate   that   the   increased   consumer   interest   in   locally   raised,   grass   fed,  and/or  organic  meat   is  based  on   the  perception  and  evidence  about  healthier   fats,   reduced  environmental   impact,   and   increased   animal   welfare   compared   with   beef   raised   and/or  finished   in   confinement   systems   and   processed   in   industrial   factories.     The   lack   of   nearby  processing  facilities  limits  the  marketing  options  for  ranchers.    It  is  far  simpler  to  just  sell  live  animals  at  the  cost  of  being  reliant  on  external  entities.      A  recent  study  by  University  of  Idaho  concludes  that  there  is  enough  livestock  in  the  area  to  support   meat-­‐processing   facilities   with   capacity   of   2,400   to   16,000   animals   and   possibly  many  more.  The  facilities  proposed  here  fit  well  within  the  current  projections.    A  structured  survey  of  5  members  of  the  steering  committee  indicate  that  there  is  significant  interest  in  building  self-­‐sufficiency,  job  creation,  sustainability,  and  value  added  to  an  existing  local   industry.     Ranchers   currently   sell   livestock   directly   to   processors   at   autumn   auction  prices.    In  order  for  local  production  to  compete  with  the  auction  culture,  the  rancher  would  need   to  accept  deferred  payment   for   their   livestock,  or   the  Co-­‐op  must  buy   the   livestock  at  auction  prices  from  the  Rancher.    The  co-­‐operative  may  also  offer  bridge  loans  to  a  Rancher.        Ranchers  are  accustomed  to  preparing  stock  for  autumn  harvest  creating  a  peak  season  and  a  lax  season  whereas  the  local  processing  facility  proposal  is  beast  suited  for  year-­‐round  steady  state  production.      The  Rancher  may  need  to  accommodate  multi-­‐species  operation  or  multi-­‐niche  production  (organic,  grass  fed,  grain  fed  each  have  different  growth  rates).    Or  the  Co-­‐op  could  add  freezing  capacity  and  offer  financial  incentives  to  the  ranchers.          Two  plant  options  are  analyzed    Option  A  is  a  phased  approach  with  3  phases  of  growth  consisting  of  USDA  Inspected  mobile  or  modular  slaughter  unit  with  adjacent  temporary  or  semi-­‐permanent  holding  pens  located  on   leased   land   on   a   prepared   Ranch.       The   second   phase   is   largely   achieved   by   adding  personnel.    As  facilities  are  maximized,  modular  refrigeration,  wrap,  and  processing  units  are  added  as  needed  in  the  3rd  phase.      Option   B   is   a   built-­‐in-­‐place   2400   square   foot   USDA   Inspected   slaughter   and   processing  facility   located   on   a   plot   that   is   purchased   or   with   a   long-­‐term   lease.     All   USDA   inspected  processes  are  contained  and  controlled  within  the  building.  The  minimum  viable  production  will  be  approximately  1500  animal  units  per  year.  

Page 6: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

6  

 Option   A   would   be   somewhat   more   complicated   to   operate   but   it   has   a   lower   minimum  viable  production  of  approximately  750  animals  per  year   in  phase  1  and  can  be  built  up   to  around   3000   equivalent   animal   units   through   phase   3   if   the   coop   and   market   are   largely  successful.    Option  A  may  have  a  greater  recovery  value  in  the  event  that  the  cooperative  is  not   successful.    Option  B  would   be   easier   to   operate   and   employ   fewer   people,   but  would  require  a  higher  level  of  commitment  and  initial  financial  outlay.      

Table  1-­1:  Summary  Of  Options    Risk  adjusted  project  returns:    The  risk  adjusted  table  sacrifices  internal  rate  of  return  in  exchange  for  reduced  operational  risk.     Here   we   peg   the   IRR   to   the   discount   rate   at   10%   and   allocate   all   excess   predicted  revenue  to  operational  risk  reduction.      

Table  1-­2:  Risk  Adjusted  Returns    This  chart  shows  the  amount  of  short-­‐term  operational  capital  could  be  held  in  reserve,  at  the  cost  of  money,  which  could  minimize  operational  risk.    This  rotating  capital  could  be  used  to  purchase  livestock  directly  or  provide  bridge  loans  to  ranchers  for  the  period  of  time  it  takes  for   product   to   reach  market.     Other   uses  may   include   ramping   up   temporary   personnel   to  meet  peak  loads  or  obtaining  additional  refrigeration  or  freezing  capacity  to  preserve  product  from  loss.      

Measures   Option  A   Option  B     Phase  1   Phase  2   Phase  3    Animals  (Composition)  

750  (100%  Cattle)  

1500  (75C/20S/5H)  

3000  (75C/20S/5H)  

1500  (75C/20S/5H)  

Capital  Investment  

$912,000   P1    +$200,000  [$1,147,000]  

P2   +$900,100    [$2,047,000]  

$1,282,000  

Debt  Financing  

$547,200  (60%)  

$658,200  (60%)  

$1,128,000  (60%)  

$1,025,600  (80%)  

Personnel  Cost  (per  year)  

$202,500   $351,100   $654,750   $371,250  

Gross   Revenue  Year  5  

$546,  317   $861,386   $1,740,459   $861,386  

Expenses  Year  5  

$457,717   $680,647   $1,265,200   $692,200  

Payback  Period  

>10  years   7  years   4  years   7  years  

Internal   Rate  of  Return  

10.32%   18.03%   26.09%   19.26%  

Measures   Option  A   Option  B     Phase  1   Phase  2   Phase  3    IRR  @  10%   $1M  =  0%   $1.2M   $4M   $1.5M  

Page 7: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

7  

Personnel    The  most  challenging  variable  in  this  project  will  be  on  the  human  resources  and  management  side  of  the  equation.    A  large  percentage  of  attempts  at  local  meat  processing  capacity  fail  due  to   inexperienced  operational  management  specific  to  the  meat  processing  industry.  Further,  dealing  with   the   USDA  will   not   be   an   insignificant   human   resources   component.   For   these  reason,   we   have   provided  Option   A,   which   optimizes   flexibility,   resilience,   and   ultimately,  salvage  value  in  the  event  that  the  project  fails.    Option  B  is  a  more  traditional  approach  that  can  be  compared  against  similar  case  studies  from  other  communities  (reality  check).            Capital  Costs    The  Small  Business  Administration’s  Section  504  program  can  potentially  provide  guaranteed  financing  for  80%  of  the  option  involving  land  acquisition  (Option  B).    Option  A  and  follow-­‐on   phases   involve   leased   sites   and   mobile/modular   facilities;   they   will   need   conventional  financing   which   is   likely   to   provide   only   60%   of   project   cost.     Private   donors,   community  investment,   regional   economic   development   aid,   etc   may   fund   the   balance   of   construction  costs.       Operating   capital   may   be   sourced   from   traditional   business   loans.     Additional  resources  are  identified  later  in  this  report.    Utilization:    A  high   level  of  utilization   is  critical   to   the  Salmon  Valley  Co-­‐op  meat  processing  operation’s  financial  viability.    The  minimum  viable  production  rate  of  750  cattle  was  provided  as  a  hard  point  to  reach  as  quickly  as  possible  as  a  condition  of  project  viability.    SVC  must  be  confident  that  they  have  a  near-­‐immediate  supply  and  demand  for  750  head  of  beef  in  year  1.    Then  they  must   execute  a  10%   IRR  business  plan   that   integrates  possession  of  pre-­‐packaged   facilities  and  obtain  USDA  approval  under  competent  management.    Therefore,  experienced  management  and  quality  service  is  needed  to  attract  and  retain  a  few  key  ranchers  to  provide  reliable  high  quality  livestock  within  the  operational  capacity  of  the  initial   build-­‐out.       Experienced   management   must   also   secure   a   ready   local   distribution  channel  for  750  head  of  boxed  beef  products  in  a  single  year.      Market    With   any   project   involving   long-­‐term   projections,   there   is   always   uncertainty   related   to  demand   for  products  or   services.  Most  of   the   ranchers  have  already  developed  markets   for  their  product  and  most  of  the  distributors  have  established  sources,  the  challenge  will  be  for  SVC   to   convince   the   ranchers   and   the   end-­‐users   that   they   can   deliver   reliable   processing  under  competitive  or  superior  terms    Infrastructure    Due   to   the   variety   of   jurisdictions   and   land   protection   status   of   the   Salmon   Valley,   site  selections  will  be  important  for  the  viability  of  the  project.    Pre-­‐treatment  of  wastewater  has  

Page 8: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

8  

been  factored  into  this  study  in  order  to  allow  deposit   into   local  sewer  systems.    The  prices  quoted  here  come  from  a  California  study,  which  is  likely  far  more  stringent  than  Idaho.    Exact  cost  for  hook  ups,  treatment,  and  utilities  will  be  treated  in  the  business  plan.          Other  major  areas  of  uncertainty   include  site  development  costs,   roadway  requirements,   as  well   as   permit   costs   zoning,   and   municipal   services   as   well   as   the   amount   and   cost   of  electricity   and   feed  water.       Consultants   such   as   an   experienced   plant   design   engineer   and  wastewater  engineer  will  reduce  some  of  these  costs  substantially.        Growth  and  Sustainability    The  most  difficult  period  will  be   in   the  beginning  as   the  project  grows  rapidly   to  minimum  viable  production  and  stabilizes  supply,  demand,  and  the  regulatory  environment.      Both   options   are   financially   viable.    While   both  Option  A   and  Option  B  will   take   a   certain  period  of  time  to  reach  full  capacity,  Option  A  accommodates  some  growth  projections  and  a  great  deal  more  of  flexibility  to  meet  peak  loads,  decentralized  production,  and  niche  markets.        Option   A,   Phase   1   represents   an   estimate   of   the   minimum   viable   production   for   a   profit  making   commercial   meat   processing   operation   specific   to   the   Salmon   Valley   Meat  Cooperative.       If  Salmon  Valley  can  set   their  sights  on   the  Phase  1  operational  specification,  and  can  sustain  that  indefinitely,  future  ambitions  will  be  most  feasible.                                                      

Page 9: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

9  

 Introduction:    The  desired  outcome  of  this  project  is  to  produce,  process,  and  deliver  to  market  high-­‐quality  USDA  Inspected  grass  fed,  organic,  and  sustainably  produced  red  meats.    The  lack  of  nearby  slaughter   and  processing   facilities   severely   limits   the   rancher’s   ability   to   increase   their   bio  and   agricultural   diversity   through   multi-­‐species   grazing,   custom   production,   and   direct  marketing.     Substantial   costs   would   be   incurred   traveling   to   distant   processors,   which  restricts   the   possibility   of   serving   local   markets,   restaurants,   institutions,   grocers,   and  butcher  shops  in  the  Central  Idaho  region.      Meanwhile,   a   rapid   consolidation   of  meat   processors   has   led   to   suppressed   auction   prices  while   the   price   of   fuel   has   increase   the   cost   of   transporting   livestock   and  meats   over   long  distances.     Community   sustainability   is   an   increasing   concern   recognizing   that   local  production   of   food   and   associated   skill   set   increases   community   resilience   and   preserves  social  capital  for  future  generations.      These  factors  have  led  to  the  formation  of  the  Salmon  Valley  Co-­‐operative.        In   response   to   these   issues,   this   study   investigates   the   development   of  multi-­‐species  meat  plant  that  will  provide  individual  member  ranchers  with  slaughter  and  cut-­‐and-­‐wrap  for  beef,  lamb,  and  hogs.    The  plant  is  intended  to  serve  primarily  markets  in  the  central  Idaho  region  with  the  ability  to  serve  southern  Idaho,  Eastern  Washington,  and  Western  Montana.      It   is   expected   that   co-­‐op  member   ranchers  will   initially   target   targeting   retail,   food   service  outlets,   restaurants   and   established   distributors   with   boxed   meats,   then   increasingly  specialized   cut   and   wrap   service.     Ideally,   value-­‐added   services   would   be   ventured   as  experience  is  gathered  and  operational  efficiencies  are  gained.        This   draft   report   is   a   feasibility   study.     In   order   to   provide   flexibility   to   the   analysis,   two  different   configurations   of   the  USDA   inspected  meat   plant  were   developed   after   significant  consideration  of  the  community  capabilities  and  expectations.        Option  A   is  a  mobile  or  modular  meat  plant  and  modular  cut-­‐and-­‐wrap  facility  and  delivery  service  located  in  one  or  more  locations  within  the  Salmon  Valley  Co-­‐operative  membership  domain.  The  Option  A  configuration  consists  of  three  phases:    

• Phase  1:  Minimum  viable  production  at  750  animals  per  year.      • Phase  2  sustainable  profit  making  production  of  1500  animals,    • Phase  3  is  a  maximum  production  scenario  for  3000  animals.      

 Adding  more  modules  to  the  Option  A  configuration  may  attain  additional  production.      Option  B  is  a  permanent  fixed  meat  plant  facility  with  proximate  cut-­‐and-­‐wrap  operation  and  delivery   system   of   familiar   and   comparable   design   as   other   small-­‐scale   plants   currently   in  operation  elsewhere  in  the  U.S.  and  designed  optimally  to  process  1500  animals  per  year  in  a  single  daily  shift.          

Page 10: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

10  

Pro   forma   financial   statements   –   for   net   income   and   cash   flow   –  were   developed   for   each  option  and  respective  phases.    Returns  on  investment  are  compared  for  each  option  and  again  within  each  phase  of  Option  A.        A   special   case   analysis   is   included   that   pegs   IRR   at   the   cost   of   money   and   minimizes  operational   risk  by  maintaining  relatively  high   levels  of  working  capital   in  order   to  provide  bridge  funding  for  rancher’s  livestock  and/or  freezer  capacity  to  serve  demand  outside  of  the  harvest  season,  if  needed.        Analysis  of  Demand  for  USDA-­Inspected  Slaughter  and  Processing  Services          This   section   begins   with   a   review   of   general   trends   in   specialty/local   meat   demand,   then  addresses  the  more  specific  demand  for  locally  regionally  produced  meat  in  Idaho  region.          Fortunately,   the   University   of   Idaho   recently   released   a   comprehensive   market   study   for  additional  meat  plant  capacity  in  nearly  the  same  geographic  area  as  the  object  of  this  study.    As  such,  the  University  of  Idaho  report  is  adapted  extensively  throughout  this  section.      General  Trends  in  Specialty/Local  Meat  Demand  1    Since  the  end  of  World  War  II,  significant  concentration  has  occurred  in  the  U.S.  food  industry,  including   the   production,  manufacturing   and   retailing   sectors.   As   grocery   and   food   service  chains  became   larger  and  gained  significant  market  power,   the  meat  processing   sector  also  experienced  considerable  consolidation.  Between  1980  and  2010,  the  four-­‐firm  concentration  ratios  rose  from  36%  to  85%  for  steer  and  heifer  packers,  from  34%  to  65%  for  pork  packers,  and  from  56%  to  65%  for  sheep  and  lamb  packers.  This  concentration  was  accompanied  by  the  closure  of  many  regional  meat-­‐processing  facilities  across  the  nation  (USDA-­‐GIPSA,  2012).      Mathews  and  Johnson  (2013)  recently  examined  the  specific  production  technologies  behind  alternative   beef   production   systems   (natural,   organic   and   grass-­‐fed)   and   products.   They  reported  that,  during  the  past  ten  years,  55%  of  cattle  were  slaughtered  in  plants  that  process  1  million   or  more   head   per   year,   and   just   over   1%  was   slaughtered   in   plants   that   process  fewer  than  10,000  head  per  year.  Currently,  alternatively  raised  beef  accounts  for  about  3%  of  the  U.S.  beef  market  and  has  grown  about  20%  per  year  in  recent  years.        Gwin,   Durham,   Miller   and   Colanna   (2012)   noted   that   the   “increased   consumer   interest   in  grass-­‐fed,   naturally   raised,   locally   produced   meats   is   based   on   perceptions   and   evidence  about   ‘healthier’   fats,   reduced   environmental   impacts   and   increased   animal   welfare  associated  with  meats  not  raised   in  confinement  systems  on  grain-­‐based  diets”  (p.92).  They  also  determined  that,  when  consumers  had  knowledge  of  the  health  benefits  of  grass-­‐fed  beef,  they  are  willing  to  pay  the  higher  product  prices.                                                                                                                      1  Hardesty,  S  and  J.  Harper  2013  University  of  California  Cooperative  Extension;  Mendocino  County  Meat  Plant  Study  –  Staying  Local    

Page 11: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

11  

Mathews  and  Johnson  (2013)  also  found  that  consumers  are  willing  to  pay  a  premium  for  the  omega-­‐3   health   benefits   associated  with   grass-­‐fed   beef.   They   noted   that   numerous   studies  published  between  2007  and  2012  indicated  that  consumers  were  willing  to  pay  a  premium  of  $0.76  per  pound  for  beef  produced  without  hormones.      A   USDA   study   found   that   consumers   who   buy   locally   produced   foods   are   motivated   by  freshness,  healthfulness,  flavor,  quality  and  support  for  local  farmers  (Martinez  et  al.,  2010).    Similarly,  consumer  research  commissioned  by  the  National  Pork  Board  indicates  that  these  factors   also   supported   the   growing   popularity   for   niche   food   products   (natural,   organic   or  locally-­‐grown),  as  well  as  being  important  reasons  for  purchasing  niche  pork  products.  More  than  half   (53%)  of  niche  pork  purchasers  reported  buying  these  products  at  a  conventional  grocery   store.     Additional   33%   purchased   niche   pork   at   specialty   food   stores,   23%   at   a  farmers   market   or   food   cooperative,   and   20%   buy   them   directly   from   a   local   farmer.  Consumers  most  often  cited  lack  of  availability  in  the  places  where  they  shop  as  the  reason  for  not  purchasing  niche  pork  more  often  (49%),  followed  by  inability  to  find  the  product  locally  and  price  (both  37%).      Nationwide,  sales  of  beef  in  the  mainstream  grocery  market  are  stronger  in  the  natural/beef  category   than   the   overall   beef   category   as   shown   in   Table   2-­‐1.   The   natural/organic   beef  market  is  still  very  limited  but  growing  in  market  share;  natural/organic  beef  products’  share  of  total  US  retail  beef  sales  on  a  pound  basis  rose  from  1.8%  during  the  2nd  quarter  of  2010  to  2.7%  during  the  1st  quarter  of  2013;  on  a  dollar  basis,  they  rose  from  2.8%  to  4.1%  during  the  same   period.   The   organic   industry   reported   that   the  meat,   fish   and   poultry   category   is   its  fastest  growing  sector,  posting  13%  growth  in  sales  between  2010  and  2011  sales;  however,  it  remains  the  smallest  of  the  eight  organic  food  categories  (Organic  Trade  Association,  2012).      

   Similarly,  the  American  Lamb  Board  (2013)  reported  that  there  is  increased  consumer  focus  on   local,  healthy  and  sustainable   foods,  and  that   the  rapidly  growing  ethnic  populations  are  heavy  consumers  of  lamb.  It  also  noted  that  more  lamb  producers  are  selling  direct  to  chefs,  ethnic   communities   and   farmers’   markets.   The   American   Lamb   Board   also   found   that   fine  dining  chefs  are  working  more  directly  with  farmers  and  producers  to  ensure  they  source  the  high  quality  and  sustainably  produced  ingredients.      Demand  for  Local  Meat  Processing      The  availability  of  small-­‐scale  USDA-­‐inspected  meat  plants  that  provide  services  to  individual  ranchers   is   limited   in   numerous   regions   across   the   country.   In   their   analysis   of   growth   in  demand   of   natural,   grass-­‐fed   and   organic  meats,  Mathews   and   Johnson   (2013)   determined  that  the  ranchers  have  to  rely  extensively  on  small  regional  facilities  since  they  are  unable  to  

Page 12: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

12  

meet  the  volumes  and  uniform  size  required  by   large  meat  processors.  They  concluded  that  structural   innovations   for   slaughter   and   processing   are   needed   to   enable   the   growth   of  alternative  livestock  producers.      While  ranchers  and  others  assert  that   limited  availability  of  appropriately  scaled  processing  facilities   is   restricting   the   supply  of   locally  produced  meats,   existing   small  processors  often  state   that   they   lack   the   steady   volumes   needed   to   be   profitable.   Gwin,   Thiboumery   and  Stillman  (2013)  analyzed  the  causes  of  these  challenging  circumstances.  They  concluded  that  merely   adding   new   facilities   will   not   guarantee   success;   strong   coordination   and  communication  between  ranchers  and  processors  are  critical  to  the  success  and  expansion  of  locally  produced  meats.      Such  collaborations  can   involve  varying  structures,   including  both  public  and  private  sector  partners  who  provide  support  and  technical  assistance  to  meat  processors  and  their  rancher-­‐customers.  Processors  can  enhance   their  viability  by  having  a   few   large  rancher-­‐  customers  who  provide  significant  stability.  Another  potential   tool   that  processors  can  use   is  adopting  active  scheduling  systems  and  variable  pricing  to  assure  steady  throughput  during  the  entire  year.      Ranchers   will   have   a   stronger   commitment   to   the   processor   if   they   have   a   financial  investment  in  the  plant.  Gwin  et  al.  (2013)  concluded  that,  in  many  cases,  greater  efficiency  is  likely   if   existing   facilities   are   enhanced   and   expanded,   rather   than   building   new   facilities.  Nevertheless,  there  are  areas,  where  ranchers  need  to  drive  more  than  two  hours  one-­‐way  to  a   slaughter   facility,   and   then   must   travel   a   significant   distance   to   have   the   carcasses  processed.      Livestock  Production  in  Idaho  2    Idaho  is  home  to  a  strong,  stable  and  profitable  beef  industry.  Statewide,  some  57  percent  of  Idaho   beef   operations   have   50   head   or   less.   About   8   percent  have   more   than   500   head—accounting   for  68  percent  of   the   total  beef  cattle   inventory   in   Idaho.    Most   Idaho  beef  cattle  operations   are   relatively   small,   family-­‐owned   enterprises.   The   majority   of   beef   cows   are  located   in  southern   Idaho.   Because  more   than  2/3   of   all   Idaho   land   is   federally   owned,   the  vast   majority   of   beef   cattle   spend   at   least   part   of   the   year   grazing   on   public   land.      The   beef   industry   ranks   in   the   top   three   of   Idaho's   agricultural   industries   and   contributes  from   $600   million   to   $1   billion,   depending   on   fluctuating   market   conditions,   annually   to  Idaho's   state   economy.     There   are   over   9,700  cattle   operations   in   Idaho.     As   of   January   1,  2012,  there  were  2.2  million  head  of  cattle  and  calves  in  Idaho  valued  at  approximately  $2.7  Billion.  (http://www.idbeef.org/idahobeefindustry.aspx)    

                                                                                                               2  University  of  Idaho:  Strategies  to  Increase  Prosperity  For  Small  Farms  Through  Sustainable  Livestock  Production,  Processing  And  Marketing  2014      

Page 13: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

13  

According   to   the   Idaho   Agriculture   (http://www.agri.idaho.gov)   2007   Agriculture   Census,  there   are   approximately   25,349   farms   and   ranches   covering   11,497,383   acres   of   land.    According  to  a  2011  census  2.2  million  head  of  cattle  and  calves  were  raised  where  574,000  were  dairy  cattle.  185,000  sheep  and  lamb  were  produced.          Cattle  are  raised  in  every  Idaho  County,  with  the  largest  production  in  the  southern  part  of  the  state.   Small   independently   owned   operations   are   still   the   backbone   of   the   Idaho  cattle  industry.  Despite  the  large  holdings  of  corporate  operations  headquartered  in  Idaho  such  as  Simplot   and   Agri-­‐Beef,   the  majority   of   Idaho   cattle   are   raised   and   fed   on   privately   owned  ranches  and  feedlots.      For   the  most  part,  beef   cows  are   raised  on  open  pasture.  With  more   than   two   thirds  of   the  state   owned   by   federal   and   state   government,  most   cows   and   calves   spend   at   least   part   of  their  lives  on  public  rangelands.  Idaho  feedlots  depend  on  crop  by-­‐products,  especially  from  potato   processing   operations,   to   efficiently   finish   high   quality   cattle   for   domestic   and  international  markets.    The  Idaho  Cattle  Association  (ICA)  is  the  official  voice  for  all  segments  of  the  beef  business  in  Idaho,   including   seed-­‐stock   breeders,   commercial   operators   and   cattle   feeders.   It   is   the  grassroots  policy  development  organization   for   Idaho's   leading   agricultural   industry,   cattle.  Through   the   ICA,   cattlemen   and   women   work   to   create   a   positive   business   environment,  while  providing  consumers  with  a  safe  and  wholesome  product    Growing  consumer  demand  for  locally  produced  meat  presents  an  opportunity  for  small-­‐scale  livestock   producers   to   take   advantage   of   emerging   local   beef   niche   markets,   which   offer  higher  profits  than  selling  animals  at  auction.  To  take  full  advantage  of  this  growing  demand,  producers  need  more  small-­‐scale  meat  processing.  Currently,  no  substantial   local   feedlot  or  USDA-­‐inspected   processing   infrastructure   occurs   in   the   area,   and   only   two   small   USDA-­‐inspected  meat-­‐processing  facilities  occur  in  the  area  (Moscow  and  Sandpoint).      Surveys  of   local  consumers   in  northern  Idaho  and  eastern  Washington  revealed  support   for  local  beef  production:      

• Consumers’   beef   choice   is  most   influenced  by  distance   of   origin.   They  have   a   strong  preference  for  beef  produced  within  85  miles  of  home.    

• Consumers  are  willing  to  pay  10%  more  for  certified  organic  and  all  natural  beef.  • Locally  branded  and  marketed  beef,  either  certified  organic  or  all  natural,   is   likely   to  

yield  the  highest  price  premium  for  area  livestock  producers.      To  better  understand   local  producers’  perspectives  on  developing   local   livestock  processing  capacity,   information   was   gathered   through   producer   forums,   interviews   and   surveys.  Research  findings  help  answer  several  questions  related  to  small-­‐scale  meat  processing.            

Page 14: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

14  

What  constraints  do  livestock  producers  experience?      Producers’   interest   in  expanding  small-­‐scale  USDA-­‐inspected  processing   is  motivated  by  the  perception   that   increased   processing   capacity   will   help   producers   overcome   current  constraints:      

• Inadequate  access  to  USDA-­‐inspected  processing  options  within  a  reasonable  distance;    • The  amount  of  time  required  to  direct  market;    • Inadequate  income  to  support  multigenerational  families;  and    • Mismatch  between  seasonal  availability  of  livestock  and  times  of  unutilized  capacity  at  

existing  processors.      In   addition,   most   small   producers   currently   sell   their   livestock   at   auction.   While   many  producers   are   interested   in   alternatives,  many   do   not   have   the   ability   to   finish   animals   to  slaughter  weight.  Additional  finishing  capacity  will  also  need  to  be  developed.      What  processing  options  are  livestock  producers  interested  in  pursuing  and  why?      

• Most  producers—88%—think  it  is  moderately  or  very  important  to  develop  additional  processing  options  in  the  region.    

• To   increase   local   processing   capacity,   producers   prefer   USDA-­‐inspected   mobile  slaughter,  followed  closely  by  building  a  stationary  USDA-­‐inspected  facility.    

• Producers  with  operations  selling  fewer  than  200  head  each  year  are  most  interested  in  USDA-­‐inspected  processing.  

   Are  a  sufficient  number  of  producers  willing  to  participate  in  efforts  to  expand  local  processing  capacity?      

• Most   producers   are   willing   to   participate   in   a   processing   cooperative—93%—or  marketing  cooperative—  88%.    

• An  eight-­‐member  steering  committee  of  livestock  producers  formed  and  recruited  26  additional  producers  for  a  livestock  processing  cooperative  working  group.    

• This   group  will   build   upon   the   study’s   research   to   develop   a   detailed   business   plan,  seek   financing  and   take  other   steps   toward  successful   implementation  of  new  small-­‐scale  USDA-­‐inspected  processing.    

 Interviews  with   local   livestock  processors  provided   insight   into  current  processing  capacity  and  possibilities  for  cooperative  ventures  to  increase  capacity:      

• Most   processors   think   available   processing   capacity   is   inadequate   to   respond   to   the  growing  market  and  producers’  demand  for  USDA-­‐inspected  livestock  products.    

• Processors  do  not  plan  to  expand  to  meet  the  growing  demand.    • Local  custom-­‐exempt  processors  are  not   interested  in  becoming  USDA-­‐inspected,  but  

they  are  supportive  of  working  with  producers  to  develop  a  new  business  model  and  new  capacity.    

Page 15: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

15  

• Custom-­‐exempt   processors   agreed   that   expanding   small-­‐scale,   USDA-­‐inspected  processing   capacity   would   benefit   the   region   and   would   not   hurt   existing   business  since  it  would  likely  serve  a  different  market.    

   Table  3-­1  Processing  Scenarios  and  Markets  Served    Conclusion:  Many  processing  options  were  assessed  as  part  of  this  study.  It  was  found  that  there   is   enough   livestock   raised   in   the   study  area,   especially   the   southern  portion  of  Idaho,   to   support   processing   options   requiring   2,400-­16,000   animals,   depending   on  demand.    There   is  enough   livestock  supply   to  support  options  requiring  more  animals,  but  the   risk   is   higher.     Processing   capacity   could   be   enhanced   by   the   region’s   supply   of   sheep,  hogs   and   goats,   which   could   support   a   more   balanced   seasonal   supply   to   processors.   The  Salmon  Valley  Cooperative  is  ideally  situated  in  the  geographic  center  of  the  state  and  closest  proximity  to  Western  Montana  and  Eastern  Washington  markets.    

Page 16: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

16  

   

SVC  Rancher  Survey  of  Potential  Utilization  of  Proposed  Facility    The  Salmon  Valley  Cooperative  is  the  formation  of  the  three  communities  of  Salmon,  Challis,  and  MacKay  that  are  collaborating  in  development  of  local  meat  processing  facilities.    These  3  towns  are  roughly  aligned  on  a  single  highway  and  separated  by  about  1  hour  drive  time  (55-­‐65  miles)  with  Challis  in  the  middle.      Salmon,  to  the  north  is  the  largest  of  the  three  cities  and  closest  to  Western  Montana.  MacKay  to  the  South  is  likely  closest  to  major  markets  (such  as  Twin   Falls   and   Boise)   as   well   as   major   infrastructure   such   as   rail   service   and   interstate  highways.          The   Population   of   Challis   is:   1083,   Mackay:   506,   Salmon,   3,044.     Livestock   production   is  roughly   is  70%  cattle,  25%  lamb,  5%  hogs.    No  game  will  be  processed  by  this   facility.     It   is  assumed   that   each   geographic   location  will   provide   a   similar   proportion   of   animal   species.    There  are  currently  9  ranchers  running  the  steering  committee  for  the  proposed  facility.    It  is  not   known   how   many   individual   farms   will   participate   but   all   are   aware   that   rancher  membership  in  the  cooperative  will  be  an  important  success  factor.          Among   the   first  markets   to  consider  serving   is   the   local   community  of   the  Co-­‐op   itself  with  fresh   local  products   from  resident   ranchers   in  boxed  meat  packages.    This  would  minimize  transportation   and   broker   charges   in   accessing   an   estimated   4500   persons   residing  within  the  three  municipalities  and  a  possibility  of  serving  10-­‐15,000  total  residents   in  the  Salmon  Valley   geographical   area   (including  Western  Montana)   and   accessed   through   existing   retail  outlets,  institutions,  and  local  distributors.        As   expertise   and   experience   grows   in   the   cut   and  wrap   component,   the   level   of   expanded  service  would  include  delivery  of  prime  cuts  to  local  and  regional  restaurants  and  supplying  ground  meat  products   to   institutional  markets  such  as  schools,  government,  or   food  service  companies.      At  any  time,  the  rancher  may  market  their  specific  lot  of  product.        Most   Ranchers   responded   that   their   slaughter   occurs   primarily   between   the   peak   times   of  May   through   October   with   little   apparent   desire   to   change   this   schedule.     Multi-­‐species  operation  will  assist  in  evening  out  yearly  production  as  will  niche  products  such  as  grass  fed  or   organic   beef   which   require   a   greater   lifespan   to   reach   optimum   returns.     Finally,   the  options  presented  here  may  support  flexible  operations  by  doubling  personnel  or  operational  shifts.     It   is   likely   that   the   flexibility  may  be   sufficient   to  provide   ranchers  with   the   time   to  adjust   their   production   schedules   to   take   advantage   of   lower   processing   costs   during   non-­‐peak  times.        Services  highly  desired  by  Ranchers   from  other   similar   communities   include   in   order  meat  grinding,  and  extended  hang  time.    Many  ranchers  may  seek  labeling  of  cuts  and  delivery  to  customers   since   these   services   are   not   generally   developed   in   the   Salmon   Valley   region.    There  was  no  notable  interest  in  smoked  processing  or  Kosher  or  Halal  slaughter  practices.            

Page 17: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

17  

 Cooperative  Business  Structure    A  Cooperative  is  a  jointly  owned  business  that:  (a)  distributes  control  equally  (either  as  one  member  one  vote,   or  proportionate   to  use);   (b)  provides   equity  distributed  benefits   on   the  basis   of   use   (rather   than   on   the   basis   of   investment);   and   (c)   has   equitably   distributed  capitalization  responsibilities,  also  on  the  basis  of  use.    Cooperatives  usually  have  employees  who  operate   the   cooperative   on   a   daily   basis.     In   the   long   run,   Cooperatives   strive   to   have  each   member’s   capital   investment   in   the   cooperative   to   be   proportionate   to   his/her  utilization  of  the  cooperative.          Cooperatives   resemble   partnerships   and   LLCs   in   that   their   income   may   be   taxed   at   the  individual   or   member   level   –   if   profits   are   distributed   properly   as   patronage   refunds.    Cooperatives  share  the  corporate  characteristic  of  limited  liability  and  involve  similar  capital  gains  tax  advantages.      With  Respect  to  the  Salmon  Valley  Meat  Processing,  the  cooperatives  members  could  be  the  ranchers  who  utilize  the  plant’s  services.  Another  variation  is  that  the  plant’s  employees  could  be   the   cooperative   members   rather   than   the   ranchers;   however,   employee   owned   co-­‐op  would  require  a  relatively  high  per-­‐person  investment  from  a  relatively  small  labor  force  of  6-­‐16  employees.    It   is  not  known  how  many  ranchers  could  be  attracted  to  take  an  ownership  position  in  the  SVC.    It  is  widely  expected  that  a  strong  demonstration  plant  would  need  to  be  in  place  in  order  to  convince  the  second  tier  of  ranchers  (or  employees)  to  join.        What  Does  and  What  Does  Not  Work  3    Pennsylvania  State  University  recently  conducted  a  study  of  35  small  meat  processor  projects  over  13  years  in  18  states  in  order  to  learn  what  worked  and  what  did  not.    They  found  that  close   to  55%  did  not   raise   the   investment   required.  They   found   that   about  35%  raised   the  money   but   are   now   shut   down.   They   found   that   roughly   15%   of   projects   succeed   and   are  running  today.      Why  Such  a  High  Failure  Rate?  -­  All  have  unique  reasons  but  some  commonalities    1.  Ran  out  of  operating  capital  and  have  limited  opportunities  to  find  more  with  investors  and  lenders.  Lesson:  Make  sure  you  do  the  necessary  due  diligence  in  the  business  planning!  Huge  management  mistakes  results  in  #1.    2.  Marketing/sales  weaknesses.  Most  projects  are  supply  driven.  They  thought  the  plant  was  the   market  when  what  was  needed  is  a  market  for  products  and  services  (demand).    3.  Livestock  producers  do  not  have  the  experience  to  oversee  a  processing  business:   Producer  Involvement  Valuable  to  a  Point  but  not  for  Total  Ownership   It’s  not  what  producers  do.                                                                                                                  3  Resource  provided  by  John  Harper;  Citation  to  Pennsylvania  State  University  appears  in  text      

Page 18: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

18  

Waste  valuable  time  and  money  learning.    4.   Processing   is   a   skill-­‐set   with   its   own   unique   challenges   and   problems.   Processing   is   a  money  pit.  Producer  resources  are  better  used  in  marketing.    What  did  the  Successful  Ones  Do  Right?  -­  One  or  more  of  the  following:    

• Supporters  set  up  a  functional  Board  of  Directors  with  good  business  understanding.  • Purchased  a  successful  processor  when  available—Not  a  likely  path  for  this  project.  • Hired  a  good  manager  with  experience.  • Attracted   investments   from   successful   producers   with   means   and   started   out   with  

plenty  of   equity—the  importance  of  a  feasibility  study  and  detailed  business  plan  cannot  be   overstated.  

• Producers  and  investors  are  dedicated  and  quality  conscious.  • Developed  good  lender  relationships.  

 If  New  Processing  Capacity  is  the  Only  Way  to  be  in  the  Marketplace,  what  are  the  most   viable  strategies?    

• Involve  an  existing  processor.  • Find  a  regional  processor  interested  in  expansion.  • Develop  a  business  partnership    • On  completion  of  a  feasibility  study,  a  well-­‐designed  marketing  plan  should  be  the  first  

step   in  the  business  planning  process.  • Involve   as   many   producers   with   common   goals   as   up   can   find   (equity   source,   raw  

material   source).  • Shore  up  equity  needs.  If  short,  don’t  start!  

 What  hasn’t  worked?  

• Too  large  a  group  of  investors  with  competing  interests  or  ideas.  • “Promise”  that  producers  will  support  the  project  and  operation  of  the  facility.  • Too  much  too  fast—let’s  provide  every  product  and  service  possible!  • An  anti-­‐USDA  attitude  from  square  one.  • Entering  an  already  saturated  market.  • Not   able   to   charge   enough   for   services   (competitive   pricing   for   services   by   existing  

plants)  • Not  enough  livestock  available  to  supply  the  plant.  • Insufficient  operations  and  market  research  for  services  and  products.  • Underestimating  expenses.  • Inability  to  obtain  correct  zoning  or  underestimate  water/sewer  costs.  • Under  estimate  transportation  costs.  • Income  losses  due  to  difficult  or  non-­‐cooperative  producers.  • “Cowboy”   mindset—many   details   to   understand   and   much   bureaucracy   to   address—

“just   do  it”  is  a  guaranteed  prescription  for  failure.  • Poor  grasp  of  the  time  commitment  • Unable  to  find  qualified  labor.  

Page 19: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

19  

• NO  MEAT  INDUSTRY  EXPERIENCE—raising  animals  is  a  very  different  set  of  core  skills  than  operating  a  highly  regulated  meat  processing  plant.  

 What  has  worked?  Expansion  of  existing  businesses  

• >90%  of  the  successful  operations  have  been  multi-­‐generational.  • Well-­‐managed  and  methodical  approach;  comprehensive  and  detailed  planning.  • Recognize  that  the  regulations  are  a  “cost  of  doing  business”.  • Thorough   investigation   of   the   market   (services   and   products)—comprehensive   and  

detailed   planning  • Slow  but  steady  expansion  (start  very  small).  • MEAT  INDUSTRY  EXPERIENCE!  

 Government  Regulations  for  the  Inspection  of  Meat  and  Poultry  Products  are  to:    

• Prevent  the  sale  of  adulterated,  contaminated,  or  otherwise  unsafe  livestock  products,    • Insure  the  safety  of  consumers  by  establishing  minimum  standards  for  the  production,  

slaughter,  processing,  and  marketing  of  these  products  • Create   a   system   of   licensing,   inspection   and   labeling   to   trace   a   product   back   to   its  

origin  if  a  public  health  problem  should  arise      Case  Studies:    As  of  this  writing  there  are  only  about  20  USDA  Mobile  meat-­‐processing  units   in  the  United  States  –  Some  are  listed  in  Appendix  C.    The  first  is  widely  recognized  to  be  the  Lopez  Island  MPU   first   certified   in   2002.     Later,   Mike   Callicrate   pioneered   the   scalability   of   mobile  slaughter  /  modular  processing  operations.    The  Taos  Economic  Development  Project  reached  a   little   deeper   into   remote   mobile   operations   while   the   Puget   Sound   meat-­‐processing  cooperative   developed   the   co-­‐op/private   partnership   model   in   a   semi-­‐urban   setting.     In  contrast,   the   Co-­‐operative   Processors   of  Washington   elected   against   the  mobile  movement  and   built   a   small   permanent   facility   serving   a   co-­‐operative   community   in   Western  Washington.    Most  recently,   the  federal  government  funded  several   feasibility  studies   in  the  Central   California   area   for   small-­‐scale  modular/fixed  meat   plants   in   response   to   emerging  niche   markets   and   suppliers   of   product,   who   also   selected   the   permanent   facility   option.    These   case   studies,   and   many   more,   demonstrate   innovation   in   decision   making   when  considering   a  MSU,   or   rejecting   the   technology.    We  will   use   this   prior   experience   of   case  studies  to  help  define  the  approach  that  we  will  ultimately  recommend  to  The  Salmon  Valley  Co-­‐op.            Case  1:  The  Island  Grown  Farmers’  Cooperative      Often  simply  called  “Lopez  Island”  The  IGFC  formed  in  1996  when  a  group  of  ranchers  who  could   not   transport   their   livestock   to   the   mainland   for   processing   approached   the   Lopez  Island  Community  Land  Trust  to  sponsor  the  development  of  a  mobile  slaughter  unit  (MSU).  The  Land  Trust  contacted  Bruce  Dunlop,  an  engineer,  to  design  and  build  the  MSU.  It  was  paid  

Page 20: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

20  

for  with   several  USDA  grants  and  donations   from   the   ranchers  and  other   individuals   in   the  community.   It  became  the   first  USDA-­‐inspected  mobile  slaughter   facility   for  red  meat   in  the  U.S.   The   MSU   is   owned   by   the   Lopez   Island   Community   Land   Trust   and   leased   to   the  cooperative   (Niche  Meats   Processing   Assistance   Network).   Further   processing   is   done   at   a  permanent  processing  plant  on  the  Washington  state  mainland,  which  the  cooperative  owns.  Thus,  the  cooperative  operates  as  a  public/private  partnership,  and  Bruce  Dunlop  now  serves  as  its  president.    

 Figure  17:  Early  Mobile  Slaughter  Unit  by  The  Island  Grown  Farmers'  Cooperative  

 The  MSU  moves  to  different  members’  ranches  on  Lopez  Island.  It  slaughters  about  eight  head  of   beef   a   day,   or   30   sheep   or   16   hogs),   which   takes   two   butchers   eight   hours,   and   an  additional  two  hours  of  drive  time.  The  MSU  operates  three  to  four  days  a  week  year-­‐round.  Its  limited  staffing  also  needs  to  do  cleaning  and  maintenance  of  the  truck  and  trailer,  and  the  carcasses  have   to  be   taken   to   the  mainland   for  processing.  The  members  handle  marketing  individually.   At   the   2012  Western   SARE   Infrastructure   Conference,   Bruce   Dunlop   reported  that   both   the   MSU   and   the   processing   facility   operate   at   full   capacity,   which   are   1200  equivalent   livestock   units.   This   high   level   of   utilization   is   critical   for   maintaining   the  cooperative’s  profitability.      Basic  information    Capacity  per  day:  MPU:  about  7-­‐8  head  beef  (or  25-­‐30  lamb  or  15  pigs).  This  takes  2  butchers  8  hours,  plus  2  hours  drive  time.  The  MPU  can  do  this  only  3-­‐4  days/week,  because  

Page 21: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

21  

of  limited  staff  and  the  need  to  bring  meat  back  to  the  processing  plant  and  do  truck/trailer  cleaning/maintenance.    Hours/day  of  operation:  up  to  8  under  inspection,  extra  for  set-­‐up  &  clean  up.  Weeks/year:  52,  at  3-­‐4  days/week.  The  processing  plant  operates  5  days/wk  and  can  process  2500  lbs  per  day.  Species:  all  four  legs    Services:  slaughter  &  process;  raw  sausage;  case-­‐ready,  retail  packaging  Square  feet:  trailer  is  34’  long.  Plant  is  3000  sf.  #/type  of  employees:  6  employees  (from  manager  to  part-­‐time  cleaning  staff)  Annual  sales  revenues:  $300,000  (all  services,  not  including  the  value  of  meat  processed).    Price  of  services:  Slaughter:  $40  lamb  or  goat,  $55  pig,  $105  steer.  In  order  to  have  the  unit  come  to  their  farm,  producers  have  to  have  a  minimum  slaughter  amount  of  $450.  Cutting  (to  case  ready)  =  $0.90/lb  lamb,  $0.60/lb  steer,  $0.60  pig  (plus  10%  price  increase,  spring  ’08).  Sausage  =  $1.25/lb  for  links.  (For  farmers  not  in  the  co-­‐op,  prices  are  slightly  higher.)    Operational  costs:  ~$290,000/yr.  Fee  structure  is  designed  to  break  even  or  be  slightly  profitable.  The  trailer  gets  ~10  miles/gallon.    Retail  on-­site:  Yes,  small,  selling  co-­‐op  members’  meat  (members  get  revenue).  Open  2  days/wk,  earns  $3000/mo.    Wholesale:  no    Inspection:  USDA  inspected    Certified  organic:  Yes    Certification  agency:  Washington  Dept  of  Agriculture    Custom  work:  Yes  but  rarely,  because  too  busy  with  inspected  work.    Source  verification  on  label:  No,  too  much  hassle.  Appropriate  when  customers  can’t  meet  producers  directly.  Some  members  have  their  own  labels.    The  market  opportunity:  “No  one  had  a  chance  to  try  marketing  before  we  had  the  processing  –  and  now  it’s  taking  off.”      Case  2:  Taos  County  Research  Institute  “La  Matanza”      Taos   County   Economic   Development   Corporation   (http://www.tcedc.org)   is   a   Research  Institute   that   received   federal   USDA   Development   funds   and   local   support   for   a   mobile  slaughtering   operation.     The   intention   was   to   serve   ranchers   located   in   remote   areas   that  posed  difficulties  in  bring  products  to  market.  

Page 22: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

22  

 Taos   County   operates   a  mobile   trailer   that   is   36   feet   long   by   13   feet   tall.     They   calculate   a  maximum   operational   capacity   of   about   20   animal   units   per   week.     However,   the   average  yearly   production   is   250   USDA   Inspected   animals   per   year.     As   such,   utilization   rates   are  lower  than  what  is  envisioned  by  many  small  operators.    The  relatively  low  yearly  total  is  due  to  limitations  in  supply,  demand,  and  other  issues.    TCEDC  is  organized  as  a  501(c3)  research  institution  status.        Taos  makes  good  use  of  the  Polar  King  refrigeration  module  with  dual  temperature  zones  for  both   the   55   for   cut   and  wrap   and   35   cold   storage   and   aging   process.     Their   experience   in  refrigeration  will  be  useful  for  the  Salmon  Valley  project.  Taos  processes  beef  into  primals  or  they   can   take   cut   orders   from   individual   ranchers.     They  do  not   purchase   live   animals   and  never  own  the  carcass.      It  is  the  responsibility  of  the  Rancher  to  market  the  product.            

 Figure  18a:  Polar  King  Cooler  Module.    2b:  Reefer/MSU  unloading  to  Module  

TCEDC  employs  the  following  technical  staff:    One  Field  Butcher         $36,000  per  year  One  Assistant  Butcher     $25,000  per  year  One  meat  cutter       $30,000  per  year  One  Assistant  Meat  Cutter     $25,000  per  year      TCEDC  Approximate  equipment  costs  are  as  follows    Mobile  unit  by  TriVan     $200,000  Processing  Cooler  55F     $100,000  Processing  Cooler  35F     $100,000    Approximate  operating  expenses    Insurance  (product  and  vehicle)   $6000.00  per  year  Operating  costs  (fuel,  C&R)     $13,000  per  years    

Page 23: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

23  

 Revenue:    Slaughter  costs       $85.00/animal  Cut  and  Wrap         $0.75/lb  to  plastic  vacuum    Funding:    USDA  Rural  Business  Agriculture  Grant  Federal  Rural  Development  Grant  501  (c3)  Research  and  Development.      The  operators  of  Taos  County  Research  Institute  make  the  following  recommendations  to  others:    

• Design  for  your  specific  operations  and  service  area  • Personally  meet  and  know  all  of  the  regulators  • Create  a  reserve  fund  for  the  unexpected  • Plan  facility  out  before  building    • Communicate  with  community,  client,  market,  etc.    • Logistics  of  moving  mobile  unit  is  significant    

   Case  3:  Mike  Callicrate  MPU    Mike  Callicrate  is  a  noted  activist  for  family  farms  and  states  his  goal  is  to  increase  income  to  farmers,  help  rural  communities,  challenge  industrial  model  of  production,  and  provide  good  food.     Callicrate   produces   higher   production   rates   by   introducing   some  process   efficiencies  and  operational   innovation   to   the  original  mobile   slaughter   concept.     The  Callicrate   system  can  operate  20  working  days  per  month  at  about  20  beef  per  day  maximum.    These  are  likely  the  highest  rates  that  can  be  attained  with  a  Mobile  Slaughter  Unit.          The   Callicrate   way   may   represent   an   ideal   transition   methodology   for   a   producer   that   is  outgrowing  their  mobile  unit  and  may  not  be  quite  ready  for  a  modular  or  permanent  facility.      For  this  reason,  we  pay  attention  to  his  experience  relative  to  the  Salmon  Valley  meat  plant.      Mike  and  his  partners  have  developed  a  mobile  slaughter  unit  to  their  own  specifications  and  experiences  often   innovating  where  needed   to   increase  yields  and  efficiency.    They  provide  free  advice  and  consultation  to  other  meat  processors  who  share  their  ideals  of  empowering  resilient  communities.    Mike  Callicrate   has   developed   a   custom  MPU  design   that   they  have   successfully   achieved   a  USDA  approval  and  for  which  they  have  sold  to  other  producers.    In  order  to  reach  economical  production,  the  Callicrate  MPU  seems  to  have  characteristics  of  both  a  mobile  and  a  stationary  or  modular  facility.      Instead  of  a  direct  range  or  farm  kill,  Callicrate  locates  a  mobile  unit  on  a  prepared  concrete  pad  where  drainage,  wastewater,  potable  water,  and  electrical  facilities  are  

Page 24: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

24  

in   place   (where   practical).     He   then   brings   a   suite   of   ground   support   equipment   such   as   a  mobile  hide  puller,   portable   kill   box,   shuttle  unit   refrigerator   truck,   and  portable   corral   for  staging  live  product.        In   this  manner,  Callicrate   can  guarantee   that   as   soon  as  one  animal  has  been  moved   to   the  next  station,  another  can  enter.    Callicrate  production  rates  are  optimized  for  cost  and  quality.      The  mobile  slaughtering  unit  and  ancillary  equipment  can  then  be  moved  to  the  next  location.    Individual  ranchers  would  likely  be  responsible  for  water,  power,  and  waste  facilities  to  meet  USDA  requirements.          The  Callicrate  MPU  is  a  60-­‐foot  modified  refrigerated  trailer  with  a  docking  station  that  allows  the  unit  to  back  up  to  a  station  with  a  sealed  interface.    The  unit  is  able  to  accommodate  220V  and  440V  power.        

Their   large   shuttle   truck   can  accommodate   60   carcasses   where   as  their   small   shuttle   can   carry   16  carcasses.    Most  of  the  value  added  is  in  cut   and   wrap.     Mike   Callicrate   advises  that   the   cut   and  wrap   units   should   be  located   close   to   where   people   are   in  order   to   access   as   many   markets   as  possible   from  wholesale   to   retail.   This  will   help   to   maximize   processing  margins.    There  is  a  good  percentage  of  slaughter   value   available   in   the  processing  of  hides;  a  grade  1  hide  can  sell  for  40  dollars;  or  about  30%  of  the  total  value  of  slaughtering  an  animal.        

Maximum  production  is  20  head  per  day  sustaining  20  days  per  month.    Shuttles  carry  product  to  market:    Cost  of  Callicrate  MPU  and  towed  vehicles     $300,000      Repair  and  maintenance         $500.00  per  month  Supplies             $500.00  Per  month  4  man  crew  @  20  hpd         $60.00  per  hour  Utilities             $6.00  per  hour      Revenue      Slaughter  fee             $65.00  for  cattle  Hide  recovery  (salted)         $40.00  per  hide        

Figure  19:  Callicrate  System  Mobile  Kill  Box  

Page 25: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

25  

Mike  provides  the  following  additional  advice:    

• Show  the  community  that  there  is  an  “Alternate  way”  and  they  will  respond  favorably.  • Ranchers  need  ability  to  salvage  animals  that  have  been  stifled  or  injured  • Find  a  school  district  or  institution  for  grind  product  • Find  a  good  builder  to  provide  infrastructure.  • Unimproved  roads  can  be  an  issue.    • All  terrain  MPU  would  be  nice  • Must  have  hazard  plan  in  place  • USDA  is  very  challenging  to  deal  with  • Create  systematic  procedures  and  controls  • People  skills  and  talented  employees  are  helpful.  • Retail  outlets  were  the  best  decision  he  made.    

       

   Figure  20:  Mike  Callicrate  System  for  Mobile  /  Modular  Processing  

Case  4:  Puget  Sound  Meat  Producers  Cooperative  (PSMPC)  4    Like   Island   Grown   Farmers’   Cooperative,   Puget   Sound   Meat   Processing   Cooperative  (http://www.pugetsoundmeat.com/)  is  an  example  of  a  public/private  partnership.  It  began  operating  in  2009;  it  was  established  to  ensure  that  USDA-­‐inspected  services  remain  available  

                                                                                                               4  http://www.extension.org/pages/28436/puget-­‐sound-­‐meat-­‐producers-­‐cooperative  

Page 26: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

26  

to  Pierce  County  Producers  and  other  ranchers.  Its  members  include  local  ranchers,  farmers,  butchers,  restaurant  owners  and  others.  It  handles  cattle,  sheep,  hogs  and  goats.  It  currently  travels  between   two  sites   in  Pierce  County,  and   is  used  by  members  and  nonmembers.  The  slaughter   unit   can   handle   8   to   10   animal   units   per   day   (1   cow,   2   pigs,   3   sheep/goats   all  represent  1  animal  unit).  It  operates  for  up  to  eight  hours  a  day  under  inspection  (including  a  30  minute  pre-­‐inspection),  with  extra  time  for  set-­‐up,  clean  up,  and  transportation.    

 

 Figure  21:  Mobile  Slaughter  Unit  By  TriVan  Conversions  

 Start-­‐up   costs   totaled   approximately   $500,000   for   the   45-­‐foot   mobile   unit   in   the   trailer  ($250,000-­‐-­‐purchased   from   TriVan),   training   necessary   for   employees,   operating   capital  (including  the  lease  cost  of  the  truck)  and  $12,000  for  small  equipment  and  tools.  The  Pierce  Conservation   District   in   Pierce   County,   Washington   provided   the   capital   for   the   MSU;   the  District  obtained  a  loan  to  cover  part  of  the  capital  costs  and  operating  costs  for  the  first  year.      Originally,   PSMPC  had   five  paid   employees,  which  was  not   sustainable   given   the   low   initial  utilization   rate.   This   nearly   led   to   bankruptcy,   and   required   restructuring   the   operation.  Currently,  PSMPC  has  no  employees.  A  local  livestock  producer  and  founding  PSMPC  member  who  also  has  his  own  custom-­‐exempt/retail-­‐  exempt  butcher  shop  now  operates  the  MSU  on  a  contract  basis.      Carcasses   requiring  USDA   inspected   cut-­‐and-­‐wrap   are   taken   to   two   inspected  plants   in   the  region.   Other   custom-­‐exempt/retail-­‐exempt   butchers   also   use   the   MSU   to   have   inspected  carcasses  they  can  cut  up  and  sell  from  their  own  retail  counter.  The  contract  butcher  works  

Page 27: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

27  

with  one  assistant  (more  when  needed),  who  handles  the  paperwork.  PSMPC  board  members  handle   the   scheduling   and   bookkeeping   on   a   volunteer   basis.   As   its   profitability   increases,  PSMPC  plans  to  restore  paid  staff  positions,  beginning  with  a  bookkeeper.      During  2011,   the  co-­‐op  had  net   income  of  approximately  $11,000  (after  paying   the  butcher  and  covering  operational  and  maintenance  expenses)  with  90  processing  days.  During  2012,  it  harvested  over  1,000  animals.  Utilization  of  the  mobile  slaughter  is  increasing;  it  has  risen  from  516  carcasses  during  the  first  full  year  of  operation  in  2010,  to  850  in  2011  and  1,000  in  2012.  Only  20%  of  the  membership  used  the  MSU  regularly  during  2011.      The  Pierce  Conservation  District  owns   the  MSU,   for  which   the  co-­‐op  pays  a  $1  annual   lease  payment.  The  contract  butcher  is  paid  a  $300  daily  rate  (for  set-­‐up  and  transport)  plus  a  fee  per  animal  unit;  the  butcher  pays  his  assistants  and  purchases  all  consumable  supplies  used  with   the  MSU.   The  member   slaughter   charge   for   cattle   under   1,000   pounds   of   hot   carcass  weight  is  $110  and  $50  for  sheep  under  100  pounds  of  hot  carcass  weight;  members  pay  $140  per  hour  for  processing.  Rates  are  approximately  25%  higher  for  nonmembers.  Prices  paid  by  producers  to  PSMPC  include  a  margin  to  cover  fixed  costs,  including  maintenance,  repairs,  and  equipment   replacement;   insurance;   lab   fees;   legal   fees/permits;   and   site   improvements.  Utilization  of   the  MSU  appears  to  continue  to  be  an   issue;   the  online  schedule  shows  only  9  days  of  monthly  use  scheduled  during  April  through  July  2013.  The  April  2013  minutes  of  the  Pierce   Conservation   District   indicate   that   PSMPC   will   engage   in   increased   outreach   to  members  and  will  expand  the  MSU’s  geographic  operating  area.      Basic  information    PSMC  has  a  capacity  of  about  8-­‐10  animal  units  per  day  (1  cow,  2  pigs,  3  three  sheep/goats  =  1  animal  unit).    They  operate  8  hours  per  day  under  inspection  including  30  minutes  pre-­‐inspection,  extra  for  clean  up,  and  transportation.      Weekly  operations  are  on-­‐demand  as  needed  or  reserved.    In  2012,  the  PSMC  operated  for  90  processing  days.        Species:  Cattle,  sheep,  pigs,  and  goats  Services:  Slaughter  and  delivery  of  carcasses  to  cut  and  wrap  facility  Square  feet:  Trailer  is  45'  long.  #/type  of  employees:  PSMPC  has  no  employees.  The  Lead  Butcher  operates  the  MSU  on  a  contract  basis  (see  above)  with  one  assistant  (more  when  needed),  who  handles  the  paperwork.  Board  members  handle  scheduling  and  bookkeeping  on  a  volunteer  basis.  Annual  revenues:  In  2011,  the  co-­‐op  had  net  income  of  ~$11,000  (after  paying  the  butcher  and  covering  operational  &  maintenance  expenses).    Price  of  services:  Members:  beef  =  $110;  pigs  =  $70;  sheep/goats  =  $50  Non-­‐members:  beef  =  $140;  pigs  =  $90;  sheep/goats  =  $70  Extra  charge  for  cattle  older  than  30  months  Extra  charge  for  pigs  >275  lbs  and  sheep/goats  >100  lbs  Mileage,  disposal,  stall,  toll,  and  other  fees  may  also  apply    

Page 28: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

28  

Capital  (start-­up)  costs:  $500,000  (est.)  for  trailer,  training  necessary  for  employees,  operating  capital,  and  tool  purchase.    Operational  costs:  $57,000  in  2011  Retail  on-­site:  No,  Wholesale:  No  Inspection:  USDA-­‐inspected;  can  also  do  custom-­‐exempt  Certified  organic:  Yes  Certification  agency:  Washington  State  Department  of  Agriculture  Custom  work:  Yes                                                                            

Page 29: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

29  

Case  5:  Cooperative  Processors  of  Washington  (CPoW)  at  Odessa.      A  highly  organized  community  of  ranchers  designed  the  Odessa  Washington  meat  processing  facility   specifically   as   a   regional   meat   processing   facility.     This   first   class   facility   cost  approximately   2.5   million   dollars   to   construct.     It   is   not   known   if   that   is   the   cost   of   the  complete   project.     Estimates   go   as   high   as   4   million   dollars.     Construction   issues   delayed  opening   so   full   operational   numbers   are   not   available   at   this   time.     However,   the   Odessa  facility  provides  many  important  lessons  including  those  that  are  common  to  Idaho.      

• Staffing   is   a   critical   component,  master  butcher  and  master   cutters   are   increasing   in  value  and  often  difficult  to  find.  

• Ranching  is  a  seasonal  business  and  the  Odessa  plant  was  able  to  bring  in  year-­‐round  work  from  USDA  market  customers.    

• Engineering   was   improper   with   undersized   refrigeration   capacity   now   creating  bottlenecks  in  the  aging.      

• Peak  capacity  is  2000  –  2500  cattle  per  year  • All  custom  processing  –  they  do  not  purchase  animals.    • Get  a  good  marketing  plan  

   

 Figure  22:  Fixed  Facility,  Cooperative  Processors  of  Washington,  Odessa,  WA  

         

Page 30: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

30  

Case  6:  Mendocino  County  Meat  Plant  Feasibility  Study      Mendocino  County  Meat  Processing  Plant  Feasibility  study  Option  A  describes  and  evaluates  a  mobile  slaughter  and  process  facility  using  the  following  diagram:      

 Figure 23: Two  Site  Modular  Meat  Processing  Illustration  of  Flow  From  Slaughter  Unit  to  Cut  &  Wrap  Unit  (courtesy  of  Kathryn  Quanbeck)    

The  recommended  option  for  the  recent  Mendocino  County  Meat  Processing  Feasibility  study  is   cited   here   for   reference   due   to   many   similarities   and   well-­‐isolated   differences   with   the  Salmon  Valley  Co-­‐operative.  The  Mendocino  researchers  had  to  their  benefit  the  earlier  case  studies  cited  above,  as  well  as  their  own  special  considerations.  The  comparative  value  of  this  particular  case  study  is  excellent.    The  estimated  costs  for  the  Mendocino  County  Facility    Ultimately,   the  Mendocino  County  Feasibility  Study  recommended   the   fixed  option  over   the  mobile   option   due   to   reasons   such   as   permitting,   favorable   financing,   the   regulatory  environment  in  California,  and  placement  of  users.    The  recommended  option  is  a  fixed  40  X  60  steel  building  that  houses  both  the  slaughter  and  processing  activities.  This  option  involves  the  acquisition  of  purchased  land.  Land  costs  totaling  $483,516  based  on  the  cost  of  the  small  parcel   in   the   Hop   Kiln   Business   Park   off   Ford   Road   (3.7   acres,   priced   at   $3   per   square  

Page 31: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

31  

foot/$130,680   per   acre).   The   land   is   zoned   “general   industrial”   (I-­‐2)   and   has   electric   and  water   utility   hook-­‐ups;   however,   this   site   is   not   currently   included   in   the   Ukiah   Valley  Sanitation   District.   Alternatively,   the   meat   processing   plant   may   be   located   on   property  owned   by   the   City   or   another   public   entity,  with   a   long-­‐term   lease   (20   years   or   longer)   to  ensure  that  the  site  improvement  costs  will  be  recouped.        3.7  acre  parcel  in  an  industrial  park,  zoned  I-­‐2     $483,516    Steel  building  w/insulated  doors  and  roof  &  wall  insulation—  delivered  to  Ukiah     $150,000    Freezer,  Chill  Cooler,  Aging  Cooler,  Slaughter  &  Cutting  area  cooling  system     $75,000    2  refrigerated  cargo  containers,  used     $40,000    Interior  holding  pens     $15,000    2  Ford  F-­‐150  trucks  (used)     $30,000    Rail  system  (used)     $31,000    Refrigerated  Box  truck  for  deliveries  (used)     $30,000    1  forklift  (used)     $10,000    Misc.  office  furniture  &  equipment  (used)     $3,000    Slaughter  fixtures  &  equipment  (used)     $30,000    Processing  fixtures  &  equipment  (used)     $50,000    Wastewater  pre-­‐treatment  equipment     $122,000    Site  prep,  permits,  utility  hook-­‐ups,  engineering  consultant     $356,000    TOTAL  COST  FOR  MENDOCINO  OPTION  C     $1,425,516    

Table  4:  Cost  Estimates  for  fixed  facility,  Mendocino  County  Feasibility  Study    The   design   and   cost   of   the   facility   are   based   primarily   on   the   Iowa   State   University  publication,  Guide  to  Designing  a  Small  Meat  Plant  (Thiboumery,  2009).  The  base  price  of  the  delivered  building   shell  with  4   insulated  doors  and  6”  of   insulation   in   the   roof   and  walls   is  $23,335   from   Empire   Steel   Building;   the   remaining   cost   of   $126,665   is   for   erecting   the  structure,  pouring  the  concrete  flooring,  and  improvements  to  the  building,  including  electric  wiring  and  fixtures,  carpeting  and  linoleum,  interior  walls,  a  restroom,  and  small  kitchen  area.      There   is   $356,000   budgeted   for   site   preparation,   permits,   hook-­‐ups   and   engineering  consulting  for  this  building,  as  well  as  $122,000  to  purchase  and  install  the  wastewater  pre-­‐treatment  equipment.  The  total  cost  budgeted  for  the  building  is  $1,425,516.                      

Page 32: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

32  

 Salmon  Valley  Cooperative  Plant  Requirements  

 USDA  Requirements    The  design  and  feasibility  requirements  for  the  Salmon  Valley  Cooperative’s  meat  processing  plant  is  to  be  inspected  by  a  USDA  Food  Safety  Inspection  Service  (FSIS)  inspector  in  order  to  be  able  to  sell  the  carcasses  and  processed  meats  wholesale.      The  Niche  Meats   Processing  Assistance  Network   (NMPAN)  has   considerable   information   to  assist  small-­‐scale  meats  processors.  As  noted  in  the  regulations  section  of  its  website  5  There   are   seven   steps   that   need   to   be   followed   to   become   an   inspected   meat   processing  plant—commonly   referred   to   as   “obtaining   a   grant   of   inspection”.   The   seven   steps   include  having   the   following   approved   components:   water   source;   sewer   system;   labels   and/or  brands;  hazardous  analysis  and  critical  control  point  (HACCP)  plan;  and  sanitation  standard  operating  procedures  (SSOPs).      The   Salmon   Valley   Co-­‐operative   Meat   Processing   Plant   (SVCMP)   needs   to   be   built   and  operated  such  that  it  meets  regulatory  performance  standards,  which  relate  primarily  to  the  following  areas  as  listed  by  NMPAN6      

• Pest  management    • Tested  potable  water    • Adequate   drainage   that   prevents   backflow   and   keeps   sewage   lines   distinct   from  

wastewater    • Adequate  lighting  and  ventilation    • Adequate  rest  rooms,  hand-­‐washing  stations,  and  garbage  cans.    • Walls,   floors   and   ceilings   must   be   “impervious   to   moisture”   and   easily   cleaned   and  

sanitized    • And   the   catchall:  Building   conditions  must   “not   result   in  product  adulteration  or   the  

creation  of  insanitary  conditions.”      Unfortunately,  USDA-­‐FSIS  does  not  specify  any  metrics  to  ensure  adequacy;  instead,  when  the  MCMP   is   first   inspected,   it   will   either   pass   or   fail.   Therefore,   many   organizations   hire   a  consultant   (often   a   retired   USDA-­‐FSIS   inspector)  when   developing   their   plant   construction  plans.      Once  the  MCMP  has  obtained  its  grant  of  inspection,  a  full-­‐time  inspector  will  be  assigned  to  the  plant  to  work  (at  USDA’s  expense)  Monday  through  Friday,  from  8AM  to  5PM.  The  plant  must  provide  the  inspector  with  a  locking  office  (at  least  100  square  feet)  with  a  locker  and  desk,   along   with   laundry   service   the   inspector’s   lab   coats.   Any   overtime   must   be   paid   by  

                                                                                                               5  http://www.extension.org/pages/17170/meat-­‐processing-­‐rules-­‐regulations  6  http://www.extension.org/pages/17979/step-­‐3:-­‐facilities-­‐must-­‐meet-­‐regulatory-­‐performance-­‐  standards  

Page 33: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

33  

MCMP.  Readers  are  referred   to   the  NMPAN  website   for  an  excellent,  detailed  description  of  the  processes  for  obtaining  the  USDA-­‐FSIS  requirements  grant  for  inspection  7.      State  Requirements  for  Wastewater  8:    There   are   numerous   state   regulations   that   the   Salmon   Valley   Co-­‐operative   will   need   to  comply  with.  The  State  Water  Quality  Control  Board’s  wastewater  requirements  appear  to  be  the  most  challenging  for  small-­‐  scale  meat  processing  facilities.  It  is  expected  that  Idaho  would  be  similar  to  other  states  especially  due  to  National  Parks  and  federal  reserves  spaces.        The  Idaho  DEQ  (Department  of  Environmental  Quality,  1410N  Hilton,  Boise,  83706)  regulates  the  discharge  of  waste  to  surface  waters  as  well  as  to  storm  drains,  ground  surfaces,  and  to  ground  waters  in  the  Idaho  region.  It  is  responsible  for  enforcement  of  the  National  Pollutant  Discharge  Elimination  System  (NPDES),  which   includes  regulating   the  discharge  of  waste   to  ground  surfaces  or  groundwater.   Industrial  operations  which  discharge  wastes  directly   into  municipal,  or  other  publicly  owned  wastewater  collection  systems,  are  not  required  to  obtain  a  [NPDES  permit  from  the  NCRWQCB].      Livestock   slaughter   and  processing   generates  wastewater   from  washing   carcasses,  washing  after   evisceration,   processing   offal,   and   cleaning   and   sanitizing   equipment   and   building  surfaces.     It  can  be  divided  into  five  general  types:  (1)  manure-­‐laden  from  pens  and  holding  areas;   (2)  manure-­‐free,   high-­‐grease   from  slaughter   and  processing  operations;   (3)  manure-­‐free,  low-­‐grease  from  the  slaughterhouse;  (4)  manure-­‐free,  low-­‐grease  from  packaging  areas;  and   (5)   clear  water   from   cooling   systems,   steam   condenser  water,   and   onsite   storm  water  runoff.  The  slaughter  function  generates  the  greatest  wastewater.      Wastewater   is   characterized   by   high   loading   of   solids,   floatable  matter,   manure   and   other  organic   substances.   Fats   and   proteins   are   present   in   both   particulate   and   dissolved   forms.  Analyses   indicate  high   concentrations  of  biological  oxygen  demand   (BOD),   chemical  oxygen  demand   (COD),   suspended   solids,   nitrogen,   phosphorous,   coliforms,   and   enteric   pathogens.  The   concentrations   are   highly   variable   depending   on   processes   and   effectiveness   of   solids  separation.      Many  municipal  systems  charge  industrial  clients  according  to  the  volume  of  wastewater  they  generate  and  the  quality  of  the  wastewater  factoring  the  amount  (milligrams  per  liter)  of  total  suspended  solids  (TSS),  biochemical  oxygen  demand  (BOD)  and  wastewater  (gallons  per  day)  into   its   sewer   hook-­‐up   charges.  Water   usage   varies  widely   among  meat   plants.   The   Pacific  Institute   (2003)   reported   the   following   use   rates   per   head   by   species:   cattle-­‐300   gallons;  hogs—60  gallons;  and  sheep—40  gallons.      These  rates  were  used  to  estimate  the  Salmon  Valley  Cooperative’s  projected  daily  water  use  of  1200  gallons.  When  Calculating  the  hook  up  charge,  SVC  should  use  the  following  estimated                                                                                                                  7  http://www.extension.org/pages/19712/how-­‐to-­‐apply-­‐for-­‐meat-­‐and-­‐poultry-­‐inspection  8  Most  of  this  discussion  on  wastewater  is  adapted  from  a  report  by  Kennedy/Jenks  Consultants.  2010.  “Energy  Use  in  Wastewater  Treatment  in  the  Food  and  Beverage  Industry.”  

Page 34: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

34  

daily  water  use  of  1,200  gallons  and   the  values  of  150   for  BOD  and  58   for  TSS  reported  on  NMPAM  by  a  new  small  plant   in  Idaho.    For  a  similar  plant   in  Washington,  the  SVC  hook-­‐up  charge  would  be  $51,950.  A  BOD   level  of  2,500  was  also  reported   for  another  operation  by  NMPAN;   this   level  would   raise  SVC  hook-­‐up  charge   to  $275,000,  assuming   the  other  values  remain  unchanged.  Clearly,   the  difference  between   these   two  conditions  would   for  hook-­‐up  charge   (as  well   as   its   sewer   rates)   provides   significant   financial   incentive   to   pre-­‐treat   SVC  wastewater  before  discharging  it  into  the  sewer  system.      Wastewater  treatment  requires  a  series  of  primary  and  secondary  steps.  Primary  treatment  for   grease   removal   is   typically   accomplished  using  a  baffled   tank  of  dissolved  air   floatation  (DAF).  Chemicals  are  often  added  to  improve  treatment  efficiency.  Alternatively,  some  plants  rely  on  a  series  of  screening  and  sedimentation  steps.      Secondary   treatment   to   reduce   BOD   is   accomplished   biologically   using   systems   that   may  include  lagoons,  activated  sludge,  oxidation  ditches,  sequencing  batch  reactors,  or  anaerobic  digesters.  Covered,   low-­‐rate  anaerobic  lagoons  are  often  used  in  series  with  aerobic  lagoons  to   maximize   BOD   removal.   However,   NMPAN   noted   recently   “we   have   not   yet   found   an  anaerobic  digester  system  that  is  cost-­‐effective  for  a  small  processing  facility.  The  systems  are  expensive  and  meat  processing  waste  isn’t  a  very  good  substrate  for  anaerobic  digesters”  9.      Aerobic   treatment   options   include   activated   sludge   systems,   biological   filters,   waste  stabilization  ponds  and  aerated   lagoons.  While   these   systems  are  proven   to  be  effective   for  meat  processing  wastewater,  most  require  aerators,  which  are  energy  intensive  and  costly  to  operate.      It  will  benefit   the  SVC  greatly   to  design   the  plant   to  minimize  both   its  water  usage,  and   the  amount  of  blood,  solids  and  grease  it  disposes  in  its  wastewater.  Preliminary  discussions  with  a   wastewater   engineer   and   a   supplier   of   wastewater   treatment   systems   (Chuck   Ross   with  Environmental  Treatment  Systems  based  in  Acworth,  Georgia)  indicated  that  a  system  would  cost  approximately  $77,000   in  parts  and  $45,000   in   installation  costs.  The  equipment   costs  would   include   the   necessary   tanks,   pumps,   pipes,   control   panel,   and   design   and   start-­‐up  services.    Wastewater  treatment  is  clearly  a  complex  issue,  and  an  engineering  consultant  experienced  with   Idaho’s   wastewater   standards   should   be   retained   soon   to   ensure   that   water   usage   is  minimized  and  to  design  a  cost-­‐effective  pre-­‐treatment  system  to  maximize  the  quality  of  the  discharged  wastewater.   It  will  also  require  the  plant  manager  to  develop  and  enforce  water  use  policies   to  ensure   that  employees,  particularly   the  cleaning  staff,  are  very  conscientious  when  using  water.      Composting  and  Rendering    Composting  in  Idaho  is  governed  by  statewide  regulations  implemented  at  the  local  level  by  each  of  seven  district  health  departments.  Industrial  waste,  sewage  sludge  disposal  and  some                                                                                                                  9  http://www.extension.org/pages/68216/wastewater-­‐treatment-­‐for-­‐meat-­‐processors  

Page 35: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

35  

agricultural   practices  may   or  may   not   fall   under   the   regulations   on   the   operation   and   site.    The  Idaho  Department  of  Agriculture  regulates  retail  sales  of  compost  sold  as  fertilizer.    Composting  involves  the  manipulation  of  aeration,  moisture  and  nutritional  balance  of  plant  and   animal   residue   to   create   idea   conditions   for   natural   decay.     This   is   accomplished  with  various  degrees  of  sophistication.    Composting  is  performed  to  render  certain  materials  more  pleasant  to  handle,  and  increase  the  nitrogen  content  of  some  low  nitrogen  materials.      More  information:    Rob  Howarth,  Idaho  Department  of  Health  and  Welfare,  Central  District  Health   Department.     Division   of   the   Environment,   707N   Armstrong   Place,   Boise,   ID   83704  (208)  327-­‐8520  [email protected]                                                                              

Page 36: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

36  

PLANT  OPTIONS:    The   financial   feasibility   of   the   SVC  meat   processing   facility   was   assessed   for   two   different  plant   options.   These   options   were   developed   after   discussion   with   local   ranchers,   project  leaders,  and  individuals  outside  of  the  area  who  are  engaged  with  meat  processing,  as  well  as  an  extensive  review  of  applied  research  publications  and  case  studies  related   to  small-­‐scale  meat   processing.   Regulatory   requirements   were   factored   into   the   development   of   the  different  plant  options.      To   provide   flexibility,   a   decentralized   and   a   centralized   configuration  was   considered   for   a  USDA   inspected  meat   plant.     Both   configurations   have   an   average   annual   capacity   of   1500  equivalent   livestock  units   (1   cattle  =  2  hogs  =  3   sheep/goats  =  1  equivalent   livestock  unit).    The  difference   is   that   one  option   is  more   flexible   at   the   expense  of   operational   complexity.    The  other  is  less  flexible  to  the  benefit  of  operational  simplicity.        The  Figures  8-­‐11  below  demonstrate  some  basic  components  of  a  mobile  and  or  modular  and  or  fixed  facility:    

 

 Figure  24:  Polar  King  Cut  and  Wrap  Module  with  added  cooler/freezer  

 

Page 37: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

37  

 Figure  25:  TriVan  Conversions  Mobile  Slaughter  Unit  on  Medium  Cab  

 

 Figure  26:  Modular  Slaughter  Unit  set  in  place  with  integrated  building  

       

Page 38: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

38  

     

 Figure  27:  Insulated  Metal  Building  typical  for  fixed  processing  facility  

   Option  A   is   a  mobile  or  modular   slaughter   facility  and  separate   refrigeration  cut-­‐and-­‐wrap  facility  with  combined  tasks  shared  by  ranchers  from  3  towns  (Salmon,  Challis,  MacKay,   ID)  separated  by  about  60  miles  from  the  next  nearest  town        Phase   1   is   a   high   quality   mobile   or   modular   slaughter   unit   and   adjacent   holding   pens   on  leased   site(s).   New   modular   cut   and   wrap   facility   employing   minimum   staff   located   in  proximity  of  target  market  will  process  a  minimum  viable  production  (MVP)  of  750  animals  per  year  (limited  by  staff).    Phase   2   adds   refrigeration/freezers   otherwise   utilizes   the   same  machinery   and   equipment  but   doubles   staff   until   a   maximum   production   approaches   1500   equivalent   animal   units  (limited  by  equipment).  Staff  reductions  can  easily  return  to  the  750  animal  rates  as  needed  or  lay  fallow  as  needed  (where  MVP  is  approximately  750  head).      Phase  3  adds  additional  modular  slaughter  units  and  additional  modular  cut-­‐and-­‐  wrap  units  to  achieve  MVP  of  1500  EAU.    Staff  and/or  equipment  may  be  added  until  3000  animals  or  more  are  achieved  or  lay  fallow  as  needed  (where  MVP  is  approximately  1500  head).        Option   B   is   a   combined   slaughter   and   processing   facility   located   on   a   plot   that   has   been  purchased  or  leased  for  at   least  20  years.    An  MVP  of  1500  head  was  assumed  for  an  IRR  of  10%  cost  of  money.    Doubling  staff  or  working  multiple  shifts  could  yield  3000  head.        Pro   forma   financial   statements   –   for   net   income   and   cash   flow   –   were   developed  independently  for  each  phase  of  Option  A.    The  objective  was  to  maintain  approximately  10%  internal   rate   of   return   at   minimum   viable   production   capacities   of   750,   1500,   3000   head.    Option  B   is  a  nearly   identical   to  a  recent   feasibility  study  performed  for  Mendocino  County  California  and  also  serves  as  a  control  case.    

Page 39: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

39  

Upfront  Project  Costs    

Water  Treatment   Option  A  (phase  1)   Option  B  Wastewater  Treatment     $140,000     $150,000            Engineering  consultant   $15,000     $25,000              Equipment   $125,000     $125,000    Site  Preparation          Site  Development     $60,000     $290,000            Lot  Grading   $10,000     $50,000              Access  Road   $0     $100,000              Paved  Area   $15,000     $60,000              Concrete  Pad   $20,000     $0    Livestock  Pens   $5,000     $5,000    Storage  Shed   $2,500     $0    Utility  Hookup                    Electrical   $2,000     $25,000              Sewer   $1,000     $30,000              Water   $5,000     $20,000    Permits          City/county  Permit  and  Fees     $50,000     $50,000            Zoning  Use  permits   $20,000     $20,000              County  Sanitation  District          Hookup  

$30,000     $30,000    

Total  Upfront  Costs     $250,000     $490,000  Table  5:  Estimate  of  Upfront  Start-­up  Project  Costs  for  Two  Options  

 Equivalent  animal  units      EAU   are   a  measurement   that   roughly   equates   different   species   of   animals   for   relative   time  required  to  kill  and  process.    It  is  also  used  to  equate  feed  requirements,  grassland  allocation,  and  many  other  parameters   in  ranching.    Further,  many  communities  also  discuss  herds  on  terms  of  ratios.    The  Salmon  Valley  Cooperative  specified  75%  Beef,  25%  Lamb,  and  5%  hogs.    Therefore,   converting   from   total   head   to   EAUs   in   the   specified   ration   will   require   the  following  conversion  chart  where:    

Equivalent  Animal  Unit:  1  Beef  =  2  Hogs  =  3  Lamb    Example:  Head  -­>EDU      562.5  +  1/3(150)  +  ½  (37.5)  =  631      Therefore,  ratio  of:    Head/EAU  [in  the  proportion  of  75%/25%/5%]  =  750  /  631  =  1.188  EAU/Head  [in  the  proportion  of  75%/25%/5%]  =  631  /  750  =  .841    

Page 40: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

40  

 Table  6A  and  6B;  Conversion  Tables  for  EAU  and  total  Head  Count  

   Process   Cattle   Lamb   Hog  Hot  weight  per  head   700  lb   50  lb   210  lb  Base  slaughter  fee  per  head   $105.00   $35.00   $60.00  Boning/cutting/pkg.  per  lb.   $0.85   $0.95   $0.70  Total  Revenue  per  head   $700.00   $82.5   $207.00  

Table  7:  Operating  Assumptions  for  Revenue  Calculations    OPTION  A:  PHASED  APPROACH    Option  A   is   intended   to  be  a   low  cost-­‐cost  means  of  entering   the  meat  processing   industry  while  developing  experience  and  capacity  in  the  community.      The  SVC  community  may  also  need  to  minimize  their  market  risk  while  optimizing  their  growth  potential  and  unifying  their  co-­‐op  community.      Many  new  operations  struggle  with  converting  the  suppliers  from  their  traditional  methods  of  processing  their  cattle  to  a  new  facility  or  method  of  delivering  product.      Either  the  ranchers  do  not  want  to  lose  their  place  in  line  at  the  crowded  industrial  slaughter  facilities  or  they  are  accustomed  to  simply  selling  their  cattle  at  auction  and  think  very  little  about  the  processing  of  meat.      The   phased   approach   allows   the   community   the   ability   to   gain   experience   and   knowledge  while  demonstrating  to  others  the  value  of  the  meat  processing  facility  to  the  wider  economic  benefit  of  the  ranchers.      Phase  1:  The  purpose  of  the  Phase  1  is  to  build  out  the  capability  to  the  minimum  number  of  animals   that  will  make   sense   financially.     Break   even  means   that   the   cost   of   the   build   out,  operational  expenses,  and   the   labor  costs  can  be  supported  by   the  operations  of   the   facility  may  be  between  0%  -­‐  10%  IRR.      It  is  presumed  that  the  social  and  community  benefit  of  self-­‐reliance   are   sufficient   to   justify   the   project.     By   establishing   the   minimum   condition   the  impact  of  many  additional  variables  may  be  assessed.        

Page 41: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

41  

The  minimum  viable  production  (MVP)  is  calculated  to  be  approximately  15  animal  units  per  week   processed   into   primals,   aged,   cut   or   boxed   for   delivery   to   deliver   to   local   markets.    Yearly  production  target  is  about  750  animals  per  year.    This  analysis  is  valid  for  harvest  rates  that  are  steady  throughout  the  year.    Higher  seasonal  production  may  be  accommodated  with  additional  personnel  and  freezers  (see  phase  2).    Operation  Scenario:    One  mobile  slaughtering  unit  spends  3  days  per  week  at  one  or  more  locations.    A  single  butcher  and  assistant  can  slaughter  5  animal  units  per  day  for  3  days  per  week  under  USDA   inspection.     The   same  butcher   and   an   assistant   can  process   cut   and  box  those  animals  for  2  days  under  USDA  cut  and  wrap  inspection.    Carcass  halves  or  quarters  are  delivered   by   cooling   truck   to   the   cut   and   age   cooler   for   segmentation   into   primals   by   the  butcher  and  inspected  by  USDA  inspector.    Driver  delivers  boxed  sections  to  market.  Butcher,  USDA  Inspector  and  driver  work  40  hours  per  week.     Internal  Rate  of  Return  ranges   from  -­‐1.3%  to  +13.7%  depending  on  the  product  mix.        Table  8:  

Option  A  Phase  1:  Personnel    

Per  Year   Total  

Operations/Plant  Manager  /  Butcher   $60,000    Slaughter/Cut  Butcher   $35,000    Driver/Livestock  Holding  Pen/Cleaner   $25,000    Administrative  Assistant  /  Scheduler   $30,000    Subtotal  (not  including  benefits)   $150,000    Total  (including  Benefits  @35%  salary)     $202,500      Table  9:  

Option  A  Phase  1  Start-­up  and  Facilities  Costs    

 

Polar  King  Cut  and  Wrap  Module   $245,000  Mobile  or  Modular  Slaughtering  Unit   $225,000  Wastewater  Pretreatment   $82,000  Modular/mobile  office  (12’  X  48’)  used   $30,000  2  Refrigerated  Cargo  Containers,  used   $40,000  Site  Prep,  permits,  utility  hook-­‐up,  USDA,  Engineering  Consultant   $170,000  Refrigerated  Box  Truck,  deliveries,  used   $30,000  Medium  Duty  Cab  (used)   $50,000  2  forklifts,  used   $20,000  Miscellaneous  office  furniture  and  equipment   $2,000  Leased  Land   $15,000  2  storage  sheds   $3,000  Total  Cost  For  Option  A;  Phase  1   $912,000      

Page 42: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

42  

Phase  1  has  an  internal  rate  of  return  of  10.3%  and  payback  of  about  10  years  if  the  SVC  only  processes  100%  cattle.  For  a  multi-­‐species  operation  of  75%  Cattle,  20%  lamb,  and  5%  hogs,  the  IRR  falls  below  the  discount  rate  of  10%.  The  financial  performance  assumes  that  the  SVC  achieves  750  units  in  the  first  year.    This  may  be  accomplished  with  rancher  guarantees  and  market  guarantees.  The  SVC  may  also  purchase  cattle  outright  and  float   the  time  to  market.    These  constraints  are  substantial.  Financial  performance  was  based  on  60%  of  the  operation  is   finances  and  40%  is  acquired  in  private   investment  and  includes  approximately  $200K  in  finance  charges.      Phase  2:  Add  another  butcher  or  assistant  butcher  and  marginal   additional   cold   storage   to  double  production   from  5  animal  units   to  10  animal  units  per  day  with  existing  equipment.    Now   the  Co-­‐op   can   shift   back   and   forth  between  Phase  1   volumes   and  phase  2   volumes   to  handle   seasonal   loads.  The   co-­‐op  may  process  a   risk  adjusted  40-­‐50  animal  units  per  week  into  primals,   age,  wrap   and  deliver   to  market.     Phase  2   yearly   yield   averaging  34  weeks  of  production  =  1500  animal  units  per  year.        Operation   Scenario:   Additional   personnel   may   be   added   to   existing   facilities   in   order   to  handle  peak  loads,  seasonal  loads,  or  special  orders.    Plant  manager,  driver,  and  maintenance  personnel  may  have  dual  or  multi  roles  for  added  flexibility.    One  or  two  USDA  inspectors  will  be  needed  which  are  provided  at  no  cost  by  the  USDA  with  the  exception  of  overtime  charges  if  incurred.    Where  USDA  inspector  is  not  available,  alternate  markets  may  be  able  to  absorb  product   under   custom   exempt   inspection.     Sufficient   refrigerated,   freezing   or   slaughter  capability  will  increase  flexibility  to  meet  USDA  inspector  schedule.        Table  10:  

Option  A  Phase  2;  Personnel    

Per  Year   Total  

Operations/Plant  Manager  /  Butcher   $60,000    Slaughter/Cut  Butcher   $35,000    Assistant  Butcher   $30,000    (1)  Cut/wrap     $25,000    Driver/Livestock  Holding  Pen   $25,000    (1)  Cleaner/Maintenance   $25,000    Administrative  Assistant  /  Scheduler   $30,000    Sub-­‐total  (not  including  benefits)     $260,000  Total  (Including  Benefits  @35%)     $351,000    Table  11:  

Option  A  Phase  2;  Start-­up  and  Facilities  Costs    

 

Carry  over  phase  1  expenditure   $912,000  Polar  King  freezer/refrigeration/aging  units   $203,5000  Total  Cost  For  Option  A;  Phase  2   $1,147,000      

Page 43: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

43  

Phase  2  has  an  internal  rate  of  return  of  18.03%  and  payback  of  7  years  if  the  SVC  operates  a  multi-­‐species  facility  for  1500  animals  at  75%  Cattle,  20%  lamb,  and  5%  hogs.      Due  to  limitation  in  the  analysis  spreadsheet,  the  financial  performance  assumes  that  the  SVC  achieves  1500  units  in  the  first  year  –  this  is  the  same  as  refinancing  Phase  1  and  starting  at  t=0.     The   more   likely   scenario   is   that   the   SVC   will   swing   between   phase   1   and   phase   2  production  rates  as  needed  and  incorporate  frozen  stock  and  bridge  loans  in  order  to  manage  the  realities  of  seasonal  swings.    Financial  performance  was  based  on  60%  of  the  operation  is  finances   and   40%   is   acquired   in   private   investment   and   includes   approximately   $230K   in  finance  charges.      Phase  3:        Expansion:  After  the  experience  of  operating  in  phase  1  and  phase  2,  markets  will  have  been  developed   for   both   supply   and  demand   for   cattle.     Sufficient   capital   or   available   credit  will  have  been  accumulated  to  float  the  operation.    Most  importantly,  confidence  in  the  co-­‐op  and  organization  will  be  solidified.    Strategy:    Phase  3  may  process  up  to  60  animals  per  week  into  boxed  or  individually  wrapped  cuts,  aged  and  deliver  to  market  fresh  or  frozen  for  a  maximum  yearly  production  of  3000  animals.  Since  a  modular  slaughtering  unit  is  less  expensive  than  another  mobile  unit,  the  location  with  the  highest  prior  yields  will  receive  a  modular  slaughter  unit,  which  can  operate  independently  or  in  parallel  with   the  mobile  unit.    Each  additional  butcher  may  add  15-­‐20  more  animals  per  week  to  the  co-­‐op  total  while  the  mobile  unit  continues  to  sustain  Phase  2  volumes  across  all  3  locations.    Expansion  to  the  cut  and  age  facility  will  be  from  added  modules.    Another  driver  and  reefer  would  be  added.      Phase  3  has  an   internal  rate  of   return  of  26%  and  requires  a  4-­‐year  period   to  pay  back   the  initial  investment  assuming  full  utilization.    Essentially,  SVC  would  be  operating  two  modular  facilities  at   capacity   sharing  common   inventory,  management,   and  markets.  Risk   is   reduced  through  diversity  of  acquired  knowledge  to  get  to  this  point  as  well  as  redundancy   in  many  areas  eliminating  single  points  of  failure.    Operating  this  system  at  this   level  would  be  fairly  complex  undertaking  likely  requiring  technological  productivity  software.  If  the  SVC  attempts  to  only  process  3000  cattle,  the  IRR  will  increase  however,  too  much  seasonal  flexibility  may  be  lost  to  justify  the  higher  returns.        Due  to  limitation  in  the  analysis  spreadsheet,  the  financial  performance  assumes  that  the  SVC  achieves   3000   units   in   the   first   year.     As   such,   each   phase   assumes   that   the   prior   phase   is  refinanced  and  the  clock  is  reset.    The  more  likely  scenario  is  that  the  SVC  will  swing  between  phase   1,   2,   and   3   rates   as   needed   and   incorporate   frozen   stock   as   a   means   of   managing  seasonal  swings.    Financial  performance  was  based  on  60%  of  the  operation  is  finances  and  40%  is  acquired  in  private  investment  and  includes  approximately  $423K  in  finance  charges  over  the  10-­‐year  term  of  the  loan.      

Page 44: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

44  

Table  12:  Option  A  Phase  3;  Personnel  Cost   Yearly   Total  Operations/Plant  Manager  /  Butcher   $65,000    (2)  Slaughter/Cut  Butcher   $70,000    (2)  Assistant  Butcher   $65,000    (4)  Cut/wrap     $100,000    (3)  Driver/Livestock  Holding  Pen/Cleaner/maintenance  

$75,000    

(2)  Cleaner/Maintenance   $50,000    (2)  Administrative  Assistant  /  Scheduler   $60,000    Subtotal  (not  including  benefits)     $485,000  Total  (including  benefits  @35%)     $654,750    Table  13:  

Option  A  Phase  3;  Start-­up  and  Facilities  Costs    Carry  over  phase  2  expenditure   $1,147,000  Second  Modular  Slaughter  Unit   $190,000  Add’l  Polar  king,  Cut  and  Wrap  Module   $245,000  Additional  Polar  King  freezer/refrigeration/aging  units   $300,000  Additional  Soft  Costs   $170,000  Additional  Office,  Trucks,  equipment   $100,000  TOTAL  COST:  Phase  3   $2,060,000    

   

Option  B:  Full  permanent  facility    The  second  option  is  to  build  a  permanent  facility  that  can  handle  all   facets  of  the  slaughter  and  processing.    The  initial  facility  will  be  sized  to  handle  1500  equivalent  animal  units  evenly  distributed   throughout   the   year.   Peak   loads   may   be   accomplished   by   adding   production  personnel  assuming  a  ready  market  exists.        Peak  loads  could  be  sustained  if  the  product  is  readily  absorbed  by  the  market  (i.e.,  not  requiring  freezing  or  storage)  throughout  the  year,  then  4000  equivalent  units  may  be  produced  by  adding  personnel  and  shifts.      Option  B  has  an  internal  rate  of  return  of  19.26%  and  requires  a  7-­‐year  period  to  pay  back  the   initial   investment.    However,   this  assumption   is  based  on   full   capacity  operation.    More  likely   than   not,   the   facility   will   operate   at   incremental   capacity   prior   to   reaching   full  production  allowing  for  the  supply,  the  demand,  and  the  operational  efficiency  of  the  plant  to  mature.        A   full   and   permanent   facility   has   several   advantages   over   a  mobile   slaughtering   unit.     It   is  easier   to  manage  with   fewer  people  and  with  stationary  equipment,   it   is  easier   to  maintain  and   clean.     Fewer   USDA   inspectors   will   be   required   and   a   higher   percentage   of   products  would  be  USDA  inspected,  graded,  and  packaged.  A  stationary  facility  may  double  production  

Page 45: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

45  

by  simply  adding  another  work  shift,  and  it  can  be  shuttered  easily  for  periods  of   inactivity.    Finally,  banks  may  finance  a  permanent  facility  with  a  lower  down  payment.        While  many  may  argue   that   there   is  no  salvage  value   if   the  SVC   fails,  a   full   facility  could  be  sold   to   a   private  meat   processor   operator   or   used   for   any   type   of   business   that   requires   a  controlled  environment  such  as  a  warehouse,  food  retail,  or  medical  facility.        Table  14:  Option  B;  Personnel   Yearly   Total  Operations/Plant  Manager  /  Butcher   $60,000    Slaughter/Cut  Butcher   $40,000    Assistant  Butcher   $30,000    (2)  Cut/wrap     $25,000    Driver/Livestock  Holding  Pen   $25,000    (2)  Cleaner/Maintenance   $25,000    Administrative  Assistant  /  Scheduler   $30,000    Subtotal  (not  including  benefits)     $280,000  Total  (including  benefits  @35%)     $378,000    Table  15:  

Option  B;  Start-­up  and  Facilities  Costs    4-­‐5  Acre  Parcel  appropriately  zoned  and  meeting  all  site  requirements  near  paved  road  

$250,000  

Steel  Building  with  insulated  walls  ceiling  and  doors  delivered  and  constructed  on  selected  site  

$150,000  

Freezer,  Chill  Cooler,  Ageing  Cooler,  Slaughter  and  cutting  area  cooling  system  

$150,000  

2  Refrigerated  Cargo  Containers,  used   $    40,000  Interior  Holding  Pens   $    15,000  2  Ford  F-­‐150  trucks  or  similar,  used   $    30,000  Refrigerated  Box  Truck  for  deliveries,  used   $    30,000  Rail  System,  used     $    30,000  Forklift,  used   $    10,000  Misc.  Office  Furniture  and  equipment   $          3,000  Slaughter  fixtures  and  equipment,  used   $    30,000  Processing  Fixtures  and  Equipment,  used   $    50,000  Wastewater  pre-­‐treatment   $122,000  Site  prep,  permit,  hook-­‐ups,  USDA  Consultant,  Engineering  Consultant  

$350,000  

Total  Cost  For  Option  B   $1,260,000      Due  to  limitation  in  the  analysis  spreadsheet,  the  financial  performance  assumes  that  the  SVC  achieves  1500  animals  in  the  first  year.    This  may  be  accomplished  where  SVC  has  options  to  purchase   cattle   or   where   rangers   have   commitments   to   supply   animals   somewhat   evenly  

Page 46: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

46  

throughout  the  year.    The  analysis  assumes  that  a  ready  market  of  USDA  distributors  exists.      Financial  performance  was  based  on  80%  of  the  operation  is  finances  and  20%  of  the  debt  is  held  by  private  investors.    The  finance  charges  will  be  approximately  $383,000  over  the  10-­‐year  term  of  the  loan.      

Table  16:  Financial  Performance  all  options:    

 

 Table  17:  Production  Cycle  for  Cattle  in  Central  Idaho  10  

                                                                                                                     10  University  of  Idaho:  Strategies  to  Increase  Prosperity  For  Small  Farms  Through  Sustainable  Livestock  Production,  Processing  And  Marketing  2014.  

Measures   Option  A   Option  B     Phase  1   Phase  2   Phase  3    

Animals  (composition)  

750  (100%  Cattle)  

1500  (75C/20S/5H)  

3000  (75C/20S/5H)  

1500  (75C/20S/5H)  

Capital  Investment  

$912,000   P1    +$200,000  [$1,147,000]  

P2  +$900,100    [$2,047,000]  

$1,282,000  

Debt  Financing  

$547,200  (60%)  

$658,200  (60%)  

$1,128,000  (60%)  

$1,025,600  (80%)  

Personnel  Cost  (per  year)  

$202,500   $351,100   $654,750   $371,250  

Gross  Revenue  Year  5  

$546,  317   $861,386   $1,740,459   $861,386  

Expenses  Year  5  

$457,717   $680,647   $1,265,200   $692,200  

Payback  Period  

>10  years   7  years   4  years   7  years  

Internal  Rate  of  Return  

10.32%   18.03%   26.09%   19.26%  

Page 47: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

47  

Risk  Assessment    Financial   Projections   for   complex   feasibility   studies   are   subject   a   wide   range   of   variables  related   to   supply,   demand,   regulations,   engineering   challenges,   and   human   resource  challenges.     None   of   these   are   trivial   and   a   failure   in   any   could   render   the   best   feasibility  estimate   useless.     In   researching   this   report,   I   was   struck   by   the   many   ways   that   a   meat  processing  plant  can  fail  –  none  of  which  appeared  on  the  feasibility  study.  This  section  will  endeavor   to   elucidate   many   of   the   risks   and   challenges   that   other   processors   have  encountered  as  well  as  attempt  to  identify  risks  specific  to  the  Salmon  Valley  Cooperative.      The  risk  adjusted  table  sacrifices  internal  rate  of  return  in  exchange  for  reduced  operational  risk.     Here   we   peg   the   IRR   to   the   discount   rate   at   10%   and   allocate   all   excess   predicted  revenue  to  operational  risk  reduction.      

Table  18:  Risk  Adjusted  Return  pegged  at  @10%    This  chart  shows  the  amount  of  short-­‐term  operational  capital  could  be  held  in  reserve,  at  the  cost  of  money,  which  could  minimize  operational  risk.    This  rotating  capital  could  be  used  to  purchase  livestock  directly  or  provide  bridge  loans  to  ranchers  for  the  period  of  time  it  takes  for   product   to   reach  market.     Other   uses  may   include   ramping   up   temporary   personnel   to  meet  peak  loads  or  obtaining  additional  refrigeration  or  freezing  capacity  to  preserve  product  from  loss.                                              

Measures   Option  A   Option  B     Phase  1   Phase  2   Phase  3    

IRR  @  10%   $1M  =  0%   $1.2M   $4M   $1.5M  

Page 48: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

48  

Processing      Like  slaughter  capacity,   it   is  expected   that   the  sophistication  of   the  SVC  Cut  &  Wrap   facility  will   increase  over   time  as   the  markets  develop  and  the  experience  be  gained.    The  simplest  processing   is   to   cut   the   carcass   into   primals   and   sell   boxed  meat   to   distributors   and  meat  shops.     The  most   complex   is   to   individually   cut   and  wrap   to   order   with   branded   labeling.    Fortunately,  value  is  added  with  each  step  providing  an  incentive  to  mature.        

                     

       

     

Figure  30:  Carcass  hangs  for  cooling/aging  or  cut  into  primals  

Figure  29:  Wrapped  Meat  Aging  on  Racks  

Figure  28:  Cut  and  Wrap  Operations  in  Clean  Cooled  USDA  Inspected  Environment  

Figure  31:  individually  wrapped  cuts  requires  a  high  level  of  tracking,  logistics,  and  quality  controls  

Page 49: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

49  

Processing  Equipment11  The  cost  and  complexity  of  processing  equipment  will   increase  as  new  markets  are  served.    For  example,  A  three-­‐man  crew  can  process  four  beef  per  day.  Four  beef  carcasses  weighing  750  lbs.,  cut  and  wrapped  at  70  cents  per  lb.  will  gross  $2,100/day.    Mike  Callicrate  has  had  notable  success  with  his  retail  outlets  and  provides  the  following  list  of  tools  and  equipment  to  set  up  a  full  service  cut  and  wrap  facility.        Table  19:  

Summary  Of  Equipment  For  Beef  Processing  Operation  Grinder     $3,300  Band  saw     $7,300  Tenderizer     $2,200  Slicer     $1,400  2  -­‐  Stainless  steel  cutting  tables     $2,000  1  –  Stainless  steel  wrapping  table     $1,000  6  -­‐  Freezer  racks  with  baskets     $3,400  2  -­‐  Scales     $1,400  Misc.  equipment,  knives,  clothing,  protective  gear,  etc.     $2,000      Total   $24,000    Pork  Processing:  A  three-­‐man  crew  can  process  15  hogs  per  day  at  $145  per  hog  (cut  and  wrap,  smoked  and  cured).    Plus:  There  is  approx.  20  lbs.  of  lard  per  hog  that  can  be  rendered  and  sold  for  50  cents  per  lb.  (The  USDA  reported  market  for  bulk  lard  on  November  4,  2010  was  79  cents  per  lb.).    Total  gross  income  for  pork  equals  $2,325  per  day    Table  20:  

Summary  Of  Equipment  For  Pork  Processing  Operation  Grinder     $3,300  Band  saw     $7,300  Slicer     $1,400  2  -­‐  Stainless  steel  cutting  tables     $2,000  1  –  Stainless  steel  wrapping  table     $1,000  6  -­‐  Freezer  racks  with  baskets     $3,400  2  -­‐  Scales     $1,400  Smoker  (pork  and  beef)     9,000  Curing  table  and  Pump  (pork)  -­‐  $3,000   $3,000  Bacon  hanger  and  hooks  -­‐  $300   $300  Sausage  stuffer  -­‐  $2,000   $2,000  Lard  renderer  -­‐  $5,000   $5,000  Misc.  equipment,  knives,  clothing,  protective  gear,  etc.     $2,000      Total   $41,400                                                                                                                  11  Adapted  from  Mike  Callicrate  Ranch  Foods  Direct:  http://ranchfoodsdirect.com  

Page 50: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

50  

   Summary  of  Income  and  Employment:    4  hd.  of  Beef  -­‐  $2,100  per  day  15  hd.  of  pork  -­‐  $2,325  per  day    

Total  -­  $4,425  per  day    Employees:    

• 6  full-­‐time  meat  cutters  (3  beef,  3  pork)  • 1  full-­‐time  clerical  and  bookkeeping  person  

   Retail  Market:    Retail   market   income   will   depend   on   the   size   and   support   of   the   community   (Consider   a  producer/consumer   -­‐   cooperative/community   type   of   ownership   structure).     A   traditional  fresh  meat   counter  with  paper  wrap  would   likely   fit   the  operation  nicely  with  potentially  a  significant   separate   profit   center.     Other   locally   produced   items   could   be   sold;   including  poultry,  eggs,  in  season  vegetables,  baked  goods,  raw  milk  pick-­‐up,  etc.  

 

 Figure  32:  Mike  Callicrate  has  had  considerable  success  with  retail  sales  

           

Page 51: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

51  

 SITE  SELECTION  

 Several   important  criteria  to  be  used  when  selecting  a  site   for  the  SVC  are  discussed  below.    These   considerations   are   applicable   to   a   mobile   slaughtering   unit,   a   modular  slaughter/processing  unit(s),  or  a  stationary  facility.      Access  to  municipal  sewer  utilities    Mechanical   pretreatment   of   the   plant’s  wastewater   followed   by   discharge   into   a  municipal  sewer  system  will  alleviate  the  need  to  have  a  series  of  wastewater  treatment  tanks  or  ponds  and  related  management  effort.  Although  fees  to  hook-­‐up  to  the  municipal  sewer  system  can  be  quite  high,  their  cost  may  be  considerably  less  than  the  costs  accrued  over  time  to  operate  an   onsite   wastewater   management   system.   Limited   monitoring   of   the   pretreatment  equipment  will  be  required.      Access  to  municipal  electric  and  water  utilities    If  these  utilities  are  not  close  by,  considerable  cost  can  be  incurred  to  extend  lines  to  the  site.  Potable   water   is   required   for   washing   down   the   carcasses   and   to   clean   the   machinery,  equipment,   tools  and  work  surfaces.  Option  A  (all  phases)  may  require   transport  of  potable  water  from  the  processing  plant  to  the  ranch  slaughter  site.      Proximity  to  a  major  transportation  route    If  located  in  any  of  the  three  participating  towns;  Salmon,  Challis,  or  MacKay,  the  components  of  the  plant  should  locate  within  a  few  miles  of  the  intersections  of  Highway  75  and  93  and  93  and  28.    The  majority  of  the  participating  ranchers  will  be  within  a  1-­‐hour  drive  of  the  SVC,  and  t  will  travel  on  Highway  93  to  get  to  the  plant.    Depending  on  where  the  slaughter  facility  is  located,  larger  towns  such  as  Missoula  Mt,  Twin  Falls,  and  Boise  are  roughly  3  hours  from  Salmon,  Challis,  or  Mackay.    These  are  easy  day  trips  to  deliver  finished  product  but  lengthy  drives   to  deliver   live   cattle.  The   specific   site  must  be  easily   accessible   to   trucks  bringing   in  livestock   and   loading   out   finished   products.   Highway   93   is   also   the   primary   route   for  traveling   to   the   participating   ranchers’   customers   in   all   directions.     Nevertheless,   it   is  advisable  to  have  fencing  and/or  trees  or  bushes  to  screen  the  plant  and  livestock  pens  from  direct  public  view.      Community  acceptance  of  project  site    Many  communities  will  express  vocal  opposition  to  many  the  larger  meat  plants  that  may  be  proposed   by   industrial   processors.   There   appears   to   be   strong   acceptance   within   the  agricultural   community   of   SVC.     The   State   of   Idaho,   through   the   economic   development  commission  and   the  University  of   Idaho,  has  expressed  considerable   interest   in   the  current  small-­‐scale  local  food  production.            

Page 52: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

52  

Labor  force  availability    There   are   several   USDA   and   custom-­‐exempt   facilities   operating   in   Idaho,  which   could   be   a  likely   source   of   labor.   Finding   experienced  meat   processing  management   –   especially   plant  management  with  regulator  expertise  -­‐  will  be  critical  to  the  success  of  the  SVP.    This  factor  is  cited  in  several  studies.      Land  site  suitability    This  criterion  relates  to  appropriate  zoning.  Also,  the  facility  should  have  minimal  impact  on  the   local   community—visually   and   environmentally.   Most   counties   will   permit   “industrial,  manufacturing,  or  storage  uses  which  may  be  objectionable  by  reason  of  production  of  smoke,  dust,  noise,  radioactivity,  vibration,  bright  light  or  other  causes”  on  sites  with  Manufacturing  (M)  zoning,  subject  to  first  securing  a  use  permit.      Ranch  site  requirements    The  Mobile  Slaughter   facility  will  have  specific  site  requirements  such  as  a  concrete  pad  for  slaughtering  the  animal  and  clean  water  availability.    There  could  be  many  sites  that  accept  the  mobile  unit  as   long  as  they  meet  the  USDA  requirements.  The  modular  slaughter  facility  would   be   a   more   developed   version   of   the   same.     Ideally,   the   site   for   the   both   types   of  slaughter  unit  has  potable  water  and  paved  roadway  to  the  site  that  is  in  good  repair.  The  site  should  also  have  holding  pen(s)  that  meet  the  Certified  Humane  criteria  (see  Attachment  5D,  Ranch  Site  Facility  Requirements  developed   for  members  of   the  Central  Coast   cooperative).  The  site  should  have  a  concrete  pad  with  proper  drainage  to  prevent  surrounding  areas  from  becoming  soggy.    It  is  expected  that  all  components,  phases,  or  options  for  this  facility  will  be  located  within  the  Salmon  Valley  Cooperative  designated  area.          Coop  Shared  Responsibilities:    We  may  divide  the  meat  processing  facility  into  3  components:    Slaughter  Cut  and  wrap  Distribution          Any   of   these   components   can   be   permanent,   modular,   or   mobile.     Each   has   benefits   and  drawback.     These   need   to   be   matched   with   the   specifications   of   the   community   and   the  conditions   of   the  market.     The   third   variable   is   the   availability   of  USDA   Inspectors   and   the  logistics  involved  with  complex  operations.              

Page 53: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

53  

Process   Method  1   Method  2   Method  3  Slaughter   Mobile   Modular   Permanent  

Cut  and  Wrap   Mobile   Modular   Permanent  Transport/Storage   Mobile   Modular   Permanent  

Table  21:  Options  For  Each  function  of  Meat  Processing  Operation      In  order  for  the  Coop  to  be  successful  and  involve  all  parties  in  collaboration,  the  processing  workflow   may   be   separated   into   3   distinct   areas   corresponding   to   the   towns   of   Salmon,  Challis,  and  MacKay.    These  may  correspond  to  the  following  options:      OPTION  A  -­  P1,  P2   Salmon   Challis   MacKay  

Slaughter   Mobile      Age,  Cut,  Box     Modular    Distribution       Mobile  Table  22a:  Possible  phase  1  and  2  function  corresponding  Coop  Locations    

     

OPTION  A  -­  P3   Salmon   Challis   MacKay  Slaughter   Modular      

Age,  Cut,  Box     Modular    Distribution       Mobile  

Table  22b:  Possible  phase  3  functions  corresponding  to  Coop  Locations        

OPTION  B   Salmon   Challis   MacKay  Slaughter     Permanent    

Age,  Cut,  Box     Permanent    Distribution   Mobile   Mobile   Mobile  

Table  22c:  Option  B  functions  corresponding  to  Coop  Locations                          

Page 54: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

54  

 Summary  Conclusion    Both   options   are   financially   viable,   however,   there   are   risk   exposures   that   the   co-­‐op   may  accept  or  reject  that  could  determine  the  best  approach.        All   phases   of  Option   A   are   individually   viable   if   implemented   alone.     The   correct   level   of  utilization  is  imperative  for  the  success  of  this  or  any  other  meat  processing  facility.    Ranchers  will   be   asked   to   convert   some  of   their  herd   to   local  production   for  deferred  payment  or   to  change   their   ranching   practices   for   staggered   harvesting.     Ancillary   business   opportunities  will  need  to  be  exploited  by  local  entrepreneurs.    All  of  this  takes  time  to  develop.      Therefore   if   the   Salmon  Valley  Cooperative   intends   to  operate   reliably   at   between  750  and  1500   animals,   then   the   recommendation   is   select  Option   A   and   deploy   a   USDA  mobile   or  modular  processing  facility  with  centralized  USDA  cut  and  wrap  capability.        If   the   Salmon   Valley   Co-­‐op   seeks   to   operate   at   1500   -­‐   3000   animals   per   year   the  recommendation  is  to  select  Option  B  install  a  permanent  USDA  inspected  facility  containing  both  slaughter  and  cut  &  wrap  operations  in  the  same  structure.                                                      

 

Page 55: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

55  

APPENDIX  A:    Position  Descriptions  for  Management  and  Staff  12    Position  Title:  General  Plant  Manager/Butcher  -­‐  $60,000  to  $90,000  (not  including  benefits)      Manages  plant’s  HACCP  program.  Monitors  performance  of  plant’s  wastewater  pre-­‐treatment  system.   Supervises   and   coordinates   activities   of  workers   engaged   in   slaughtering,   skinning,  and   dressing   cattle,   hogs,   sheep   and   goats   on   killing   floor   of   abattoir.   Directs   and   trains  workers   in   use   of   knife,   air-­‐knife,   saws,   and   other   hand   tools.   Supervises   and   coordinates  activities   of   workers   engaged   in   cutting   carcasses   into   standard   cuts,   removing   bones   and  trimming   excess   fat   from   cuts,   and   preparing   special   cuts   for   marketing:   Instructs   new  employees   in   cutting   carcasses   and   preparing   special   cuts.   Examines   cuts   of   meat   to  determine  if  quality  standards  are  met.  Inspects  meat  for  specified  color  and  texture  to  verify  conformity   to   government   regulations.   Manages   relations   with   customers.   Has   skills   or  performs  other  duties  as  described  below.      Duties  &  Responsibilities:      Operational    

• Provide  leadership  that  promotes  team  effort  by  personnel  to  accomplish  the  highest  standards  for  sanitation,  safety,  and  attention  to  detail  in  meat  processing    

• Ensure  a  high  level  of  sanitation  as  required  by  the  USDA    • Implement  systems  to  ensure  proper  tracking  of  products  from  live  animals  to  finished    • Cuts  -­‐  including  carcass,  order,  and  freezer  management    • Oversee  daily  operations  to  ensure  a  high  level  of  efficiency,  sanitation,  and  

professionalism    • Regular  testing  of  product  to  ensure  food  safety    • Fix/delegate  any  maintenance  issues    • Keep  all  machinery  and  tools  in  clean,  working  order    • Keep  inventory  and  order  items  to  keep  supplies  stocked  at  working  levels    • Ensure  humane  handling  standards  are  met  consistently    

 Administrative    

• Keep  a  high  level  of  customer  service  and  public  relations    • Record  keeping  of  all  FSIS  documents,  as  well  as  company  files  and  documents    • Daily  book  keeping  including  managing  accounts  receivables  and  payables,  worker’s  

hours,  and  purchase  orders    • Ensure  the  front  of  the  plant  (offices,  meeting  rooms,  bathrooms,  outside)  is  clean  and  

orderly    • Manage  employees  including  approving  raises,  hiring  and  firings  based  on    • Performance  reviews    • Maintain  a  strong  working  relationship  with  other  processors  and  vendors  in  the  area    • Develop  and  implement  new  products  or  services  to  offer  customers    

                                                                                                               12  Hardesty,  S  and  J.  Harper  2013  University  of  California  Cooperative  Extension;  Mendocino  County  Meat  Plant  Study  –  Staying  Local  Addendum  March  2014  

Page 56: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

56  

• Create  and  implement  a  marketing  strategy  for  services,  including  marketing  to  producers  and  marketing  of  educational  opportunities  for  producers  (in  collaboration  with  UCCE)    

• Maintain  a  company  website,  attend  regional  and  national  association  conferences,  represent  the  company  at  any  festivals  and  gatherings  in  the  region    

 Knowledge,  Skills  &  Ability    

• Extensive  knowledge  of  FSIS  regulation,  including  HACCP,  SSOP,  labeling,  and  quality  assurance  programs    

• Extensive  knowledge  of  various  meat  products    • Extensive  knowledge  of  humane  animal  handling,  stunning,  and  harvest  procedures    • Understand  where  hazards  in  a  food  production  process  can  be  controlled,  reduced  or  

eliminated    • Work  with  a  variety  of  knives,  hand  tools,  power  equipment  and  computer-­‐operated  

machinery    • Possess  good  eye-­‐hand  coordination,  common  sense  and  safe  working  habits    • Be  able  to  work  with  heavy  machinery  and  heavy  pieces  of  meat    • Possess  stamina  to  allow  for  long  periods  of  standing  in  a  cold  or  hot  environment    • Need  good  physical  strength  for  lifting  and  carrying  up  to  50  pounds    • Possess  a  high  standard  for  personal  hygiene  and  motivate  others  to  do  the  same    • Be  able  to  give  advice  about  alternative  cuts,  cooking  methods,  storage  requirements  

and  nutritional  aspects  of  meat  products      Credentials  &  Experience  

• 3-­‐5  years  meat  processing  experience  (inspected  facility  a  plus)    • 3-­‐5  years  in  a  managerial  role    • Bachelor’s  degree  or  equivalent  work  experience  • Food  service  experience  a  plus    

 _________________________________________________________________________________________________  

 Position  Title:  Assistant  Plant  Manager/Butcher  -­‐  $60,000  (not  including  benefits)  Optional  second   shift.  Supervises   and   coordinates   activities   of  workers   engaged   in   cutting   carcasses  into  standard  cuts,  removing  bones  and  trimming  excess  fat  from  cuts,  and  preparing  special  cuts  for  marketing.  Directs  and  trains  workers  in  use  of  knife,  air-­‐knife,  saws,  and  other  hand  tools.  Instruct  new  employees  in  cutting  carcasses  and  preparing  special  cuts.  Examines  cuts  of   meat   to   determine   if   quality   standards   are   met.   Inspects   meat   for   specified   color   and  texture  to  verify  conformity  to  government  regulations.  Has  skills  or  performs  other  duties  as  described  below.      Duties  &  Responsibilities:  Operational    

• Provide  leadership  that  promotes  team  effort  by  personnel  to  accomplish  the  highest  standards  for  sanitation,  safety,  and  attention  to  detail  in  meat  processing    

• Ensure  a  high  level  of  sanitation  as  required  by  the  USDA    • Implement  systems  to  ensure  proper  tracking  of  products  from  live  animals  to  finished  

cuts  -­‐  including  carcass,  order,  and  freezer  management    

Page 57: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

57  

• Oversee  daily  operations  to  ensure  a  high  level  of  efficiency,  sanitation,  and  professionalism    

• Regular  testing  of  product  to  ensure  food  safety    • Fix/delegate  any  maintenance  issues    • Keep  all  machinery  and  tools  in  clean,  working  order    • Keep  inventory  and  order  items  to  keep  supplies  stocked  at  working  levels    • Ensure  humane  handling  standards  are  met  consistently    

   Duties  &  Responsibilities:  Administrative  

• Keep  a  high  level  of  customer  service  and  public  relations  • Record  keeping  of  all  FSIS  documents,  as  well  as  company  files  and  documents  • Daily  book  keeping  including  managing  accounts  receivables  and  payables,  worker’s  

hours,  and  purchase  orders  • Ensure  the  front  of  the  plant  (offices,  meeting  rooms,  bathrooms,  outside)  is  clean  and  

orderly    • Manage  employees  including  approving  raises,  hiring  and  firings  based  on  

performance  reviews    • Maintain  a  strong  working  relationship  with  other  processors  and  vendors  in  the  area    • Develop  and  implement  new  products  or  services  to  offer  customers    • Create  and  implement  a  marketing  strategy  for  services,  including  marketing  to  

producers  and  marketing  of  educational  opportunities  for  producers    • Maintain  a  company  website    • Attend  regional  and  national  association  conferences    • Represent  the  company  at  any  festivals  and  gatherings  in  the  region    

 Knowledge,  Skills  &  Ability    

• Extensive  knowledge  of  FSIS  regulation,  including  HACCP,  SSOP,  labeling,  and    Quality  assurance  programs    

• Extensive  knowledge  of  various  meat  products    • Extensive  knowledge  of  humane  animal  handling,  stunning,  and  harvest  procedures    • Understand  where  hazards  in  a  food  production  process  can  be  controlled,  reduced  or  

eliminated    • Work  with  a  variety  of  knives,  hand  tools,  power  equipment  and  computer-­‐operated  

machinery    • Possess  good  eye-­‐hand  coordination,  common  sense  and  safe  working  habits    • Be  able  to  work  with  heavy  machinery  and  heavy  pieces  of  meat    • Possess  stamina  to  allow  for  long  periods  of  standing  in  a  cold  or  hot  environment    • Need  good  physical  strength  for  lifting  and  carrying  up  to  50  pounds    • Possess  a  high  standard  for  personal  hygiene  and  motivate  others  to  do  the  same    • Be  able  to  give  advice  about  alternative  cuts,  cooking  methods,  storage  requirements  

and  nutritional  aspects  of  meat  products      Credentials  &  Experience    

• 3-­‐5  years  meat  processing  experience  (inspected  facility  a  plus)    • 3-­‐5  years  in  a  managerial  role  

Page 58: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

58  

• Bachelor’s  degree  or  equivalent  work  experience  • Food  service  experience  a  plus    

 _________________________________________________________________________________________________  

 Position  Title:  Butcher  -­‐  $35,000  to  $45,000  (not  including  benefits).  Performs  slaughtering  and   butchering   tasks   in   small   slaughtering   and   meat   packing   establishment,   using   cutting  tools,  such  as  cleaver,  knife,  and  saw.    Stuns  animals  prior  to  slaughtering.  Shackles  hind  legs  of  animals,  such  as  cattle,  sheep,  and  hogs,  to  raise  them  for  slaughtering  or  skinning.  Severs  jugular  vein  to  drain  blood  and  facilitate  slaughtering.  Trims  head  meat  and  otherwise  sever  or   remove   parts   of   animal   heads   or   skulls.   Saws,   splits,   or   scribes   slaughtered   animals   to  reduce  carcass.  Slits  open,  eviscerates,  and  trims  carcasses  of  slaughtered  animals.  Cuts,  trims,  skins,  sorts,  and  washes  viscera  of  slaughtered  animals  to  separate  edible  portions  from  offal.  Washes   carcasses.  Wraps  muslin   cloth   about   dressed   animal   carcasses   or   sides   to   enhance  appearance   and   protect   meat.   Shaves   hog   carcasses.   Trims   and   cleans   animal   hides,   using  knife.  Cuts  bones  from  standard  cuts  of  meat,  such  as  chucks,  hams,  loins,  plates,  rounds,  and  shanks,  to  prepare  meat  for  marketing.  Examines,  weighs,  and  sorts  fresh  cuts.  Skins  sections  of  animals,  or  whole  animals  such  as:  cattle,  sheep,  and  hogs.  May  prepare  meats  for  smoking.  May  cut  and  wrap  meat.  May  salt  (cure)  and  trim  hides.  Has  skills  or  performs  other  duties  as  described  below.        Duties  &  Responsibilities      Operational    

• Ensure  a  high  level  of  sanitation  as  required  by  the  USDA    • Ensure  humane  handling  standards  are  met  consistently    • Participates  in  and  follows  HACCP    • Carries  out  plans  to  ensure  proper  tracking  of  products  from  live  animals  to  finished  

cuts  including  carcass,  order,  and  freezer  management    • Fix/delegate  any  maintenance  issues    • Keep  all  machinery  and  tools  in  clean,  working  order    • Assist  in  training  of  meat  cutter  and  assist  in  overseeing  clean-­‐up    • Knowledge,  Skills  &  Ability    • Extensive  knowledge  of  FSIS  regulation,  including  HACCP,  SSOP,  labeling,  and  QC  • Extensive  knowledge  of  various  meat  products    • Extensive  knowledge  of  humane  animal  handling,  stunning,  and  harvest  procedures    • Understand  where  hazards  in  a  food  production  process  can  be  controlled,  reduced  or  

eliminated    • Work  with  a  variety  of  knives,  hand  tools,  power  equipment  and  computer-­‐operated  

machinery    • Possess  good  eye-­‐hand  coordination,  common  sense  and  safe  working  habits    • Be  able  to  work  with  heavy  machinery  and  heavy  pieces  of  meat    • Possess  stamina  to  allow  for  long  periods  of  standing  in  a  cold  or  hot  environment    • Need  good  physical  strength  for  lifting  and  carrying  up  to  50  pounds    

Page 59: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

59  

• Possess  a  high  standard  for  personal  hygiene  and  motivate  others  to  do  the  same      Credentials  &  Experience  

• 3-­‐5  years  meat  processing  experience  (inspected  facility  a  plus)  • Bachelor’s  degree  or  equivalent  work  experience  • Food  service  experience  a  plus    

 _________________________________________________________________________________________________  

 Position  Title:  Butcher  Assistant  -­‐  $33,000  (not  including  benefits)  Optional  2nd  Shift.    Assisting   the   Butcher   by   work   in   slaughtering   and   meatpacking   performing   precision  functions  involving  the  preparation  of  meat.  Work  may  include  specialized  slaughtering  tasks,  cutting  standard  or  premium  cuts  of  meat  for  marketing,  making  sausage,  or  wrapping  meats.  Has  additional  skills  or  other  duties  as  described  below.      Duties  &  Responsibilities    

• Keeping  ac  lean  and  organized  workspace  in  accordance  with  AHAC  and  USDA  standards    

• Cut,  trim,  skin,  sort,  and  wash  viscera  of  slaughtered  animals  to  separate  edible  portions  from  offal    

• Slaughter  animals  in  accordance  with  humane  practices    • Slit  open,  eviscerate,  and  trim  carcasses  of  slaughtered  animals    • Perform  a  few  of  the  many  cuts  needed  to  process  a  carcass    • Remove  bones,  and  cut  meat  into  standard  cuts  in  preparation  for  marketing    • Sever  jugular  veins  to  drain  blood  and  facilitate  slaughtering    • Wash  carcasses  in  preparation  for  further  processing  or  packaging    • Trim,  clean,  and/or  cure  animal  hides    • Shackle  hind  legs  of  animals  to  raise  them  for  slaughtering  or  skinning    • Skin  sections  of  animals  or  whole  animals    • Trim  head  meat,  and  sever  or  remove  parts  of  animals'  heads  or  skulls    • Saw,  split,  or  scribe  carcasses  into  smaller  portions  to  facilitate  handling    • Grind  meat  into  hamburger,  and  into  trimmings  used  to  prepare  sausages,  luncheon  

meats,  and  other  meat  products    • Stun  animals  prior  to  slaughtering    • Wrap  dressed  carcasses  and/or  meat  cuts  

   Knowledge,  Skills  &  Ability    

• Have  an  adequate  understanding  in  the  care  and  handling  of  livestock  and  carcasses    • Have  an  adequate  understanding  of  meat  processing  techniques,  cuts,  and  packaging    • Have  extensive  knowledge  of  labeling  requirements  regulated  by  the  USDA    • Be  able  to  work  well  with  others  and  willing  to  provide  excellent  customer  service    • Possess  a  willingness  to  always  improve  your  knowledge,  skills  and  abilities    • MeticulouslyimplementthesanitationandsafetyrequirementsforaUSDAinspectedfacility    • Understand  where  hazards  in  a  food  production  process  can  be  controlled,  reduced  or  

eliminated    • Work  with  a  variety  of  knives,  hand  tools,  power  equipment  and  computer  

Page 60: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

60  

• Operate  machinery  safely  and  effectively.  • Possess  good  eye-­‐hand  coordination,  common  sense  &  safe  working  habits  when  using  

tools  &  equipment  • Be  able  to  assemble  and  operate,  disassemble  and  clean  the  equipment  in  all  

departments  • Possess  stamina  and  good  physical  strength  for  lifting  and  carrying  • Possess  stamina  to  work  in  hot  and  cold  environments  while  standing  for  long  periods  • Possess  a  high  standard  for  personal  hygiene  

   Credentials  &  Experience  

• 1-­‐3  years  meat  processing  experience  (inspected  facility  a  plus)  • Bachelor’s  degree  or  equivalent  work  experience  • Food  service  experience  a  plus    

 _________________________________________________________________________________________________  

   Position  Title:  Meat  Packaging/Cutting  -­‐  $24,960  to  $28,000  (not  including  benefits)    Cuts  and  trims  meat  to  size  as  ordered  by  customer,  using  hand  tools  and  power  equipment,  such  as  grinder,  cubing  machine,  and  power  saw.  Shape,  lace,  and  tie  meat  cuts  by  hand,  using  boning  knife,  skewer,  and  twine  to  form  roasts.  Wraps  all  cut  meats  in  either  paper  or  cryovac  sealed   packages.   Labels   packages   and   boxes   accordingly.   Boxes  wrapped  meats   and  moves  them  into  appropriate   locations   in  the  freezer.  Loads  meat  on  delivery  truck.  Has  additional  skills  or  performs  other  duties  as  described  below.      Duties  &  Responsibilities    

• Communicating  with  butchers  to  identify  orders  of  meat  that  have  been  cut,  read  cutting  instructions  to  find  customers  packing  preferences,  and  wrapping  meat  according  to  instructions    

• Labeling  meat  according  to  customers  request  and  USDA  regulations  using  computer  software    

• Properly  handling,  storing,  and  organizing  packaged  products  to  ensure  proper  food  safety  handling  procedures  are  met  in  accordance  with  HACCP  &  SSOP  guidelines    

• Organizing  freezer  for  easy  identification  and  location  of  customer  orders    • Loading  out  customers  for  product  pick-­‐up  including  filling  out  and  checking  of  all  

proper  paperwork  for  shipment  of  USDA  inspected  meat  products    • Keeping  a  clean  and  organized  workspace  in  accordance  with  AHAC  and  USDA  

standards    • Maintaining  a  high  level  of  Customer  Service  and  Customer  Relations  when  interacting  

with  all  customers,  including  over  the  phone    • Careful  and  safe  use  of  tools  and  equipment  during  production  and  during  cleaning    • Use  correct  dilutions  of  detergents  and  sanitizers  to  prevent  residue  on  food,  

equipment  and  other  food  surfaces    • Assist  in  the  implementation  of  Standard  Operating  Procedures  in  the  processing  room  

and  coolers    • Communicate  effectively  and  professionally  with  custom,  wholesale  &  private  label  

customers    

Page 61: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

61  

• Clean  equipment  and  rooms  at  the  end  of  production  (including  restrooms)    • Keep  the  entire  building  and  grounds  in  a  clean  and  presentable  manner    • Use  appropriate  rinses,  detergents  and  sanitizers  to  prevent  contamination  of  product,  

premises  and  equipment    • Grind,  season,  and  stuff  meat  for  ground  meat  and  sausages  (must  lift  50  pounds)    • Assisting  butchers  with  de-­‐boning  trim,  when  needed    

 Knowledge,  Skills  &  Ability    

• Have  an  adequate  understanding  in  the  care  and  handling  of  livestock  and  carcasses    • Have  an  adequate  understanding  of  meat  processing  techniques,  cuts,  and  packaging    • Have  extensive  knowledge  of  labeling  requirements  regulated  by  the  USDA    • Be  able  to  work  well  with  others  and  willing  to  provide  excellent  customer  service    • Possess  a  willingness  to  always  improve  your  knowledge,  skills  and  abilities  • Meticulously  implement  the  sanitation  and  safety  requirements  for  a  USDA  inspected  

facility    • Understand  where  hazards  in  a  food  production  process  can  be  controlled,  reduced  or  

eliminated    • Work  with  a  variety  of  knives,  hand  tools,  power  equipment  and  computer-­‐operated  

machinery  safely  and  effectively    • Possess  good  eye-­‐hand  coordination,  common  sense  &  safe  working  habits  when  using  

tools  &  equipment  • Be  able  to  assemble  and  operate,  disassemble  and  clean  the  equipment  in  all  

departments    • Possess  stamina  and  good  physical  strength  for  lifting  and  carrying    • Possess  stamina  to  work  in  hot  and  cold  environments  while  standing  for  long  periods    • Possess  a  high  standard  for  personal  hygiene    

   Credentials  &  Experience  

• High  School  Diploma  or  equivalent  Proficient  in  computer  use    • Meat  processing  experience  a  plus  Knowledge  of  live  stock  and  meat    

 _________________________________________________________________________________________________  

 Position  Title:  Driver/Livestock  Holding  Pen/Cleaner  -­‐  $24,120  to  $26,500  (not  including  benefits)      Assists  customers  unload  incoming  livestock  to  holding  pen.  Maintains  clean  water  supply  for  livestock.  Moves   livestock   through   chutes   to   kill   box.   Cleans   and   sanitizes   holding   pen   and  chutes  daily.  Delivers  processed  meats  to  ranchers’  restaurant  and  grocery  customers  in  the  North   Bay,   San   Francisco   and   East   Bay   area.   Delivers   processed  meats   to   ranch   customers  directly   if   needed.   Assists   cleaner  with   thorough   sanitation   of   kill   box   and   slaughter   room  floor,  and  other  duties  as  assigned.  Has  additional  skills  or  other  duties  as  described  below.          

Page 62: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

62  

 Duties  &  Responsibilities      

• MaintainingahighlevelofCustomerServiceandCustomerRelationswheninteractingwith  all  customers  and  their  restaurant  and  grocery  customers    

• Assist  in  receiving  livestock  for  slaughter    • Maintain  cleanliness  of  the  live  slaughter  animal  holding  area    • Assist  butcher  in  livestock  movement  prior  and  during  slaughter.    • Careful  and  safe  use  of  tools  and  equipment  during  production  and  during  cleaning    • Communicate  effectively  and  professionally  with  custom,  wholesale  &  private  label  

customers    

 

 Knowledge,  Skills  &  Ability    

• Have  an  adequate  understanding  in  the  care  and  handling  of  livestock  and  carcasses    • Have  extensive  knowledge  in  the  humane  slaughter  process  of  livestock    • Skilled  in  humane  treatment  of  cattle,  sheep,  goats  and  hogs    • Patient  and  caring  in  working  with  animals    • Excellent  driving  record    • Possess  good  eye-­‐hand  coordination,  common  sense  &  safe  working  habits  when  using  

tools  &  equipment    • Be  able  to  work  well  with  others  and  willing  to  provide  excellent  customer  service    • Possess  a  willingness  to  always  improve  your  knowledge,  skills  and  abilities    • Meticulously  implement  the  sanitation  and  safety  requirements  for  a  USDA  inspected  

facility    • Understand  where  hazards  in  a  food  production  process  can  be  controlled,  reduced  or  

eliminated    • Be  able  to  assemble  and  operate,  disassemble  and  clean  the  equipment  in  all  

departments    • Possess  stamina  and  good  physical  strength  for  lifting  and  carrying    • Possess  stamina  to  work  in  hot  and  cold  environments  while  standing  for  long  periods    • Possess  a  high  standard  for  personal  hygiene  

   Credentials  &  Experience    

• High  School  Diploma  or  equivalent    • Class  I  and  II  driver’s  license    • Meat  processing  experience  a  plus    • Knowledge  of  livestock  and  meat  products    

 _________________________________________________________________________________________________  

 Position  Title:  Cleaner  -­‐  $24,000  (not   including  benefits)  (works  3  pm-­‐6  pm,  10  pm-­‐1  am).  Assist  other  workers  in  plant  clean  up.  Including  rooms,  floors,  machinery  and  knives,  holding  pens,  coolers  and  restrooms.  Must  use  correct  dilutions  of  detergents  and  sanitizes   for  both  traditional  meat  processing  and  organic  meat  processing.  Cleans  trolleys  used  to  move  animal  carcasses   along   overhead   rail,   in   vats   or   tanks   filled  with   solution:   Turns  water   and   steam  valves  to  fill  and  heat  cleaning  vats  or  tanks.  Dumps  caustic  soda  and  detergents  into  tank  and  

Page 63: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

63  

stirs  mixture  with  paddle.  Pushes  rack  of  trolleys  to  tank  and  lowers  each  trolley  into  solution,  or  immerses  rack  into  solution,  using  hoist.  Removes  trolleys  from  solution  and  rinses  them  in  hot  water   spray.   Cleans   and   sterilizes  machinery,   utensils,   and   equipment.   Turns   valves   to  drain  machines  or  tanks  and  disconnects  pipes  using  wrenches.  Sprays  machines,  tanks,  and  conveyors  with  water  to  loosen  and  remove  dirt  or  other  foreign  matter.  The  Cleaner  scrubs  all  machines,   tanks,   tables,   pans,   bowls,   compartments,   and   conveyors,   using   brushes,   rags,  cleaning   preparations,   and   diluted   acids.   Rinses   articles   with   water,   and   dries   them   with  compressed  air.      The   Cleaner   also   scrubs   floors   and   walls,   using   brushes,   rags,   and   diluted   acids.   Connects  hoses  and  lines  to  pump  and  starts  pump  to  circulate  cleaning  and  sterilizing  solution  through  hoses   and   lines.   Scrubs   interior   of   disconnected   pipes,   valves,   spigots,   gauges,   and  meters,  using   spiral   brushes.   Cleaner   mixes   cleaning   solutions   and   diluted   acids,   according   to   a  process   formula.   Draws   off   samples   of   cleaning   solutions   from  mixing   tanks   for   laboratory  analysis.  Has  additional  skills  or  other  duties  as  described  below.      Duties  &  Responsibilities    

• Keeping  a  clean  and  organized  workspace  in  accordance  with  AHAC  and  USDA  standards    

• Careful  and  safe  use  of  tools  and  equipment  during  production  and  during  cleaning    • Use  correct  dilutions  of  detergents  and  sanitizers  to  prevent  residue  on  food,  

equipment  and  other  food  surfaces    • Clean  equipment  and  rooms  at  the  end  of  production  (including  restrooms)    • Keep  the  entire  building  and  grounds  in  a  clean  and  presentable  manner    • Use  appropriate  rinses,  detergents  and  sanitizers  to  prevent  contamination  of  product,  

premises  and  equipment      Knowledge,  Skills  &  Ability  

• Possess  good  eye-­‐hand  coordination,  common  sense  and  safe  working  habits  • Be  able  to  work  with  heavy  machinery  • Possess  stamina  to  allow  for  long  periods  of  standing  in  a  cold  or  hot  wet  environment  • Need  good  physical  strength  for  lifting  and  carrying  up  to  50  pounds  • Possess  a  high  standard  for  personal  hygiene  

 Credentials  &  Experience  

• High  School  Diploma  or  equivalent  • Meat  processing  experience  a  plus  • Knowledge  of  livestock  and  meat  a  plus    

   

_________________________________________________________________________________________________    Position   Title:   Administrative   assistant/scheduler   –   $30,000   to   $40,000   (not   including  benefits)   Assisting   with   any   duties   related   to   administrative   functions,   dispatch,   fleet,   and  sales   at   meat   harvest   and   processing   plant;   any   reasonable   task   that   may   be   requested.  Training   will   be   provided   in   support   of   duties   and   responsibilities;   however,   the   suitable  

Page 64: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

64  

candidate  must  obtain  the  capability  to  learn  and  grow  in  the  position;  completing  the  tasks  assigned  accurately  and  effectively,  and  in  accordance  with  internal  working  procedures.  Has  additional  skills  or  other  duties  as  described  below.      Knowledge,  Skills  &  Ability    

• Ability  to  cope  with  workload  pressure  and  preparedness  to  work  long  hours    • Computer  literacy  (MS  Word,  Excel  and  PowerPoint)    • Excellent  phone  skills  and  attention  to  details    • General  knowledge  of  a  USDA  inspected  meat  harvest  and  processing  plant  desired    • Proven  finance,  planning,  organizational  and  marketing  management  skills    • Abilitytointerfaceeffectivelywithinternalandexternalclientsandsuppliers    • An  assertive  assistant,  a  strong  team  player  and  an  excellent  people  motivator    • Ability  to  work  in  a  changing  environment    • Self-­‐motivation  

 Duties  &  Responsibilities    

• With  the  Manager,  ensure  the  efficient  and  cost  effective  running  of  the  plant    • Process  customer  orders,  billing,  payroll,  purchasing  and  other  office  duties    • Managing  the  timely  and  accurate  delivery  of  customer  products    • Assist  the  Manager  with  his/her  administrative  duties  including  record-­‐keeping  and  

filing    • Assist  in  ensuring  compliance  with  all  legislation  and  procedures  regulating  USDA  

inspected  operations    • Undertaking  any  other  clerical  duties  as  may  be  required    

 Credentials  &  Experience    

• High  School  Diploma  or  equivalent    • Proficient  in  computer  use    • Meat  processing  experience  a  plus    • Knowledge  of  livestock  and  meat    

 _________________________________________________________________________________________________  

 Position  Title:  General  Assistant  -­‐  $28,000  (not  including  benefits)  optional  second  shift:  The  General   Assistant   works   in   slaughtering   and   meatpacking   and   may   perform   precision  functions  involving  the  preparation  of  meat.  The  assistant  helps  move  animals  in  preparation  of  slaughter,  move  animals  along  the  rail  to  the  cooler  and  back  to  the  butcher.  The  assistant  will  help  with  cleaning  and  will  move  packaged  meat,  hides  and  offal  to  storage  and  may  assist  in   moving   product   to   delivery   trucks.   Work   may   include   specialized   slaughtering   tasks,  cutting  standard  or  premium  cuts  of  meat  for  marketing,  making  sausage,  or  wrapping  meats.  Has  additional  skills  or  other  duties  as  described  below.      Duties  &  Responsibilities  

• Assist  in  receiving  livestock  for  slaughter  • Maintain  cleanliness  of  the  live  slaughter  animal  holding  area  • Assist  butcher  in  livestock  movement  prior  and  during  slaughter  

Page 65: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

65  

• Careful  and  safe  use  of  tools  and  equipment  during  production  and  during  cleaning  • Assist  meat  cutter/packager,  driver/cleaner,  and  cleaner  in  the  performance  of  their  

job  duties      Knowledge,  Skills  &  Ability    

• Have  an  adequate  understanding  in  the  care  and  handling  of  livestock  and  carcasses    • Have  an  adequate  understanding  of  meat  processing  techniques,  cuts,  and  packaging    • Be  able  to  work  well  with  others  and  willing  to  provide  excellent  customer  service    • Possess  a  willingness  to  always  improve  your  knowledge,  skills  and  abilities    • Work  with  a  variety  of  knives,  hand  tools,  power  equipment  and  computer-­‐operated  

machinery  safely  and  effectively    • Possess  good  eye-­‐hand  coordination,  common  sense  &  safe  working  habits  when  using  

tools  &  equipment    • Be  able  to  assemble  and  operate,  disassemble  and  clean  the  equipment  in  all  

departments    • Possess  stamina  and  good  physical  strength  for  lifting  and  carrying    • Possess  stamina  to  work  in  hot  and  cold  environments  while  standing  for  long  periods    • Possess  a  high  standard  for  personal  hygiene    

 Credentials  &  Experience  

• High  School  Diploma  or  equivalent  • Meat  processing  experience  a  plus  • Knowledge  of  livestock  and  meat    

                                           

Page 66: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

66  

APPENDIX  B:  Worksheets  and  Analysis13                                                                                      

                                                                                                                 13    Oklahoma  State  University  Spreadsheet  templates  developed  by  Dr.  Rodney  Holcomb  

Page 67: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

67  

Worksheets:  Option  A  –  Phase  1;  Operating  Assumptions    

   

Worksheets:  Option  A  –  Phase  1;  Sales  Projections  and  GOGS    

 

Page 68: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

68  

Worksheets:  Option  A  –  Phase  1;  Personnel  Expenses    

   

Worksheets:  Option  A  –  Phase  1;  PP&E    

 

Page 69: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

69  

Worksheets:  Option  A  –  Phase  1;  Expense  Summary    

   

Worksheets:  Option  A  –  Phase  1;  Income,  Expense,  Profit,  Cash  Flow  Summary      

                 

Page 70: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

70  

Worksheets:  Option  A  –  Phase  1;  Internal  Rate  of  Return      

                                               

     

Page 71: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

71  

Worksheets:  Option  A  –  Phase  2;  Operating  Assumptions    

     

Worksheets:  Option  A  –  Phase  2;  Sales  Projections,  GOGS    

 

Page 72: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

72  

Worksheets:  Option  A  –  Phase  2;  Personnel  Expenses    

   

Worksheets:  Option  A  –  Phase  2;  PP&E    

 

Page 73: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

73  

 Worksheets:  Option  A  –  Phase  2;  Expense  Summary  

 

   

 Worksheets:  Option  A  –  Phase  2;  Income,  Expense,  Profit  Summary  

 

               

Page 74: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

74  

       

Worksheets:  Option  A  –  Phase  2;  Internal  Rate  Of  Return      

                                                   

Page 75: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

75  

Worksheets:  Option  A  –  Phase  3;  Operating  Assumptions    

     

Worksheets:  Option  A  –  Phase  3;  Sales  Projections,  COGS    

 

Page 76: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

76  

Worksheets:  Option  A  –  Phase  3;  Personnel    

   

Worksheets:  Option  A  –  Phase  3;  PP&E    

 

Page 77: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

77  

   

Worksheets:  Option  A  –  Phase  3;  Expense  Summary    

   

   

Worksheets:  Option  A  –  Phase  3;  Income,  Expense,  Profit  Summary    

           

Page 78: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

78  

 Worksheets:  Option  A  –  Phase  3;  Internal  Rate  of  Return  

 

                                                         

 

Page 79: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

79  

Worksheets:  Option  B;  Operating  Assumptions      

   

 Worksheets:  Option  B;  Sales  Projections,  COGS  

 

 

Page 80: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

80  

Worksheets:  Option  B;  Personnel    

   

Worksheets:  Option  B;  PP&E    

 

Page 81: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

81  

Worksheets:  Option  B;  Expense  Summary    

     

Worksheets:  Option  B;  Income,  Expense,  Profit,  Cash  Flow      

               

Page 82: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

82  

Worksheets:  Option  B;  Internal  Rate  of  Return    

                                                             

Page 83: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

83  

   APPENDIX  C:  Additional  Case  Studies  and  Plant  References  Reviewed  in  this  report  

   

Fixed  Facilities    

Smuckers  Meats    Mount   Joy,   Pennsylvania:   Smucker's   Meats   is   a   family-­‐owned,   USDA-­‐inspected   slaughter,  fabrication,  and  further-­‐processing  plant  for  red  meat.  The  core  of  their  business  is  processing  locally  grown  livestock  that  are  sustainably  raised.  Their  services  are  in  high  demand  -­‐-­‐  they  are  typically  scheduled  out  3-­‐4  months.  They  process  an  average  of  ~45  head  of  beef  and  5-­‐10  hogs  each  week.  

Lorentz  Meats  Cannon   Falls,   Minnesota:  Lorentz   Meats   is   a   USDA-­‐inspected   slaughter,   fabrication,   and  value-­‐added  processing  plant  for  beef  and  bison.  They  handle  more  than  8000  head  per  year,  on  a  fee-­‐for-­‐service  basis  for  niche  meat  brands  and  independent  farmers.  The  business  has  been  in  the  family  since  1968.      

Heritage  Meats  Rochester,  Washington:  Heritage  Meats  is  a  small,  USDA-­‐inspected  cut  and  wrap  facility  that  provides  fee-­‐for-­‐service  processing  of  all  red  meat  species  for  independent  farmer-­‐marketers  and   retail   butcher   shops.   The   plant   has   a   custom-­‐exempt   side   for   freezer-­‐beef   customers.  They  are  a  primary  processor  for  the  region's  USDA  inspected  mobile  slaughter  unit.  

TFC  Poultry  Processing  Ashby,  Minnesota:  TFC  is  a  USDA-­‐inspected  poultry  processor  that  provides   fee-­‐for-­‐service  processing   for   small-­‐scale,   local   farmers   and   two   organic  meat   companies.   The  majority   of  their   throughput   is   spent   hens   from  a   variety   of   sources.   Their  motto   is   "big   enough   to   do  things,  small  enough  to  cater."  

White  Oak  Pastures  Bluffton,   GA:  White   Oak   Pastures   is   a   family   owned,   vertically   integrated,   grass-­‐fed   meat  company  with  two  on-­‐farm  slaughter  and  processing  plants,  one  for  poultry  and  one  for  cattle,  sheep,  and  goats.  Both  are  Tallmadge-­‐Aiken  plants.  All  meat  and  poultry  processed  are  sold  under  the  White  Oak  Pastures  label.  

Ranch  Foods  Direct  Colorado   Springs,   CO:  Ranch   Foods   Direct   is   a   USDA-­‐inspected   processor   and   retail   food  company   that   do   cutting,   packaging,   and   some   value-­‐added   processing.   RFD   primarily  processes   cattle   for   its  own  house  brand  of  beef  but  also  provides  processing  services  on  a  

Page 84: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

84  

fee-­‐for-­‐service   basis   for   ranchers   who   market   their   own   meats   independently.    RFD   also  operates  a  USDA-­‐inspected  mobile  slaughter  unit  in  Kansas.  

Midwestern  Country  Locker  Midwest:  This  case  study  details  an  small,   locker-­‐type  plant   from  the  Midwest   (the  owners  wish  to  remain  anonymous).  The  facility  has  been  in  continuous  operation  since  1939,  and  the  current  owner   is   looking  to  build  a  new  facility.  Though  the  plant   is  state-­‐inspected   for  hog  slaughter  and  for  processing,  their  work  is  90+%  custom  uninspected,  and  they  offer  a  wide  variety   of   ready-­‐to-­‐eat   products.   The  plant  processes   an   average  of   11  beef   a  week   and  15  hogs,  plus  a  large  volume  of  deer  in  the  fall  and  winter.  

Good  Natured  Family  Farms  Uniontown,   Kansas:   The   plant   processes   meat   for   the  Good   Natured   Family   Farms  brand,  distributed  regionally  around  Kansas  City,  Missouri.  Although  the  plant  is  owned  by  one  farm,  the   meat   processed   there   comes   from   regional   farms   and   the   policies   and   practices   are  designed   to   serve   the   needs   of   local   farmers.   Good   Natured   Family   Farms   is   a   model   of  responsible   vertical   integration:   The   company   founders   operate   a   working   farm,   a   meat  processing   plant,   a   food   distribution   company,   steward   the   Good   Natured   Family   Farms  brand,  and  organize  of  a  farmer-­‐owned  all-­‐natural  beef  co-­‐op.  This  plant  processes  8-­‐10  head  of  cattle  or  300  chickens  per  day  and  is  USDA  inspected.  

Harvey,  North  Dakota,  USDA  Slaughter  and  Processing  Plant    Harvey,  North  Dakota:  A  cautionary  tale,  this  is  a  three  part  story  about  one  USDA  inspected  slaughter  &  processing  plant,  first  conceived  in  1999,  opened  in  2001,  failed  &  reborn  twice,  and  closed  in  August  2008  (though  it  may  be  opened  yet  again,  by  a  new  operator).  

Sioux-­Preme  Packing  Company  Sioux  City,  Iowa:  In  1970,  Sioux-­‐Preme  started  out  as  a  harvest-­‐only  facility,  in  a  "hog-­‐rich"  part   of   Sioux   County,   and   expanded   to   fabrication   in   the   early   1990s.  When   the   company  began,  in  the  mid-­‐90s,  to  look  for  a  differentiation  strategy,  it  found  that  opportunity  in  niche  pork  processing.  Today  its  customers  include  Niman  Ranch,  Beeler's  Natural,  Organic  Valley,  and  others.  Sioux-­‐Preme   is   large  enough  to  handle  significant  volume  but  small  and   flexible  enough  to  meet  customer  needs  in  a  dynamic,  diversified  marketplace.  

Acre  Station  Meat  Farm    Pinetown,   North   Carolina:   Built   in   1978,   Acre   Station  Meat   Farm   combines   a   processing  facility  and  a  retail  grocery  store.  As  the  only  small  meatpacker  in  the  state  able  to  produce  a  range   of   value-­‐added   products,   such   as   bacon   and   ham,   they   have   become   the   “go-­‐to”  processor  for  a  number  of  the  state's  independent  farmers  direct  marketing  their  own  meats.  Acre   Station   also   works   closely   with   stakeholders   in   the   state   who   are   establishing  connections  between  local  independent  farmers  and  local  retail  markets.    

 

Page 85: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

85  

 

Mobile  Units    

Island  Grown  Farmers  Cooperative    Bow,  Washington:   The   Island   Grown   Farmers   Cooperative   (IGFC)   mobile   processing   unit  (MPU)  was  the  first  USDA-­‐inspected  mobile  slaughter  facility  for  red  meat  in  the  U.S.  Further  processing   is   done   at   a   permanent   plant   in   Bow,   WA,   also   USDA-­‐inspected.   The   MPU   can  process  9-­‐10  head  beef  (or  40  sheep  or  24  pigs)  each  day,  3-­‐4  days  a  week.  In  2007,  the  IGFC  MPU  and  processing  facility  handled  308,000  lbs  of  meat   for   its  members  and  has  stayed  at  that  capacity  since  then.  

Kentucky  Mobile  Poultry  Processing  Unit    Frankfort,   Kentucky:   This   small,   mobile   poultry   processing   unit   was   built   in   Kentucky   in  2001  by  Heifer  International  with  Kentucky  State  University  (KSU),  Partners  for  Family  Farms  (PFF),   and   the   National   Center   for   Appropriate   Technology   (NCAT).   State-­‐approved   but  uninspected,   the  MPU   is  owned  and  maintained  by  KSU.  Farmers  use   it  on  a   rental  basis   to  process  poultry  and  aquaculture.  

Coast  Grown  Mobile  Harvest  Unit    Central   Coast   Region,   California:   This   mobile   unit   was   built   in   2002   by   ranchers   who  wanted  better  access   to  an   inspected  slaughter   facility.  Regulatory  complexities  paired  with  uncertain  markets   kept   it   parked   for   seven   years.   In   2009,   it   finally   began   operations   as   a  USDA   inspected  unit.  This   case  study,  written  after   the   first   few  months,  describes   the   long  and  often  confusing  path  to  getting  it  up  and  running,  and  the  plan  for  its  future  success.  

Hudson  Valley  Poultry  Processing  Hudson   Valley,   New   York:   Hudson   Valley   Poultry   Processing   Inc.   owns   the   first   state-­‐inspected,   enclosed,   mobile   poultry   processing   unit   (MPPU)   operating   in   New   York   State,  approved  in  November  2009.  Owner  Ed  Leonardi,  a  small  livestock  producer  in  the  Catskills,  designed   it   to  allow  other  producers   to  process   their  own  birds  under   their  own  state   (5A)  license.  

Tangletown  Farm  Poultry  Processing    Middlesex,   Vermont:   Tangletown   Farm   in   Vermont,   owns   and   operates   a   mobile   poultry  processing   unit   under   state   inspection.   The   unit  was   originally   built   as   a   prototype   by   the  state  of  Vermont  in  2008.  Operator  George  Eisenhardt  brought  a  lifetime  of  experience  in  the  slaughterhouse   business   when   he   started   using   the   MPPU   in   August   2009.    It   was   sold   to  Tangletown  Farm  in  January  2012-­‐  they  currently  use  it  to  process  their  own  poultry  only.      

 

 

Page 86: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

86  

Puget  Sound  Meat  Producers  Cooperative    Tacoma,   Washington:   The   PSMPC   is   a   non-­‐profit   cooperative   of   local   ranchers,   farmers,  butchers,   restaurant   owners,   and   others   who   jointly   operate   a   mobile,   USDA-­‐inspected  slaughter  unit.  It   initially  services  King,  Kitsap,  Lewis,  Mason,  Pierce,  and  Thurston  counties.  The  MSU  is  owned  by  the  Pierce  Conservation  District;  PSMPC  leases  it.  The  first  animals  were  slaughtered  in  the  unit  in  October  2009.      Mobile  MPUs  Operating  in  the  US    Red  Meat  Units  (Listed  alphabetically  by  state  and  business  name)    Alaska  Meat  Company,  AK  Kodiak,  Sitkinak  Island,  Alaska  "Multi-­‐Location  Abattoir"  Species:  cattle  Inspection:  USDA-­‐inspected  Capacity  per  day:  5  cattle  Website:  http://www.alaskameat.com/Services_Available.php  Other:  at  this  time,  the  unit  only  handles  cattle  for  Alaska  Meat  Company  Contact:  Bob  or  Nathan  Mudd,  Kodiak,  AK:  bobmuddjr[at]gmail.com,  (907)  486-­‐3905;  nathanmudd[at]gmail.com,  (907)  654-­‐7422    Central  Coast  Grown  (CA)  San  Luis  Obispo,  California  Species:  beef,  lamb,  swine,  goat  Inspection:  USDA-­‐inspected  Capacity  per  day:  5  beef  or  10  hogs  or  20  lambs  and  goats  Owned  and  managed  by  the  Central  Coast  Agriculture  Cooperative;  operated  by  J&R  Meats,  a  USDA-­‐inspected  cut  and  wrap  facility  Central  Coast  Grown  website  Detailed  case  study,  with  photos:  Coast  Grown  Mobile  Harvest  Unit  Contact:  J&R  Meats,    805-­‐237-­‐8100    Nebraska  Prairie  Harvest  Project  (NE/CO)  Species:  beef,  bison,  hogs,  goats,  sheep  Inspection:  USDA-­‐inspected  Capacity  per  day:  10  beef  Built  by  Nebraska  Environmental  Action  Coalition  (NEAC),  owned  by  Socially  Responsible  Agricultural  Project's  Renewable  Harvest  Operated  by  Mike  Callicrate,  Ranch  Foods  Direct,  Colorado  Springs,  CO  Good  Food  Concepts  Mobile  Meat  Processing  website    

Page 87: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

87  

Cost:  the  Nebraska  Environmental  Action  Coalition  built  this  mobile  unit  for  $120,000  (includes  the  whole  trailer  and  equipment  but  not  the  truck  to  haul  the  trailer).  The  unit  includes  an  ozone-­‐based  water  filtration  system.  Renewable  Harvest  provides  free  consulting  to  farmers  and  communities  interested  in  building  and  operating  MSUs.  Contact:  Laura  Krebsbach,  Renewable  Harvest,  (402)  549-­‐2365,  info[at]renewableharvest.org  Contact:  Good  Food  Concepts,  (866)  866  6328,  info[at]GoodFoodConcepts.com    Taos  County  (NM)  Economic  Development  Corporation  Mobile  Matanza  Taos,  New  Mexico  Species:  bison,  beef,  hogs,  goats,  sheep  Inspection:  USDA-­‐inspected  Capacity  per  day:  5-­‐8  beef  or  bison,  15-­‐15  goats,  sheep  or  hogs  Owned  by  the  Taos  County  Economic  Development  Corporation  (TCEDC)  TCEDC  website  2012  article  about  the  Mobile  Matanza,  in  "Taos  Food  News,"  the  TCEDC  newsletter  Contact:  Terrie  Bad  Hand,  TCEDC,  (575)  758-­‐8731,  tcedc[at]tcedc.org    The  Modular  Harvest  System  (NY)  Hudson  Valley,  New  York  Species:  beef,  hogs,  sheep,  and  goats  Inspection:  USDA-­‐inspected  Capacity  per  day:  approximately  10-­‐12  beef,  24  hogs,  30-­‐40  sheep  or  goats  Built  by  the  Glynwood  Center  Owned  and  operated  by  Local  Infrastructure  for  Local  Agriculture  (LILA)  MHS  information  on  Glynwood  Center  website  The  MHS  is  the  first  USDA-­‐inspected  red  meat  MSU  in  the  country  designed  to  slaughter  inside.  Contact:  Jess  Hamilton,  LILA,  (800)  792-­‐4014,  (518)  821-­‐0004,  hamilton[at]lila-­‐northeast.org    Community  Agricultural  Development  Center  (WA)  Colville,  Washington  Species:  beef,  hogs,  sheep,  and  goats  Inspection:  USDA-­‐inspected  Capacity  per  day:  6-­‐7  beef,  20-­‐25  sheep  or  hogs  Owned  by  the  Community  Agricultural  Development  Center;  operated  by  S  &  K  Processing,  a  USDA-­‐inspected  cut  and  wrap  facility  Community  Agricultural  Development  Center  website  Contact:  Al  Kowitz,  Community  Agricultural  Development  Center,  akowitz[at]communityagecenter.org                

Page 88: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

88  

Island  Grown  Farmers  Cooperative  (WA)  Bow,  Washington  Species:  beef,  hogs,  goats,  and  sheep  Inspection:  USDA-­‐inspected  Capacity  per  day:  8-­‐10  head  beef  (or  40  sheep  or  20  pigs)  Owned  by  Island  Grown  Farmers  Cooperative  (IGFC)  IGFC  website  Detailed  case  study,  with  photos:  Island  Grown  Farmers  Cooperative  Contact:  Jim  Wieringa,  IGFC,  (360)  766-­‐4273,  manager[at]igfcmeats.com      Puget  Sound  Meat  Producers  Cooperative  (WA)  Tacoma,  Washington  Species:  beef,  pork,  sheep  and  goat  Inspection:  USDA-­‐inspected,  Certified  Organic  by  Washington  State  Department  of  Agriculture  Capacity  per  day:  10  animal  units  (AU);    1  beef  =  1  AU,  1  hog  =  0.6  AU,  1  sheep/goat  =  0.44  AU  Owned  by  the  Pierce  County  Conservation  District  Puget  Sound  Meat  Producers  Cooperative  website  Contact:  Perry  Schermerhorn,  PSMPC,  (254)  225-­‐2226,  psmpc[at]pugetsoundmeat.org                                                        

Page 89: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

89  

APPENDIX  D:  List  of  meat  processor  facilities  in  Idaho  14      M20290-­‐P20290-­‐V20290  

Targhee  Brands,  Inc.  

8149  South  600  East     Rexburg   83440   (208)  

359-­‐2710   Processing  

M454-­‐P4988-­‐V454  

Owyhee  Meat  Company  

3408  Industrial  Road  

Homedale   83628   (208)  337-­‐3648  

Slaughter,  Processing  

V226A   Independent  Meat  Co.   3077  Eldridge   Twin  Falls   83301   (208)  

733-­‐0980    

00226A  M  

Independent  Food  Corp.   3077  Eldridge   Twin  Falls   83301   (208)  

733-­‐0980  ID  Warehouse  

M226-­‐P4863-­‐V226  

Independent  Meat  Company  

2072  Orchard  Drive  East   Twin  Falls   83301   (208)  

733-­‐0980  Slaughter,  Processing  

M11023-­‐P11023   VTA,  Inc.   758  South  

Main   Pocatello   83204   (208)  232-­‐5559   Processing  

M11027-­‐V11027  

Rammell  Valley  Pack  

7080  N.  3000  W.   Tetonia   83452   (208)  

456-­‐2546  Slaughter,  Processing  

M11032-­‐P11032-­‐V11032  

Northwest  Premium  Meats,  LLC  

137  N.  Happy  Valley  Road   Nampa   83687   (208)  

466-­‐9413  Slaughter,  Processing  

M11033-­‐P11033  

Greenfield  Custom  Meats,  Inc.  

2965  W.  Amity  Road   Meridian   83642   (208)  

888-­‐9690  Slaughter,  Processing  

M11044-­‐P11044-­‐V11044  

University  of  Idaho  Meats  Lab  

University  of  Idaho  Meats  Lab  

Moscow   83843   (208)  885-­‐6727  

Slaughter,  Processing  

00598  M-­‐00598  P  

Frontier  Trading  Co.   Highway  95   Eastport   83826   (208)  

267-­‐3683    

V598   Frontier  Trading  Co.   Highway  95   Eastport   83826   (208)  

267-­‐3683    

M11061-­‐P11061-­‐V11061  

Meridian  Meat  and  Sausage  

119  East  Bower   Meridian   83642   (208)  

888-­‐5588   Processing  

M11063-­‐P11063-­‐V11063  

Tri-­‐City   1346  N.  Hickory  Ave.   Meridian   83642   (208)  

884-­‐2600   Processing  

M11070-­‐P11070-­‐V11070  

Mickelsen  Packing  Co.  

2011  Riverton  Road   Blackfoot   83221   (208)  

785-­‐0860  Slaughter,  Processing  

M11072   Doug's   907  So.  State   Shelley   83274   (208)   Processing  

                                                                                                               14  USDA  Data  by  State;  Idaho.    

Page 90: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

90  

Wholesale  Meats  

357-­‐7281  

M45126-­‐P45126  

Potato  Products  of  Idaho  

398  N.  Yellowstone  Hwy.  

Rigby   83442   (208)  745-­‐8610   Processing  

M866-­‐P7698-­‐V866  

CTI-­‐SSI  Food  Services,  LLC  

22303  Highway  95  N   Wilder   83676   (208)  

482-­‐7844   Processing  

19467  M   Ida  Cold,  Llc  6198  Treasure  Valley  Way  

Nampa   83687   (208)  467-­‐4992  

ID  Warehouse  

M11011-­‐V11011  

Custom  Meat  Packing  Co.,  Inc.  

515  E.  45th  Street   Boise   83714   (208)  

375-­‐9424  Slaughter,  Processing  

M34043-­‐P34043  

Great  American  Appetizers,  Inc.  

216  8th  Street  North   Nampa   83687   (208)  

465-­‐5111   Processing  

V34043A  Great  American  Appetizers  

6198  Treasure  Valley  Way  

Nampa   83687   (208)  475-­‐1190  

 

M8120-­‐P8120-­‐V8120  

Wood's  Meat  Processing,  Inc.  

482169  Highway  95   Sandpoint   83864   (208)  

263-­‐3077  Slaughter,  Processing  

M8112-­‐P8112-­‐V8112  

Commons  Wholesale  Meats  

530  West  20th  Street   Idaho  Falls   83402   (208)  

522-­‐4804   Processing  

M44099  Ridley's  Family  Markets  

621  Washington  Street  S.  

Twin  Falls   83301   (208)  324-­‐4633   Processing  

G31557   Walton  Feed  Inc.  

29337  Highway  89   Montpelier   83254   (208)  

847-­‐3357    

M7722-­‐P7722-­‐V7722  

Jones  Meat  &  Food  Services,  Inc.  

423  North  Yellowstone  Hwy  

Rigby   83442   (208)  745-­‐6523  

Slaughter,  Processing  

M18535-­‐P18535  

Big  Lost  River  Meats  

410  Pine  Street   Mackay   83251   (208)  

588-­‐3085   Processing  

M40217-­‐P40217   JCNB,  Inc.   610  N.  Almon,  

Suite  135   Moscow   83843   (509)  330-­‐8569   Processing  

M27440A   Valley  Beef,  Inc.  3051  S.  2000  E.   Wendell   83355   (208)  

536-­‐1700   Processing  

M27440   Valley  Beef,  Inc.  

437  W.  Avenue  B   Wendell   83355   (208)  

308-­‐7050  Slaughter,  Processing  

M39999-­‐P39999  

Rite  Stuff  Foods  

2155  S.  Lincoln   Jerome   83338   (208)  

324-­‐8410   Processing  

Page 91: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

91  

Avenue  

M39904-­‐P39904  

Mountain  View  Packaging,  LLC  

3494  South  TK  Avenue   Boise   83705   (208)  

344-­‐1183   Processing  

M18205-­‐P18205  

Heinz  Frozen  Food  Company  

221  Ore-­‐Ida  Court   Pocatello   83202-­‐

-­‐199  (208)  235-­‐4800   Processing  

M6076-­‐P6076-­‐V6076  

Glenwood  Smoked  Turkey  

4491  North  Haroldsen  Drive  

Idaho  Falls   83401-­‐-­‐920  

(208)  529-­‐9851   Processing  

M6220-­‐P6220-­‐V6220  

Intermountain  Natural,  LLC  

737  S.  Capital  Avenue   Idaho  Falls   83402   (208)  

227-­‐9000   Processing  

M6266-­‐P6266-­‐V6266  

LJD  Holdings,  Inc.  

3491  S.  TK  Ave.   Boise   83705   (208)  

344-­‐1183   Processing  

M34719-­‐P34719-­‐V34719  

Intermountain  Natural,  LLC  

1740  S.  Yellowstone  Hwy.  

Idaho  Falls   83402   (208)  227-­‐9000   Processing  

                                                     

Page 92: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

92  

     APPENDIX  E:  Resources,  Training  Resources  and  Consultants:    USDA/NCDA&CS  FACILITY  GUIDELINES  FOR  MEAT  PROCESSING  PLANTS  http://www.ncagr.gov/meatpoultry/pdf/Facility%20Guidelines.pdf      USDA  Food  Safety  and  Inspection  services;  Small  Processors  Outreach  Support  http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/regulatory-­‐compliance/haccp/small-­‐and-­‐very-­‐small-­‐plant-­‐outreach    

• Small  and  Very  Small  Plants:  Small  plant  owners  and  operators  can  use  this  page  to  find  information  about  FSIS  policies,  technical  assistance  and  answers  to  common  questions  from  small  plants  across  the  country.  

 • Small  and  Very  Small  Plant  Outreach:  FSIS  has  assembled  food  safety  resources  

designed  to  assist  small  and  very  small  plants  with  their  HACCP  programs.    

• Small  Plant  News:  Topics  of  interest  to  owners  and  operators  of  small  meat  and  poultry  plants  are  covered  in  this  4-­‐page,  full-­‐color  monthly  newsletter.  Get  help,  in  plain  language,  translating  FSIS  rules  and  regulations  into  daily  operational  practices.  

 • Export  Information:  Learn  what  requirements  are  necessary  for  exporting  your  

products  to  other  countries  including  packaging,  labeling  and  other  special  conditions.    

• FSIS  Directives:  FSIS  Directives  contain  instructions  of  an  indefinite  duration.    

• FSIS  Notices:  FSIS  Notices  are  temporary  instructions  that  are  scheduled  to  expire  no  later  than  1  year  from  the  issuance  date  

   Niche  Meat  Processor  Assistance  Network;  http://www.nichemeatprocessing.org/    Welcome  to  the  Niche  Meat  Processor  Assistance  Network.  NMPAN  is  a  network  and  info  hub  for  people  and  organizations  who  want  small  meat  processors  to  thrive.  We  offer  tools  and  information  for  small  processors  and  the  farmers,  marketers,  and  meat  buyers  who  depend  on  them.      Job  Training  Resources:    http://www.cfbnj.org/hope/job-­‐training-­‐programs/meat-­‐cutters-­‐training-­‐program/    The  Meat  Cutters  Training  Program  (MCTP)  is  a  12-­‐week  job-­‐skills  program  in  which  motivated  students  are  trained  for  careers  in  the  retail  meat  cutting  industry.  Students  learn  

Page 93: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

93  

meat  cutting  skills  as  well  as  product  handling,  safety  and  sanitation  standards  through  hands-­‐on  and  classroom  training.    Our  graduates  have  500  hours  of  Food  Service  Training  Academy  (FSTA)  kitchen  experience,  certification  in  ServSafe  Food  Sanitation,  and  approximately  500  hours  of  MCTP  experience.    Fuller  Consulting  http://www.meatchris.com/  

• HACCP  compliance,  Plant  Design,  General  Butchery  Consulting.  • Facility  design  -­‐  architect  advising,  site  &  building  plan  review,  equipment  placement  

(including  electrical  and  plumbing  needs)    • Operational  Advising  -­‐  procedural  development  and  training,  production  layout,  

inventory  systems,  efficiency  reviews  • Butchery  Consulting  -­‐  whole  animal  breakdown,  producer  relations,  meat  cutter  

training,  yield  analysis,  menu  development,  merchandising,  product  marketing  • USDA  compliance  -­‐  HACCP  plan  development,  writing,  implementation,  and  training  

including  RTE,  cured,  and  smoked  products.  • On-­‐site  reviews  of  buildings  and  equipment  intended  for  purchase.  • On-­‐site  consulting  with  general  contractors  for  new  construction  or  renovation.  

 Andre'  Herrmann  Meat  Processing  Specialist/  Master  Butcher/  SausageMaker  http://www.meatproconsultant.com/INTRODUCTION.html  Swiss  Meat  Processing  Consultant  based  in  California,  specializing  in  all  areas  of  meat  processing  from  livestock  to  finished  product.    Specializes  in:                                

• Meat  Processing  Technology  • Product  development  • Technical  services  • Management  and  Management  Training  • Employee  Training  

   Rocky  Mountain  Institute  of  Meat  http://www.rockymountaininstituteofmeat.com/  Foodservice  and  Small  Plant  Consulting:  Specialty  Processing  HACCP    Learn,  Understand  &  apply  the  Proper  Fundamentals  of  Meat  Fabrication  and  Butchery  Basics:    

• Sanitation    • Standard  Operating  Procedures    • Good  Manufacturing  Practices    • Process  Categories  and  associated  HACCP  Plans    • Professional  Purchasing  Practices    • Product  Acquisitions    • Foundations  of  Primal/Sub-­‐Primal  • Portion  Cuts  Identification    • Acquisitions/Purchasing  Cutting/Fabrication    • Understand/Practice    • Further  Processing  /  Basic  Fresh  Sausages      

Page 94: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

94  

 Standard  Formulation  Benefits  

• Hands  on  learning    • Individualized  instruction    • Industry  applicable  techniques    • Acclaimed  industry  instructors    • High  quality  education  with  modest  cost    • Centrally  located  state  of  the  art  facility    

   Northern  Sun  Consulting:  http://www.nscfoodsafety.com/index.php  

• Food  Safety  Manager  Certification  &  Re-­‐Certification  Education  • HACCP  Training  &  Certification  • On-­‐line  Classes  • Live  Classes  in  Minnesota  • Re-­‐Certification  Training  • Customized  Training  • Home  Food  Safety,  SQF  Consulting,    • All  programs  are  professionally  developed  and  maintained.  • Food  Safety  System  Development,    • critical  training  for  employees,  duties  of  Certified  Food  Safety  Manager.  

 ***  Thomas  J  Hoffman  Consulting:    Mr.  Hoffman  spent  35  years  with  the  USDA  FSIS  with  knowledge  of  all  systems.    

• International  HACCP  Alliance  Certified  HACCP  Training  Teaching  basic  and  advanced  HACCP  courses  in  SSOP/HACCP.    

• Prepare  SSOP  plans/HACCP  plans/SPS  programs/Generic  E  coli,  Salmonella,  Listeria  sampling  programs/GMP’s/Pre-­‐requisite  programs,  etc.  

 Regulatory  Issues      

• SSOP/HACCP  system  failures.    • Inspection  issues.                                                                                  • Appeal  of  non-­‐compliance  records  (N.R’s).  • Conducting  independent  third  party  SSOP/HACCP  audits.  • Responding  to  FSIS  3  day  and  30  day  letters.  • Notices  of  Intended  Enforcement  Action  (NOIE).  • Notices  of  Suspension.  • Withdrawal  of  Inspection  Services.  • Incident  Investigation  Team  Reviews.        • EIAO  Food  Safety  Assessments.                                        • Criminal,  civil  and  administrative  cases.  • Expert  witness.  • Product  recalls.  

Page 95: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

95  

   International      Performing  audits  of  foreign  countries  inspection  and  enforcement  programs  Sanitary  and  Phyto-­‐Sanitary  (SPS)  monitoring  and  enforcement  systems  and  practices.  Conducting  foreign  equivalency  reviews.    Development  of  inspection  and  enforcement  programs  for  state  and  foreign  governments.      Food  Safety  Audits      Sanitation  Audits.  HACCP  Verification  and  Validation  Audits.  HACCP  Plan  Audits  and  Re-­‐assessments.  Audit  preparation  for  all  major  auditing  firms  and  USDA/FSIS    Decontamination  Plans      Specialize  in  designing  and  implementing  re-­‐inspection  and  de-­‐contamination  programs  for  rodent  infestations.      Personal  Safety      Teaching  courses  on  personal  safety  for  government  regulators  Global  Food  Safety  Initiative  (GFSI)    Preparation  for  SQF,  BRC,  Primus  GFS,  and  ISO  22000  audits.  Design  bio-­‐terrorism  programs.      From:  Protecting  Your  Farm  or  Ranch:  A  guide  for  Direct  Farm  Marketing  in  Idaho  http://www.ruralroots.org/resources/directmarketing/handbook/41066-­‐%20Rural%20Roots%20Booklet%20Chapter%204.pdf                                

Page 96: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

96  

BIBLIOGRAPHY:    

American  Lamb  Board.  2013.  2013  Industry  Update.  http://www.sheepusa.org/user_files/file_1138.pdf      Arcata  Economic  Development  Corporation.  http://aedc1.org.    Beef  Checkoff-­‐Retail  Marketing.  Natural/Organic  Beef  Category  Reports.    http://www.beefretail.org/naturalorganiccategory.aspx    Gwin,  L.,  C.  Durham,  J.  Miller  and  A.  Colonna.  2012.  Understanding  Markets  for  Grass-­‐fed  Beef:  Taste,  Price  and  Purchase  Preferences.  J.  of  Food  Distribution  Research,  43:2.  91-­‐105.      Gwin,  L,  A.  Thiboumery,  and  R.  Stillman.  2013.  Local  Meat  and  Poultry  Processing:  The  Importance  of  Business  Commitments  for  Long-­‐Term  Viability,  ERR-­‐150,  U.S.  Department  of  Agriculture,  Economic  Research  Service.      Holcomb,  R.,  K.  Flynn  and  P.  Kenkel  (2012).  Feasibility  Template  for  a  Small  Multi-­‐Species  Meat  Processing  Plant  (Excel  program).  Oklahoma  State  University.      Martinez,  Steve,  et  al.  Local  Food  Systems:  Concepts,  Impacts,  and  Issues,  ERR  97,  U.S.  Department  of  Agriculture,  Economic  Research  Service,  May  2010.      Niche  Meats  Processing  Assistance  Network.  Mobile  Slaughter  Unit  Case  Studies.  http://www.extension.org/pages/33160/mobile-­‐slaughter-­‐unit-­‐case-­‐studies      Organic  Trade  Association.  Consumer-­driven  U.S.  organic  market  surpasses  $31  billion  in  2011.  April  23,  2012.  http://www.organicnewsroom.com/2012/04/us_consumerdriven_organic_mark.html      Thiboumery,  A.  2009.  Guide  to  Designing  a  Small  Meat  Plant.  Iowa  State  University  Extension.    http://www.extension.iastate.edu/publications/pm2077.pdf      U.S.  Dept.  of  Agriculture,  2007  Census  of  Agriculture.  Volume  1,  Chapter  2:  County  Level  Data.  http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/    U.S.  Dept.  of  Agriculture,  Rural  Development,  Value-­‐Added  Producer  Grants.  http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/BCP_VAPG.html      http://www.mobilemeatprocessing.com/  Presentation  Mobile  Slaughter  Units:  Reports  from  the  Field  and  Future  Directions    http://www.extension.org/pages/33160/mobile-­‐slaughter-­‐unit-­‐case-­‐studies    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/chapter-­‐12    

Page 97: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

97  

 http://www.extension.org/mediawiki/files/d/d7/LocalMeatforLocalMeals_Puget_Sound_Meat_Coop.pdf    http://www.extension.org/pages/15739/island-­‐grown-­‐farmers-­‐cooperative    Selected  media  coverage  "The  Mobile  Meat  Processing  Story"  on  CRCC  TV-­‐22  "Slaughterhouse  on  Wheels  Aids  "Locavore"  Movement"  Seattle  Times,  8-­‐11-­‐09  Additional  case  study  (2012):  more  about  how  IGFC  works    Consumer  research  commissioned  by  the  National  Pork  Board  (http://www.porkretail.org/filelibrary/Retail/NichePorkSurveySummary.pdf)    http://www.agri.idaho.gov/Categories/Marketing/Documents/English%20Final%202011%20-­‐%20for%20emailing.pdf    Kennedy/Jenks  Consultants.  2010.  “Energy  Use  in  Wastewater  Treatment  in  the  Food  and  Beverage  Industry.”      Two  Site  Modular  Meat  Processing  Illustration  of  Flow  From  Slaughter  Unit  to  Cut  &  Wrap  Unit  (courtesy  of  Kathryn  Quanbeck)        PSMPC  Their  decision  rested  in  large  part  on  a  feasibility  study,  "An  Assessment  of  Demand  for  a  Mobile  Slaughtering  Unit  in  Pierce,  King,  Kitsap  and  Thurston  Counties,  for  the  Puget  Sound  Meat  Producers  Cooperative",  prepared  by  Georgine  Yorgey,  then  an  MPA  student  at  University  of  Washington.                                      

Page 98: Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... · 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative* SalmonID,*Challis*ID,*MacKayID*!!! *!!

 

 

98