MINNESOTA MEAT AND POULTRY PRODUCER SURVEY REPORT

Transcription

1 MINNESOTA MEAT AND POULTRY PRODUCER SURVEY REPORT Produced by Jan Joannides, Jane Jewett and Bolormaa Jamiyansuren Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture University of Minnesota December

2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was funded by the Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture through its Endowed Chair in Agricultural Systems program. Jan Joannides led this research while in the Endowed Chair in Agricultural Systems position from to. Jane Jewett was a key partner in designing the study, analyzing the data, and editing the report. The statistical analysis was conducted by Bolormaa Jamiyansuren, a graduate student in the Department of Applied Economics at University of Minnesota. Input to the goals, process, and survey questions were provided by the following: Ryan Cox, Department of Animal Science, University of Minnesota; Rob King, Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota; Helene Murray, Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture; Wayne Martin, University of Minnesota Extension; Carissa Nath, Agricultural Utilization Resource Institute; and Curt Zimmerman, Minnesota Department of Agriculture. Hannah Lewis provided assistance with formatting. Several questions used in the producer survey were copied with permission from similar producer surveys created by New Entry Sustainable Farming Project at Tufts University and the Food Innovation Center at Oregon State University.

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION. METHODS. DATA AND DISCUSSION... o Overview of survey respondents o Cattle o Chickens o Hogs o Sheep/lamb o Goats o Bison o Elk o Turkey/ducks/geese o Game birds o Rabbits o Livestock processor evaluation o Poultry processor evaluation CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS APPENDICES o Appendix A: Meat processing facilities o Appendix B: Tables o Appendix C: Invitation to take the producer survey o Appendix D: Producer survey distribution list o Appendix E: Survey Instrument (paper version)

4 INTRODUCTION A commonly noted limitation of local food systems in Minnesota and throughout the country is the scarcity of decentralized, small-scale meat processing relative to the growing number of farmers and consumers participating in the local foods marketplace. To address this, a team of stakeholders including meat producers, state regulators and inspectors, University of Minnesota, meat processors, and others, formed in to identify barriers to growth of small-scale meat processing in Minnesota. Among a series of questions the team identified, a key one was clarifying what is and isn t working for farmers and ranchers related to processing livestock or poultry for wholesale, retail, and/or direct to consumer meat sales. To answer this question, a survey instrument was developed and administered and the responses were analyzed. This report highlights the results of that producer survey. The goal is to use this information to determine what actions can be taken that will help ensure that local meat and poultry producers and processors grow and thrive in the coming years. METHODS We developed a survey instrument with questions with input from an Advisory Committee and examples from other parts of the country. This survey instrument was submitted to the University of Minnesota s Office of the Vice President for Research, for Institutional Review Board (IRB) review. The survey received an exemption from review. Concurrently, we identified direct market producers using a range of resources including the Minnesota Grown guide, regional direct marketing guides, and LocalHarvest.org. A list of these sources is included in the appendix. We identified farms that seemed to be direct market meat farmers and invited them, individually, to take the survey. We used a combination of an online survey (using UM Survey) and paper surveys. Survey recipients were offered a chance to be entered into a drawing for $ as an incentive to complete the survey. We began with the list of contacts which had s. We sent an invitation with a link to the online survey and offered the option of requesting a paper survey. The online system enabled us to send reminders to those who did not complete the survey, and we sent up to three of those. For the individuals who did not fill out the online survey or for whom we didn t have addresses, we sent a paper version of the invitation, the survey, and a stamped, addressed return envelope. We sent a follow-up postcard to those who didn t respond. surveys were completed and analyzed.

5 DATA AND DISCUSSION Overview of survey respondents There were complete entries in the survey, with Minnesota counties represented. A summary of survey responses offers the following generalized characterization of respondents: most had been farming for at least eight years, lived in Southern Minnesota, had an annual gross farm income less than $,, and sold directly to consumers as their primary marketing channel for meat/livestock. The majority specialized in just one type of livestock for sale, and the most common type of livestock raised by survey respondents was beef cattle. Specifically,. percent of the total meat producers were from Southern Minnesota, 9. percent from Northern Minnesota and. percent were from Metro area. Location of Meat Producers of Minnesota.%.%.9% Metro SE SW 8.9% NE NW 9.% Region completing the survey Southwest Southeast 7 Northwest 9 Northeast 7 Metro 8

6 Percent of producers % % % % % % % Annual gross farm income reported by 8 producers % less than $, % $, to $, % % $, to $, $, to $, Annual gross income 9% $, to $, % over $, Of the 8 survey-takers who provided income information, 7 percent had annual gross farm income of less than $,. Seven producers indicated gross annual farm income greater than $,. Percentage of gross revenue from animal sales Percent of producers % % % % % % % % % % % % 9% less than % to % to % to 7% more than 7% Total farm revenue generated through animal sales varied greatly among the producers who answered this question, and not all animal sales were necessarily sales of meat to consumers. About 8 percent of producers reported less than percent of their total revenue from animal sales, and about percent had greater than percent of their total revenue from animal sales. Years of experience in raising animals for meat sales Number of Producers 9 9 years 8 years 8 years years over years

7 Survey respondents showed fairly wide distribution of experience levels. Fifteen percent of respondents would be considered beginning farmers with three or fewer years in the business. Sixty-three percent of producers had at least eight years of experience in raising animals for meat sales, and percent had more than years of experience. Intended buyers of meat/poultry Direct to consumer (wholes, halves) Direct to consumer (farmer's market) Grocery store/food co ops Restaurant/caterer Own shops Distributor/wholesalers Institutions (i.e school) Internet sales Local/regional marketing cooperative Many meat producers sell through more than one channel, so the producer numbers reported in the chart above add up to more than the total of survey-takers. The single largest category of sales is selling animals directly to consumers as wholes, halves and/or quarter animals: 8 percent of survey respondents use this sales method. Only two producers (about percent) sold through a marketing cooperative. Percent of producers % % % % % % % % % Understanding of regulations on meat sales % % % % Not at all Somewhat Well Very Well Series % % % % About one quarter of producers believed they have a very good understanding of the regulations and requirements related to processing and selling meat and poultry, including the differences

8 between USDA-inspected, Minnesota State Equal-to inspected (E) and custom-exempt. Forty percent ( percent) of the producers believed they have no understanding or only partial understanding of meat sales related regulations. This indicates a need for further education of producers about regulations. Inspection-related issues in their meat or poultry sales business were reported by percent of producers. Five respondents indicated that inspected processing increases their costs. Four respondents noted the lack of inspected processing facilities that are in reasonable distance from their location. Other concerns mentioned included frequency of the inspection and timely availability of inspected slaughter. For example, a few producers replied that inspection happens only twice a month at the location they use. Other respondents indicated regulatory issues related to expanding their product line, delivering their product, or selling across state lines. Another set of issues arose with respect to inconsistencies among government agencies, such as the regulations of Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) and Department of Agriculture (MDA). One respondent said that an institutional buyer in Minnesota told them that MDH said they had to buy USDA-inspected meat. Table. Farms raising animals for meat sales Cattle 7 Chickens Hogs Sheep/lamb Turkeys/Ducks/Geese Goats Bison Rabbit Elk Game birds Eggs Emu Yak Cornish game hens Total of all producers in this table is > because some producers raise more than one type of livestock for sale. The majority of survey-takers are specializing in one type of animal for meat sales. Fifty-seven percent of producers are selling one type of animal for meat; percent are selling two types of livestock; and percent are raising and selling three or more different types of livestock. 7

9 Number of types of animals raised for meat sales A summary of the specific responses for each of the different livestock groups is in the table below. This is followed by a narrative description of these results. Cattle (7 responses) Chicken ( responses) Hogs ( responses) Lamb ( responses) Turkey, ducks & geese ( responses) Goats ( responses) Bison ( responses) Annual number processed % process < head % process < birds % process < head % process < head 8% process < birds Average of 8 head Average of head Miles to processing plant % travel < mi % travel < mi % travel < mi 9% travel < mi % travel < mi 7% travel < mi Average of mi Number processed per batch Average of head 8% process < birds Average of head % process < head 8% process < birds Most common facility type USDA State Equal To State Equal To State Equal To State Equal To Most process Seasonal pattern Yearround, autumn spike Jun Oct Yearround, drop in winter Yearround, autumn spike Autumn spike < head Customexempt Yearround, autumn spike Production techniques used by a majority Pasture Grass fed No hormones or antibiotics Pasture Free range No hormones or antibiotics No hormones or antibiotics Pasture No hormones or antibiotics Pasture Free range No hormones or antibiotics Pasture No hormones or antibiotics USDA Year round Grass fed No hormones or 8

10 Cattle antibiotics A majority, percent, of the cattle producers are located in southern Minnesota, which is the same trend we see in the location of all meat producers in this study. Among the 7 cattle producers, had processed a combined total of, head of cattle for meat sales in, and 8 did not process cattle for sale in. Forty-four producers reported that they had fewer than cattle processed for meat sales in. Two large cattle producers each processed more than cattle, and their total was equal to percent of all the remaining producers combined. The largest cattle producer to take the survey processed cattle in, and beef cattle were that producer s only livestock species sold for meat. Number of cattle processed for meat sales in 7 Less than More than The second largest cattle producer had cattle processed in, and this producer raises both cattle and hogs. The largest two producers are both from Southeastern Minnesota. One way distance in miles to processing facility for cattle 7 7 Less than More than 9

11 A majority ( percent) of cattle producers tended to have their cattle processed at a slaughter facility located within miles of their farm. Producers were more likely to have cattle processed in a facility - miles from their location than a processing facility located more than miles away. Nineteen percent of all cattle producers travel more than miles one-way for processing, and percent travel more than 8 miles one way. Seven head of cattle was the largest number taken to slaughter at one time among survey respondents. On average, farmers in this study brought in two head at a time for processing for meat sales. Number of cattle slaughtered per trip to processor cattle, % 7 cattle, % cattle, % cattle, % cattle, % cattle, % cattle, % 7 cattle cattle cattle cattle cattle cattle cattle Seventy-two of 7 producers who raised cattle responded to a question about the hanging carcass weight of beef cattle processed for meat sales. The average weight was 87 pounds, with smallest being pounds to the largest being 7 pounds. Number of produers Hanging carcass weight (lbs.)

12 Types of facilities producers use for meat processing Custom exempt, USDA inspected, MN state inspected, More producers in this survey used USDA-inspected facilities than used either State Equal-To Inspected or custom exempt facilities for beef sales. Some producers used more than one type of facility, so the total of all producers reporting was greater than 7. The largest cattle producer in this survey had all cattle processed at a USDA inspected facility. 9 Cattle processing months 8 More producers had their cattle processed in autumn compared to other seasons. The average number of producers getting animals processed in September, October, and November was 8 per month, while the monthly average in all other months was producers. The overall average for the year was producers having animals processed per month, so the flow of beef animals to slaughter plants was fairly stable year-round with about a percent seasonal spike in the fall.

13 Techniques used in raising cattle Free range Grass fed Pasture raised No antibiotics/hormones USDA certified organic 7 Conventional Most producers taking the survey raised cattle on pasture (7 percent), and a smaller number claimed grass-fed status (8 percent). A majority (9 percent) claimed no use of antibiotics or hormones. Only 9 percent of all the beef producers were USDA certified organic. Many of the techniques listed can be used together and a number of producers reported that they use more than one technique, so the total number of producers reported is greater than 7. Chicken There were chicken producers who responded to this survey, three of which raised chickens solely for their own consumption, while producers had chicken processed for sale in. The number of chickens processed per farm in ranged from to,, with percent of reporting farmers processing fewer than birds per year, and percent of all processing less than chickens for meat sales in. Sixty-three producers (all except the largest producer) processed a combined total of 8,7 chickens in, which was six times less than the biggest producer s processed number of chickens. Chickens processed for meat sales in 7

14 About percent of all chicken producers traveled less than miles to reach the chicken processing facility, and this most likely represented on-farm processing of chickens. It may also have reflected production choices based on geography: farmers near a poultry processing plant may be more likely to raise chicken. Of chicken producers who traveled off-farm for processing, the distance traveled varied from ten to more than miles; and the distribution of farmers was pretty even across travel distances. This probably reflected the very limited number of poultry processing plants available in Minnesota relative to red-meat processing plants. Farmers who needed to have chickens processed off the farm were either fortunate to live near a poultry processing plant, or else were compelled to travel. 7 Less than One way distance to processing facility for chicken Over Distance in miles Batch sizes of chickens processed varied less widely than total number of chickens processed per year. Fifty-eight percent of the chicken producers in this survey brought batches of fewer than chickens to be slaughtered at a time. The largest chicken producers in the survey had chickens processed in batches of, to, at a time. One producer processed chickens only once per year but in a batch of 9. Number of chickens slaughtered at a time Less than Over

15 Average dressed weight of chickens was five pounds. Forty percent of the chicken producers raised chickens with a dressed weight of - pounds and percent raised chickens to a - pound dressed weight. The range of chicken dressed weights was - pounds. Dressed weight per chicken Less than Weight in pounds Almost half of all chicken producers went to a Minnesota State Equal-To inspected facility. Approximately equal numbers of producers used USDA facilities, or sold on-farm directly to consumers. Chicken slaughter facility by type On farm (for sale), Custom exempt, USDA inspected, 8 MN state inspected, Chicken production was highly seasonal, which was not surprising since many direct-marketing farmers sell pasture-raised chicken and do not have the facilities for year-round production. June through October was the peak season for chicken processing, with an average of farmers delivering chickens for processing in each of those months. November and May were transitional months, with an average of farmers delivering chickens in those months; and the

16 off-season months of December through April had an average of four farmers delivering chickens for processing in those months. Chicken processing months Eighty-five percent of the chicken producers reported raising chicken with no use of antibiotics or hormones [note: hormones are not allowed in any chicken production in the United States]. Pasture-raising was reported by 7 percent of producers taking this survey, and free range was reported by percent of farmers, with considerable overlap of those two groups. Four of the chicken producers claimed USDA certified organic status. Techniques used in raising chicken Free range 9 Pasture raised No antibiotics/hormones USDA certified organic Conventional 7 Hogs Forty hog farmers responded to the survey. Two did not have any hogs processed for meat sales in, and almost percent of survey-takers had fewer than hogs processed in a year. Six producers processed more than hogs in. The largest producer had, hogs processed in, and the second largest producer had hogs processed. The rest of the largest six producers each had 7,,, and hogs processed for meat sales.

17 Number of hogs processed for meat sales in Number of Producers 8 Less than More than The majority, percent, of the hog producers traveled miles or less for processing. Twenty percent of hog farmers traveled miles or more one-way to processing and 8 percent traveled 8 miles or more. These percentages are similar to those for beef cattle processing. One way distance to hogs facility Less than More than The largest producer brought in 8 hogs to slaughter at a time, and the second largest brought in hogs at a time. The scatter plot, below, shows the number of producers and the number of hogs they brought in for slaughter at a time; excluding the largest producer.

18 Number of hogs taken to slaughter at one time 7 Number of hogs On average (excluding the largest producer), farmers brought in six hogs at one time for slaughter. Average hanging carcass weight for hogs reported by survey-takers was 9. pounds. The range of weights reported was to pounds. The highest hanging carcass weight reported for hogs was pounds. Hanging carcass weight for hogs (lbs.) 7 7 A small majority of hog farmers used Minnesota State Equal-to inspected facilities for their hog processing. 7

19 Slaughter facility types for hogs Custom exempt, USDA inspected, 7 MN state inspected, Hog processing months 8 9 Processing of hogs followed a different seasonal pattern than beef processing. Beef processing was fairly stable year-round except for a modest seasonal spike in the fall. Hog processing showed a low point in the winter months of December through February, then a gradual rise in number of producers having hogs processed throughout the rest of the year. There was a sharp drop from November to December in number of producers processing hogs. 8

20 Techniques used by producers in raising hogs Free range Grass fed Pasture raised No antibiotics/hormones USDA certified organic Conventional Similar to beef cattle, hog producers often claimed more than one hog-raising technique so the total number of producers reported in the above chart is more than. Three producers claimed grass-fed status for their pork, which may reflect misinterpretation of the question, or these could possibly have been seasonal-only producers raising hogs solely on legume or mixedspecies plantings of crops. Only one hog producer in this survey was USDA certified organic. A strong majority, 9 percent, of producers claimed no antibiotic or hormone use. (Note: USDA prohibits the use of growth-promoting hormones in hogs raised for slaughter. However, it is a common practice for farrowing operations to use hormone shots to bring sows into estrus. A farmer s claim of no hormone use for hog production would preclude the use of estrus-inducing hormones.) Sheep/lamb Thirty-three sheep/lamb producers responded to the survey. The numbers of lambs sold per year for meat tended to be small: percent of producers marketed fewer than sheep/lambs in. The largest producer had sheep or lambs processed for meat sales in. Number of sheep/lamb processed for meat sales in 8 7 Less than More than Number of sheep/lambs 9

21 Fifty-nine percent of all sheep producers traveled within miles of the farm to have the animals processed for meat sales. The largest sheep producer traveled 8 miles to have their sheep/lambs processed. The second-farthest travel was miles. One way distance to sheep processing facility Less than More than Distance in miles Sheep producers brought in a median of seven sheep/lambs at a time for slaughter; but percent of producers brought in five or fewer sheep at one time. The larger the producer, the more they brought in for slaughter at one time. The largest sheep producer, selling sheep/lambs per year, took sheep/lambs at a time to the slaughter facility Number of sheep/lambs taken for slaughter at a time Number of sheep/lambs Average hanging carcass weight of sheep/lamb processed by survey respondents was 9. pounds. The heaviest reported weight was pounds and the lightest was pounds. Twentyfour percent had sheep/lamb with hanging carcass weight between - pounds, which was the most common weight reported in the survey.

22 Hanging carcass weight of sheep/lamb Weight in pounds Nine of the sheep/lamb producers went to more than one type of slaughter facility. Most of those nine producers chose both Minnesota State Equal-To inspected and custom exempt facilities. There was no producer that used both USDA-inspected and State-inspected facilities. Minnesota State Equal-To facilities were the most commonly used by the sheep/lamb producers in this survey, used by 8 percent of producers. Sheep processing followed a pattern similar to beef with a consistent level of processing through winter, spring, and summer and a seasonal spike in autumn, although the seasonal spike was higher for lamb than for beef. Average number of producers having sheep/lamb processed in September, October and November was 7 per month, or percent of producers. For the remaining months, average was nine producers per month or 7 percent of producers. 8 8 Sheep/lamb slaughter: number of producers using each facility type Custom exempt, USDA inspected, MN state inspected, 9

23 Ninety-one percent of all producers pasture-raised the sheep/lamb, but only percent claimed grass-fed status. Seventy-six percent raised sheep with no antibiotics or hormones. None of the sheep/lamb producers in this survey were USDA certified organic. Technique used in raising sheep/lamb Free range Grass fed Pasture raised No antibiotics/hormones Conventional 8 Goats Four of the goat producers responding to this survey did not process any goats for meat sales in. The number of goats processed in varied greatly from producer to producer. Two producers only processed two goats whereas the largest goat producer had processed goats for meat sales. On average, eight goats were processed per producer. Number of Goats processed for meat sales 8 8 Number of goats Of the goat producers, (7 percent) had the goats slaughtered at a facility located within miles. The longest distance traveled was 7 miles. On average, one way distance to a goat slaughter facility was miles from the producer.

24 One way distance to primary goat slaughter facility Less than 7 Distance in miles Twelve producers replied to a question about number of goats brought in for slaughter at one time. Two producers brought in ten or more goats at a time, but most producers brought four or fewer. Number of goats brought in to slaughter at a time Number of goats Average hanging carcass weight reported for goats was pounds. Most producers processed goats that weighed - pounds. The heaviest reported weight for a goat was pounds. Two producers had goats with hanging carcass weight of pounds.

25 Hanging carcass weight of goat Weight in pounds Goat producers used custom-exempt processing facilities more often than either Minnesota State Equal-To inspected or USDA-inspected facilities. Goat processing facility types USDA inspected, Custom exempt, 7 MN state inspected, Goat producers most often processed goats in autumn. Consistent with sheep/lamb producers, November was also the peak time for goat producers to have their goats processed.

26 Goat processing months All producers pasture-raised the goats and almost all producers avoided the use of antibiotics or hormones on goats. No goat producers reported being USDA certified organic. Technique used in raising goats Free range Grass fed 7 Pasture raised No antibiotics/hormones USDA certified organic Conventional 8 Bison Seven bison producers responded to the survey. Two of the six producers were from Northeast, two from the Northwest, and two from the Southeast part of Minnesota. On average, they had bison processed in. The highest number was 9 and the lowest was four. One-way distance between the bison producer and the slaughter facility ranged from six to 9 miles, with an average distance of miles. Two of the bison producers brought one bison at a time whereas four of the producers brought two bison at a time. Average hanging carcass weight of bison for the six bison producers was pounds, with the lowest weight of pounds and the highest weight of pounds.

27 Hanging carcass weight for bison Weight in pounds One producer used both USDA and Minnesota State Equal-To inspected facilities to have the bison processed. One producer used just custom-exempt; one used just Minnesota State Equal- To; and the others all used USDA facilities for processing bison. Bison slaughter facility types and # producers using them Custom exempt % MN state inspected 9% USDA inspected 7% Bison was processed very consistently throughout the year by the producers who responded to this survey. All producers had bison processed every month from April through September, and five out of six had bison processed each of the remaining months.

28 7 Bison processing months All six bison producers raised bison with no use of antibiotics or hormones. Four of the six producers claimed grass-fed status for their bison. One bison producer was USDA certified organic, and two additional producers claimed to be organic but not certified. Technique used in raising bison Pasture raised No antibiotics/hormones Grass fed Free range Conventional USDA certified organic Organic Elk Four elk producers responded, who had, 8, and elk processed in. Primary slaughter facility distance on average was miles, with a range of to 7 miles. Two to four elk were brought in for slaughter at one time. Average hanging carcass weights reported by the four elk producers were 7, 9, and pounds. 7

29 Half of the elk producers chose USDA-inspected facilities and the other half chose the State Equal-to inspected facilities. No elk producer reported using a custom-exempt facility. Elk processing USDA inspected MN state inspected Custom exempt TOTAL Elk producers processed elk in every month of the year except for April. Elk processing months All elk producers reported pasture-raising elk, but none claimed grass-fed status or USDA certified organic status. Technique used in raising elk Pasture raised Conventional No antibiotics/hormones Free range USDA certified organic Grass fed Turkeys/Ducks/Geese There were a total of turkeys/ducks/geese producers who completed the survey. Of these, 8 percent had processed fewer than turkeys/ducks/geese for meat sales in. The largest producer had processed, turkeys/ducks/geese. 8

30 Turkey/Ducks/Geese processed for meat sales in Less than Over Of turkeys/ducks/geese producers responding, percent traveled less than miles one-way to the processing facility. One producer traveled miles one-way to their processing facility. On average producers traveled. miles to the processing plant. There were six producers who traveled less than one mile to get to the processing facility, which probably reflected on-farm processing by these farmers. 8 One way distance to turkey/duck/geese facility Less than Over Distance in miles The majority of producers (8 percent) brought in fewer than turkeys/ducks/geese at a time for slaughter. The largest producer brought in 8, turkeys/ducks/geese for slaughter at a time. Excluding the largest producer, on average producers took turkeys/ducks/geese for slaughter at one time. 9

31 8 Turkey/ducks/geese taken to slaughter at one time Less than Over The majority of turkeys/ducks/geese producers chose a Minnesota State Equal-To inspected facility for processing, while USDA-inspected processing and on-farm processing were tied for second place. Only percent of the producers chose a custom-exempt facility to process the turkey/ducks/geese. Turkeys/Ducks/Geese processing facilities (by type) On farm (for sale), Custom exempt, USDA inspected, MN state inspected, 9 USDA inspected MN state inspected Custom exempt On farm (for sale) Turkeys/ducks/geese were even more strongly seasonal than chickens, with processing primarily during September, October and November. This likely reflects the specialty nature of production of these species, with turkeys especially being marketed for the Thanksgiving holiday. More than 7 percent of all producers had the turkeys/ducks/geese processed in November.

32 Turkeys/ducks/geese processing months 8 8 Consistent with other direct-marketed meat production, 8 percent of turkeys/ducks/geese producers claimed pasture-raised, 7 percent of producers claimed free-range, and 7 percent claimed antibiotic- and hormone-free production [note: hormone use is not allowed in any turkey, duck, or goose production in the United States]. No producer claimed USDA certified organic status. Techniques used in raising turkeys/ducks/geese Free range Pasture raised No antibiotics/hormones USDA certified organic Conventional 8 8 Game birds There were only two producers who answered the questions about game birds. One had and another had, game birds processed for meat sales in. One way distance for one of the producers was mile and the other producer was 7 miles. The producers took and game birds, respectively, for slaughter at a time.

33 One producer sold only quail and the other sold quail and pheasant. The quail dressed weight was - ounces, and the pheasant dressed weight was three pounds. The larger producer had the game birds slaughtered both at USDA-inspected and state Equal-to inspected facilities. Game bird processing months June July August September October Game birds were processed only during the summer and early fall. No producer reported processing game birds during winter and spring months. Producers defined the production technique as conventional. One of the producers replied that the game birds were pasture raised. Rabbit Five producers responded to questions about raising rabbit for meat sales. The largest-scale rabbit producer processed, rabbits in and took rabbits at a time for slaughter. Typical dressed weight was. pounds, and that producer used a USDAinspected facility, with travel distance of miles one way. Two producers had processed and rabbits for meat sales in. Their processing was done on-farm, and dressed weights ranged from - pounds.

34 Rabbit processing months The largest rabbit producer processed rabbit all year around. August and September were the months most of the producers processed rabbit for meat sales. that used the following techniques in raising rabbit: Conventional No antibiotics/hormones Pasture-raised LIVESTOCK PROCESSOR EVALUATIONS Livestock processors were defined as those who slaughter cattle, bison, elk, hogs, sheep/lamb, goats and deer. Producers' satisfaction with the livestock processor Highly satisfied Satisfied Somewhat satisfied Not at all satisfied Forty-six percent of all the producers were highly satisfied (7 percent satisfied or highly satisfied), and only percent were not satisfied with their primary livestock processor.

35 Services not available from livestock processor Long term frozen storage Marketing and sales support Certified organic USDA inspected Product labeling Small batch capabilities Vacuum packaging Halal processing Custom cuts Kosher processing Minnesota state inspected Further processing (smoking, jerky) The chart above shows lists of services that were not available from the livestock processors, which the producers would like to have access to. The most important service was long-term frozen storage followed by marketing and sales support, USDA inspection, and certified organic processing. Further processing such as smoking, curing sausage and jerky were the least requested services, likely reflecting the fact that the majority of processing plants already offered those services. Services that livestock producers use Custom cuts Further processing Vacuum packaging Product labeling USDA inspected Minnesota state inspected Small batch capabilities Long term frozen storage Marketing and sales support Certified organic Halal processing Kosher processing As shown above, producers used custom cuts, further processing and packaging services the most. The services that producers used the most are the ones that most processing facilities

36 already provided, so they were not flagged as wants in the previous question. Certified organic processing was an example of a service producers did not use a lot, but would like to have available from the processors. Sixty-eight percent of producers replied they had no problems with the processor that impacted their business. However, percent had problems. Problems that impacted producer's business Miscutting/cuts not available Distance to processor Long lines Poor service/incompetent Wrong labeling Frequency of inspections Poor paperwork No storage space One of the most common problems was not cutting the meat as directed by the producer, or that the type of cut producers wanted was not available. Also, travel distance was a frequently mentioned disincentive for producers. Many producers expressed that they could not find the type of facility they are looking for within a reasonable distance. Another important problem impacting producers businesses was the long wait to get in for processing. During the deer hunting season, it took a very long time to get in or appointments needed to be made at least three to five months ahead to have the animals slaughtered. Congestion during deer season caused many of the producers to schedule the processing of the animals outside of their preferred time frame.

37 POULTRY PROCESSOR EVALUATIONS Producers' satisfaction with the poultry processor 9 Highly satisfied Satisfied Somewhat satisfied 9 Not at all satisfied Seventy percent of the poultry producers surveyed were either satisfied or highly satisfied with their poultry processor, and percent of them were not at all satisfied. The most commonly used service provided by the poultry processor was vacuum packaging followed by state inspection. These were very different from services used the most by livestock producers use the most. For example, the second-most used service for livestock producers was further processing, but further processing was one of the least-used services for poultry producers. This may reflect cultural preferences for meats: smoked chicken is not a common consumer product in the way that smoked pork products are. Services poultry producers use Vacuum packaging Minnesota state inspected Product labeling Custom cuts USDA inspected Small batch capabilities Further processing (smoking, jerky) Certified organic Long term frozen storage Marketing and sales support Kosher processing Halal processing 9

38 Although poultry and livestock producers used different types of meat processing services, other types of services they wanted from the processors were very similar. Poultry and livestock producers would both like to have long-term frozen storage available, as well as marketing and sales support, and certified organic processing. Services not available from poultry processors Long term frozen storage Certified organic Marketing and sales support USDA inspected Product labeling 8 9 Further processing (smoking, jerky) Small batch capabilities Kosher processing 7 Vacuum packaging Minnesota state inspected Custom cuts Halal processing 8 Problems that impacted poultry producer's business High distance 9 Costly Scheduling/limited processing dates Wrong storage/freezing Miscutting Poor service Mislabeling 8 The key issue for the poultry producers was travel distance. Most producers thought that processing facilities were located far from their farm, which reflected the limited number of poultry processing plants available in Minnesota. Cost of processing and difficulty of scheduling were also identified as problems by several poultry producers. 7

39 A few poultry producers had a problem of improper storage and freezing of the meat, which compromised the quality of the meat. Some stated that cutting of the poultry was not in accordance with the poultry producer s instructions. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The majority of the farmers who participated in this study were small-scale livestock producers (grossing less than $,), who direct-marketed their meat/livestock, and had it processed in small batches. Across all but two producer groups (elk and game birds), a majority of producers did not use antibiotics or hormones. A majority of producers (except producers of hogs, game birds, and rabbits) also raised their animals on pasture. In addition, a majority both of cattle and bison producers claimed grass-fed status. Minnesota Equal-To inspection was the most common type of processing used by producers of four (hogs, sheep/lamb, chicken, and turkey/ducks/geese) of the seven largest livestock types in this study, while USDA inspection was used by the majority of cattle and bison producers. Only among goat producers was custom-exempt the most common type of processing facility used. While the majority of respondents across most livestock categories lived within miles of a processing facility (including on-farm processing), several still cited distance from an inspected facility as a primary concern impacting their business. Difficulty with scheduling appointments to get livestock processed was another commonly cited issue. This may be especially true in the fall, when cattle, sheep, goats, chickens, and turkey processing all showed a seasonal spike among survey respondents. Autumn is also when hunters get deer processed, further tying up facilities during that season. Five of the top six services used by producers at both poultry and livestock processing facilities were: vacuum packing, product labeling, custom cuts, Minnesota Equal-To inspection, and USDA inspection. For poultry producers, the top six also included small-batch capabilities, while for livestock producers, further processing was among the top six. The services not available at both poultry and livestock processing facilities, yet desired by both groups were: long-term storage, organic processing, and marketing and sales support. While it s not clear from this study whether these livestock producers would raise more livestock for meat sales if they had greater access to inspected processing facilities, their responses do reveal that availability and proximity of inspected facilities is perceived by many as limiting factors for their businesses. Furthermore, as noted above, there were a few key services that were unavailable that producers would potentially use if they became available. For turkeys/ducks/geese producers, a majority lived within miles of a processing facility, and for bison and elk producers, the average distance to a facility was and miles, respectively. 8

40 These findings support the case for increasing the capacity of decentralized meat processing as an important component of local food systems. As small-scale producers who are directmarketing to consumers and using sustainable techniques such as feeding animals on pasture and abstaining from the use of hormones or antibiotics, these farmers are likely to appeal to consumers with unmet demand for locally raised meats. Increasing the number of Equal-To and USDA-inspected plants is one way to increase processing capacity in the state. Locating plants in areas where farmers currently have to drive great distances to reach an inspected facility is an obvious advantage of having new plants built. However, existing plants could help ease the seasonal bottleneck by encouraging farmers to process their animals off-season when possible, and by offering long-term freezer storage. Offering new services such as organic processing and marketing and sales support may be a way to boost sales in the off-peak months for processing. 9

41 APPENDICES Appendix A: Counties Represented Aitkin Clearwater Isanti Olmsted Sibley Becker Dakota Kanabec Otter Tail St Louis Beltrami Dodge Kandiyohi Pine Stearns Big Stone Douglas Lac Qui Parle Pipestone Stevens Blue Earth Faribault Lesueur Polk Todd Brown Fillmore Mcleod Pope Wabasha Carlton Freeborn Meeker Renville Wadena Cass Goodhue Mille Lacs Rice Washington Chippewa Grant Morrison Roseau Winona Chisago Houston Mower Scott Wright Clay Hubbard Nicollet Sherburne Yellow Medicine Appendix B: Invitation to take the producer survey Dear Meat and Poultry Producers: We are conducting a survey of livestock and/or poultry producers who have their animals processed for retail, wholesale or direct consumer sales. The purpose of this survey is to better understand what is and is not working for you as it pertains to processing animals for sale. Our goal is to use this information to determine what actions can be taken that would help ensure that local meat and poultry producers and processors grow and thrive in the coming years. Please take some time and thoughtfully complete the survey over the coming days. Your input is very important and your answers will be anonymous. The survey will take between and minutes to complete, depending on how many kinds of animals you have processed. As an incentive to take this survey, we are holding a drawing for $ for those who complete this survey by July. At the end of the survey, you will be directed to a form where you can submit your name for the drawing. To participate, please click on the link below. Sincerely, Jan Joannides, Senior Fellow and Endowed Chair in Agricultural Systems Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture, University of Minnesota

42 Appendix C: Producer Survey Distribution List An invitation to complete the producer survey was communicated via , mail, or online to livestock producer members of the following organizations: Minnesota Farmers Union Farm Bureau Minnesota Grown Sustainable Farming Association Minnesota Beef Council Minnesota Pork Producers Association Midwest Poultry Federation AltSwine UM-Meat Goat Um-Poultry Um-Sheep

43 Appendix D: Paper Survey

44

45

46

47

48 7