Progress 04/15/14 to 04/14/20
Outputs
Target Audience:Per the conditions of the outcomes, the target audience as of this work has included not just small to medium sized livestock producers, but also a range of public private partners including stafffrom Michigan State University, meat processors,state non profits and government agencies and businesses within the local and regionall meat value chain including retailer and distributors. The audience benefited from this work through networking, research and educationwhichincreased local and regional market channels and increased sales for small and medium sized livestock producers. .Specifically the target audience comprised for: Strategy 1 and 3: business owners across the local and regional meat value chain including Michigan livestock producers, Michigan meat processors, distributors, aggregators and retailers. Strategy 2: Research Project 1 (Co-PI Dr. Miller): Michigan meat processors serving local and regional markets. Research Project 2 (Co-PI Dr. Knudson): Of particular importance have been retailers and processors of meat products. Research Project 3 (Co-PI Dr. Rowntree): Data was presented to multiple groups; National Grassfed Exchange Conference, hosted in Michigan(250 people from 23 States in the USA and Argentina and Canada) The Grazing For Change Conference (~400 in attendance ranchers, academics and NGO organizations). Data was also presented to Michigan livestock and meat industry leaders among other university colleagues and government officials. Research Project 4 (Co-PI Dr. Schweihofer): Target audience to this point: Undergraduate worker on the project, The ultimate target audience will be meat processors. Research Project 5 (Co-PI Dr. Ehrhardt): A limited number of Michigan Lamb producers to date, more in the future. Research Project 6 (Co-PI Knudson): Michigan-wide and nationwide meat processors. Changes/Problems:The time involved in developing the Michigan Meat network was extensive. As part of this project we recruited additional assistance in organizing regular network meetings to ensure a growth in this work. In addition, organizing network meetings with weather and seasonality of stakeholder engagement was always a challenge. Meetings occurred as often as was possible with the restrictions presented. Our approach suggested value in developing 3 case studies to highlight critical lessons learned in Michigan Livestock and meat market development and public private partnerships. We found that businesses, while increasingly open to engaging in the Michigan Meat Network, were very heistant to participate in a written case study due to proprietary business reporting. We instead developed a larger case study review during this project year, on the scope of the Michigan Meat Network, how it related to other approaches in collective impact and the strengths and weaknesses of the approach. We felt that ultimately this would be more valuable to those that might be developing collaborative partnerships to increase sales for small to midsized farms and the learnings of the work can be used by those that are continuing the development of local and regional meat value chains in Michigan and beyond. The overall goal to develop a public-private workgroup model was achieved in this work, however the balance of continued funding beyond and with the time required to build trust in such a model has been our challenge in ensuring the workgroup model developed continues as formed. Aspects and successes of the work will continue beyond the life of the funding, but the anticipated workgroup model will be different to expected. Please refer to Barry et al (2019) in citations for more explanations and information. The project team and advisory group or fragments of, met on an as needed basis, based on the developmental stages of the project. Research Project 5 experienced some changes to their project. It was concluded that, while the original statement of work included collecting data from sheep farms across Michigan, in reality, the number of sheep farms where data could be collected to evaluate the model that was developed was limited. Production systems were so different nationally, that to compare the data from accelerated and seasonal lambing systems across the country was also not possible. The production model developed has been created so that people can measure within the resource and conclude the lambing system that is best for them. During the third year (on June 15, 2016), the plans for research project 6 changed direction. Craig Harris left the project as a Co-PI and a project proposal review process was conducted to identify another research project that more appropriately meets the objectives and scope of work of the project. Proposals were sent to our advisory board who made recommendations about which proposals best met the objectives and scope of work and a new project was developed in response to the developmental needs of the project. The overall objectives were not changed with the project, but an exciting project was conducted with Bill Knudson (Co-PI) and Jeannine Schweihofer (co-PI) and colleague at the MSU Product Center, Tina Conklin. Tina Conklin has extensive federal regulatory experience in the meat industry and in order to assist processors in becoming federally inspected, thereby creating more locations for small and mid sized producers to process and sell directly consumers, their project addressed challenges in becoming federally inspected. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Objective 1 and 3: We hosted various stakeholder meetings before the Michigan Meat Network formed provided training opportunities including charcuterie and specialty breeds training, regulations, practice and challenges associated with adding value to local and regional meats in this way. In person networking through the Michigan Meat Network, provided professional development for producers, processors and distributors of Michigan meat. Bielaczyc and/or Barry have presented to Michigan meat stakeholders from this work at multiple meetings and conferences including: The Northern Michigan Small Farms conference (2015); North Carolina Meat conference (2015), The Upper Peninsula (U.P.) Growers Conference in July 2017, The Michigan Good Food Summit in Oct 2016, The MMA Annual Convention in March 2017, and the Kalamazoo Foodways Symposium in April 2017. Pigstock in Oct 2016 in Traverse City, MI, New England Meat conference (2017), MMA Board meetings and multiple MMA Annual Conventions. Investigators have continued engagement in the NMPAN board through this project providing an opportunity for information transfer/training. Collaboration with the Michigan Farm to Institution Network has create more opportunities for institutional food service professionals and food service buyers to learn about livestock production and production, and to connect with producers and distributors. MSU CRFS Livestock Workgroup hosted webinar (2014) featuring Iowa State University's Food System Value Chain Coordinator, Nick McCann. This business-oriented webinar explored new ways of approaching Meat Plant Management that focus on increasing throughput, generating cash flow, and improving business efficiency. McCann and Bielaczyc presented two webinars (June 2016, and Feb 2017) in conjunction with the release of publications in the Meat Marketing Series, directed at small and midscale processors and distributors. PI and market intermediary facilitated a discussion at the MSU CRFS Network Coordinators group to better understand the needs of network development for the Michigan Meat network. This was a good professional development exercise for the Michigan Meat Network coordinators and other food systems network coordinators. Begun sharing of learning experiences with other states (specifically NY, NC and OR) on outreach opportunities to develop local and regional meat value chain participants. The market intermediary completed the VT food hub management course in early 2016 to better understand and manage aggregation of value chain products (this was conducted under different funding sources, but related to the work of the Michigan Meat network) MSU students were given the opportunity to attend Michigan conferences to build their understanding of meat value chain work. Objective 2 Project 2: Co-PI Knudson attended and presented this work at the International Food and Agribusiness Management Association in Denmark in June 2016. Project 3, student workers were trained in completing the research work (cuts, weights etc). Michigan grassfed beef producers, with leadership from Co-PI Dr Rowntree hosted the National Grassfed Exchange conference and presented details of the grassfed beef work. Project 4: MSUE specialist Schweihofer presented findings of project at the Michigan Meat Association convention in March 2017 to approximately 60-70 Michigan Meat Processors. Additionally, in-person training was conducted at two different locations (East Lansing, MI and Gaylord, MI) and results from this project were shared with meat processors. Additionally, temperature monitoring devices (data loggers) were purchased to demonstrate continuous monitoring to meat processors. These devices were demonstrated and showcased at the two trainings and have been used in processing facilities for demonstration purposes. Project 5: Staff attended two MSU Modeling conferences and used information learned during these conferences to further ability to model the farms. Also learned a new mental modeling technique enabling a producer workshop to help Extension specialists understand how producers view opportunities and challenges with the ethnic market. Recktenwald and Ehrhardt conducted a webinar and attended multiple sheep producer meetings across Michigan, but also in Indiana and Ohio, to share the Lamb Profit calculator. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?We developed a webpage, a google listserv and much needed resources for market development (change in knowledge). Resources included a MI Livestock producer capacity assessment report, a user-friendly infographic on MI's meat processing capacity and an interactive geographical directory of meat processors. All resources developed were put on the Michigan Meat Network website, hosted by MSU Center for Regional Food Systems. MSU CRFS had a display and outreach table at the annual Michigan Meat Association convention throughout the project and distributed information about the Michigan Meat network and the Michigan meat processors capacity work. Michigan Meat processing infographic was developed and shared with the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Inter Collaboration Committee Food Policy Subcommittee and the board of the Michigan Meat Association. It has also been shared with food buyer groups and at the Michigan Meat Association convention. This is on the Michigan Meat Network page and has been shared with stakeholders through listservs and network events. Email communications with a range of stakeholders with information on the Michigan Meat network and other resources have been sent on a regular basis throughout the year. Results of all work has been communicated in a number of ways; Papers and bulletins (see citations) documented many of the findings ; Research and extension information transfer shared via email and or websites; Michigan Meat network in person events (multiple at different meat and livestock businesses) and other educational programs. Examples include but are not limited to: - Michigan Shepherds Weekend Program, Lansing, MI; attendance of 348; Jan 7, 2017, - The Upper Peninsula (U.P.) Growers Conference in July 2017, - The Michigan Good Food Summit in Oct 2016, - The Michigan Meat Association Annual Convention in March 2016, 2017, 2018- The Kalamazoo Foodways Symposium in April 2017. - The Niche Meat Processors Assistance Network board meetings - Specialized Meat Processing Variance (Variance) implementation trainings for meat processors and MDARD inspectors - one in East Lansing, MI and one in Gaylord, MI. - The New England Meat conference 2017 Most work was shared at the annual presentation at the MMA convention to disseminate results. This was conducted in collaboration with the MSUE, MSUPC and MSUCRFS and MDARD. Objective 2 Project 1: Results were shared on Michigan Meat Network website and via academic publications. Project 2: This information was shared at in person Michigan Meat Network Meetings, put on the Michigan Meat Network website and shared at an international marketing conference "International Food and Agribusiness Management Association annual meeting" in Aarhus, Denmark 2016. Project 3: Michigan grassfed beef producers, with leadership from Co-PI Dr Rowntree hosted the National Grassfed Exchange conference and presented details of the grassfed beef work. Also results were shared in academic publications and in the the online grassfed beef calculator. Project 4: The knowledge gained from this project was shared with meat processors at the Michigan Meat Association convention and also through an extension publication which was published in the Journal of Extension and also on the MSUE website. Demonstration of the equipment and the results were disseminated during two in person hands-on trainings workshops that were related to implementing the variance. Project 5: We presented the SSPM and described its application in evaluating cost of production as well as management changes on the MSU website https://www.canr.msu.edu/sheep_goats/farm-management/. Two webinars to explain the use of the SSPM tool in Microsoft Excel have been delivered, with more scheduled. This work has been shared across the state of Michigan at the Michigan Sheep Producers Association Shepherds weekend. Project 6: This work has been completed and will be disseminated among all Michigan processors through our MSU Extension Senior Meat Quality Extension Educator and through the MSU Product Center, who have historically provided considerable support for processors investigating and going through federal licensing. This work will be available as an online training course "HACCP Overview for Employees in Meat and Poultry Establishments", hosted on D2L and advertised through the MSU Product Center and MSU Extension websites. The training is for employees working in meat and poultry establishments that are responsible for monitoring activities. It provides an overview of meat and poultry inspection and the components of a HACCP plan. Participants will learn what biological, chemical, and physical hazards are, the elements of a hazard analysis, examples of critical limits and important monitoring requirements. There are interactive knowledge checks throughout the training and once finished a certificate of completion is issued for the participant. This certificate can serve as documentation of needed training for regulatory or third-party audit purposes. This will assist federally inspected meat and poultry establishments in meeting regulatory training requirements. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?
Nothing Reported
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Michigan (MI) small andmid-size livestock farmers experience bottlenecks in processing andsupplying meat products to local and regional markets.This award enabled MIpartners to developa number of marketing, processing and production solutions for producers. It enhanced access to markets with a market intermediary and provided resources through research conductedto better understand market opportunities, processing and sales. The MI Meat Network (MMN) was developed and connected producers, processors and distributors to local markets such as correctional facilities and hospitals. 50% at MMN activities made new business connections with restaurants and retail buyers, 35% increased sales and/or became more profitable and 55% adopted new business practices. Research was conducted to better understand regulation of the processing industry; expanding local and regionalmarkets through product development, market research andlivestock production. There are now extensive resources for producers, processors, distributors, food service and retailers to support local and regional livestock producers.Obj 1. and Obj 3. A market intermediary (hired 10/2015) supported livestock producers in accessing new local markets. The MMN was launched (2016) after consulting with 15 organizations and businesses bringingtogether producers, processors, distributors, meat buyers, government agencies and educators to enable business connections, problem solving, and build viable markets for local and regional meat production. Number of MMN in-person meetings at different MI meat and livestock businesses. Following one meeting, all participants that attended responded that they found the event valuable or very valuable, 50% indicated that they had believed they had learned new ways to be more profitable, 90% learned what others are doing in the industry and 40% gained confidence to talk about what they are doing with decision makers. With the MI Farm to Institution Network (MFIN), MMN hosted a pig farm tour providing cross networking for producers and institutional buyers. New sales were established. Market intermediary worked with partners to develop 6 new meat products for institutional markets. A group of institutional food service professionals sampled these products on MFIN Cultivate MI Bean Tour in Frankenmuth, MI. Local beef was added as a featured food for the MFIN marketing campaign, Cultivate MI. Communication channels improved (change in condition) between value chain partners, MSU Extension, the MMA, MSU Product Center, MSU CRFS, Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDARD), Michigan Farm Bureau, MMA, businesses and others. Established relationships of trust built. E.g. monthly meeting between MSU colleagues to strengthen programming. The MMNconnected producers, processors and distributors to local markets e.g. correctional facilities and hospitals. 50% of those that attended or participated in MMN activities made new business connections with restaurants and retail buyers, 35% increased sales and/or became more profitable and 55% adopted new business practices.Obj 2: Project 1:Individual processors, the MMA and regulators at MDARD were interviewed to document meat marketing efforts of processors and the associated regulatory barriers. Processing and regulation, labor markets and locational mismatch are key areas constraining the development of local and regional meat markets in Michigan. A report was published on Researchgate.net (Miller, 2017) and a bulletin and poster on the MSU CRFS website. The poster was designed to help processors and small to medium sized farms explain to customers, the regulatory routes required for meat buyers. Until this work, little had been documented about the regulatory struggles of Michigan's (or other state's) meat processors and this information changes the knowledge pool of policy makers, industry organizations, state agencies and business ownersProject 2:With limited information on market opportunities, meat value chain businesses in the Grand Rapids region were interviewed and an assessment of the market trends in the meat industry was carried out through analyzing literature. Mintel reports were particularly useful. It was determined that there is a lack of appropriate (adequate location and licensing) processing capacity as the primary shortcoming local meats markets. The lack of marketing capacity was also mentioned as a barrier. Firms are able to obtain a price premium for their output. Findings were published (change in knowledge). Work complements MI meat processingand livestock producer capacity reports and provides producers, processors and policy makers with enhanced market knowledge to meet demand.Project 3:Pricing grass fed beef to ensure profitability had been a challenge. We collected data to better understand the costs and profitability of a grass-fed beef carcass for small to medium sized producers. A grass-fed beef freezer pricing worksheet was developed. Additional research data has been collected confirmed the validity of the worksheet. This worksheet enables grassfed producers to determine the dressing out percentage and % yield of their livestock (change in knowledge). It also provides them with a pricing to ensure profitable markets for their meat.Project 4:MDARD requires retail exempt processors of cured and cooked reduced oxygen packaged meat products to test pH and water activity (aw) of products labeled shelf stable or to obtain extended shelf life beyond the approved 30 day shelf life. Extending shelf life maximizes processing efficiencies and profitability through bigger batch sizes. Results assist meat processors decidingbetween conducting in-house testing of pH and awor sending samples to an accredited laboratory. There was no difference when sent out to a 3rdparty laboratory or analyzed in house. The cost of equipment and labor meant that a minimum of 28 samples needed to be tested for pH and aw to make it worth doing the analysis in house (change in knowledge).Project 5:After finding it impossible to adequately assessa dynamic lamb production simulation model to compare different seasonal and year-round production systems for any size farm our researchers created a lamb profit calculator to help sheep producers assess their business viability in different markets andexplore marketing and production economic options. Producers realizing that to be able to track and develop profitability for decision making, they need to have better records of feeding, repro. performance and mortality (change in knowledge). The PI will add greenhouse gas emission data to the caclulator to study the environmental footprint of the sheep industry in the future (change in actions).Project 6:This work shows no shortage of meat processing in the state, but processors areinterested infederal inspection and producers are interested in new markets that would require federal inspection at processing. Procedure documents to assist in the complex process of federal inspection standards have been developed to ease the process for processors (change in knowledge). These include: standard operating procedures, sample HACCP plans and monitoring programs. With these it is anticipate that more facilities will be able to become or remain as federally inspected facilities and thus more meat will be USDA inspected enabling more retail and food service markets in MI.
Publications
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2019
Citation:
Bielaczyc, N., & McCann, N. (2019). Blending Michigan Beans with Local Meat for Institutional Markets. Michigan State University Center for Regional Food Systems. Retrieved from https://foodsystems.msu.edu/resources/blending-michigan-beans-and-meat
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2019
Citation:
Barry, J., Bielaczyc, N., & Lelle, M. (2019). Growing a local and regional meat industry in Michigan: The Michigan Meat Network as a case study of collective impact theory. Michigan State University Center for Regional Food Systems. Retrieved from: http://foodsystems.msu.edu/resources/michigan-meat-network-collective-impact
|
Progress 04/15/18 to 04/14/19
Outputs
Target Audience:The target audience remains as for previous years on this project. Strategy 1 and 3 efforts continuedto reach business owners across the local and regional meat value chain including Michigan livestockproducers, meat processors, distributors, aggregatirs, food service and retailers. The ultimate target audience through impacting all of these businesses was to reach the primary group in the value chain, namely the small and mid-sized livestock producers. Within strategy 2, target audiences have been reported in previous years for research projects 1-5. the outputs of those completed research projects. we understand,continue to reach meat processors, consumers and per the objective of the overall projects, thesmall livestock producers which increased efficiencies in the value chain will ultimately benefit. The MSU Lamb profit calculator was presented at multiple sheep producer meetings in Mihcigan, Indiana and Ohio. Within strategy 2, research project 5 is targeting efficiencies in federal licensing for small meat processors so that more small and medium-sized livestock producers have more licensed options for direct selling thier meatenhancing development of local and regional markets. Changes/Problems:Our approach suggestedvalue in developing 3 case studies to highlight critical lessons learned in Michigan Livestock and meat market development and public private partnerships. We found that businesses, while increasingly open to engaging in the Michigan Meat Network, were very heistant to participate in a written case study due to proprietarybusiness reporting. We instead developed a larger case study review during this project year,on the scope of the Michigan Meat Network,how it related to other approaches in collective impact and the strengths and weaknesses of the approach. We felt that ultimately thiswould be more valuable to those that might be developing collaborative partnerships to increase sales for small to mid-sized farms and the learnings of the work can be used by those that are continuing the development of local and regional meat value chains in Michigan and beyond. The overall goal to develop a public-private workgroup model was achieved in this work, howeverthe balance of contiuned funding beyond and withthe time required to build trust in such a model has been our challenge in ensuring the workgroup model developed continues as formed. Aspects and successes of the work will continue beyond the life of the funding, but the anticipated workgroup model will be different toexpected. Please refer to Barry et al (2019) in citations for more explanations andinformation. The project team and advisory group or fragments of, met on an as needed basis, based on the developmental stages of the project. There were challenges with completing research project 6 in year 5 AND disseminating the information in an effective way, due to the late start mentioned in previous reports.A further extension will enable this to be completed, per an approved final year no cost extension. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Recktenwald and Ehrhardt (research project 5) conducted a webinar and attended multiple sheep producer meetings across Michigan, but also in Indiana and Ohio,to share the Lamb Profit calculator. Personnel on this project were part of the training and professional development supplied by the Michigan Meat Association Convention in March 2019. Investigators have continued to engage with the Niche Meat Processors Assistance Network board throughout this project. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Results have been communicated in a number of ways, as previously reported. Some ways include: - papers and bulletins( see citations) that are listed on the Michigan Meat Network resources page. -Michigan Meat Network in-person events and other educational programs where the information has been shared including the Michigan Good Food Summit and associated network meetings (especially Michigan Farm to Institution network), Michigan Meat Association convention and monthly newsletter, NMPAN board meetings, through specialty meetings such as sheep producer meetings. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?Strategy 1 and 3 - a review of the Michigan Meat Network will be published in the first 4 months of the final year of the project. This will identify the need to terminate some areas of the network activities or transition them to other partners/ organizations within Michigan, if feasible. Findings of the blended meat work will be disseminated through awritten report to be published in the first quarter of the final year of the projectand in conference presentations, including at the 2019 Carolina Meat Conference. Strategy 2 - Research Projects 1-5 are complete. Research Project 6 - Co-investigator Schweihofer and colleague Conklin will develop videos and outreach tools for the federal inspection tool to be available broadly to meat processors, but also for use by MSU Product Center Innovation Counselors who provide business assistance to processors across the state of MI. Facilitating more federal processing in the state of Michigan will enable more livestock producers to sell directly to local markets.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Through our work we have developed a network model that contributes to improving the viability of small and medium sized producers through helping review and sell more product into new markets, think strategically about production practices and better understand bottle necks in processing that can help to increase the demand for local meats in Michigan (MI). Strategy 1 and 3: The conditions have continued to change with a culture of greater collaboration within the Michigan meat value chain. Meat value chain participants continue to have access to the Michigan Meat Networks website presence, Google Group (currently 74members and receiving weekly interest), multiple resources and in person meetings. In July 2018, in conjunction with the Michigan Farm to Institution Network, approximately15 people attended a tour/meeting at 3 farms in Remus, MI. The three farms are separate businesses but all manage the same animals owned byWernette Beef Farms (one farm that was toured) and finished on neighboring supporting ranch operations. One supporting ranch included a dairy farm that had converted to a feed-lot for finishing cattle. Cross network activities were an emphasis in this final year of the grant, particularly with the Michigan Farm to Institution network and the Michigan Meat Network. The Michigan Meat Network intermediary (Bielaczyc) joined the Michigan Farm to Institution Network (MFIN) Advisory Committee in late 2018 and has been working more closely with MFIN members to promote and support sourcing and procurement of Michigan-produced meat by institutions. An example of this is the generation and publication of the Cultivate Michigan Beef Sourcing Guide - an extensive support document that helps institutions in Michigan source locally produced beef and work with the regulations and nuances to ensure smoother procurement. Bielaczyc continued the blended meat work through TA, reporting (cited in this report) and sharing information.The blended meat work helped build a stronger connection between the Meat Network and Michigan Farm to Institution Network, and lead to other collaborations, including the 2019 Beef Spring Featured Food by Cultivate Michigan. While there are no next steps planned for the development of other meat and bean products, the project has left the the door open for future partnerships and collaboration in the meat-to-institution space. Findings of the blended meat work will be disseminated through the written report and conference presentations, including at the 2019 Carolina Meat Conference. Bielaczyc continued to provide direct technical assistance and intermediary services to a wide range of stakeholders including processors, producers, distributors, city planners, and others. Requests for TA and marketing support have increased in 2018/2019. Webelieve this goes back to the idea that trust building and network development is a slow and gradual process, and it likely took this long for stakeholders to begin regardingCRFS as an open resource they could trust. Throughout this project year, an evaluation was conducted and stakeholders across the network were surveyed to assess value of the Michigan Meat Network. The results of the evaluation can be found in a review that CRFShasgeneratedGrowing a local and regional meat industry in Michigan: The Michigan Meat Network as a case study of collective impact theory (soon to be published on MSU CRFS' Michigan Meat Network resources page).In this review we assess a number of factors that have led to the success of the Michigan Meat Network and identify a number of learnings that we think are valuable to other states that are interested in developing networks and ensuring long-term value. In developing this review and in addition to evaluating stakeholders, we held conversations with the Michigan Meat Association,MSU Extension and the MSU Product Center. Despite thesuccess of the Michigan meat network, the sustainability of the network has been challenging. Due to lack of future funding to maintain a backbone organization to run the network a decision has been made to discontinue the network as it stands and seek others to fulfil some of the work that has been put in place. Examples include: - The Michigan Meat Association have been conducting in person networking meetings - Bielaczyc is continuing toconnect more Michigan stakeholders to NMPAN and their suite of resources and programing. They have been key partners that can help provide some TA and services provided by the Michigan Meat Network. Bielaczyc will continue to be involved on their advisory board to help support communication and coordination moving forward. - MSU Extension may continue to build the communication across the Google Groups. Strategy 2: 6 research projects have changed the knowledge conditions within the state of Michigan with an increased understanding of product development and marketing and the capacity of the value chain to address specific bottle necks in the value chain. Research Projects 1-4 were completed prior to this project year and accomplishments have previously been reported. Research Project 5 The MSU Lamb Profit calculator and accompanying documents and educational webinar were delivered during this project year (see products produced) Project 6. This project in the past year has completed the writing of sample HACCP plans for all 9 categories. These include HACCP plans for Slaughter, Raw- non-intact, Raw - intact, Thermally Processed - commercially sterile, Not Heat Treated - shelf-stable, Heat Treated - shelf-stable, Fully Cooked - shelf-stable, Heat Treated but not fully cooked - not shelf-stable, Product with secondary inhibitors - not shelf-stable All plans have been beta tested except Thermally Processed - commercially sterile and Product with Secondary Inhibitors - not shelf-stable. This was because no processors were able to beta test these. All supporting programs have been written and beta tested. This included47 individual programs. Beta testing on Listeria monitoring program is complete. In the coming year, dissemination resources for research project 6 arebeing developed. The ultimate goal of this research project, as wih all this work, is to improve marketing conditions for small to mid sized producers to direct market within Michigan with greater access to federally licensed processing facilities (necessary to direct market).
Publications
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2019
Citation:
Matts, C & Bielaczyc, N (2018) Michigan Farm to Institution's Featured food - Beef. Retrieved from https://www.cultivatemichigan.org/featured-foods/foods/beef
- Type:
Other
Status:
Under Review
Year Published:
2019
Citation:
Bielaczyc, N., & McCann, N. (2019). Blending Michigan Beans with Local Meat for Institutional Markets. Michigan State University Center for Regional Food Systems. Pending
- Type:
Other
Status:
Awaiting Publication
Year Published:
2019
Citation:
Barry, J., Bielaczyc, N., & Lelle, M. (2019). Growing a local and regional meat industry in Michigan: The Michigan Meat Network as a case study of collective impact theory. Michigan State University Center for Regional Food Systems. Retrieved from: http://foodsystems.msu.edu/resources/michigan-meat-network-collective-impact
|
Progress 04/15/17 to 04/14/18
Outputs
Target Audience:The target audience remains as for previous years on this project. For strategy 1 and 3 efforts are targetted to businessowners across the local and regional meat value chain including Michigan meat producers, Michigan meat processors, distributors, aggregators, food service and retailers. Organizations that support these business owners have also been part of our target audiences. Examples include Michigan Meat Association (a group of small meat processors), Michigan Farm Bureau, Michigan State University Extension and Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD). The target audience for strategy 2 efforts include: Research Project 1 (MILLER): Michigan meat processors and producers that are serving local and regional markets and Michigan regulators. Research Project 2 (KNUDSON): This project was completed in the second year of the project. Nothing to report in this period. Research Project 3 (ROWNTREE): Nationwide producers, processors and consumers. Also Michigan meat processors, producers, packers and end users and faculty at MSU. Research Project 4 (SCHWEIHOFER): Small meat producers and processors in Michigan Research Project 5 (EHRHARDT): Meat producers in Michigan, especially sheep farmers. Research Project 6 (KNUDSON WITH CONKLIN): New facilities that want to obtain federal inspection, state inspected facilities that would like to be federally inspected. Because federal inspection is the same across the USA, this will benefit Michigan facilities, but will provide larger benefits to facilities nationally. Changes/Problems:Organizing network meetings has been a problem over the last year due to weather conditions and location arrangements and we have planned less than hoped. The extension year will enable us to engage producers and institutional food purchasers in discussing meat sales. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?In person networking activities continue to provide professional development for producers, processors and distributors of Michigan meat. Collaboration with the Michigan Farm to Institution Network has create more opportunities for institutional food service professionals and food service buyers to learn about livestock production and production, and to connect with producers and distributors. Investigators have continued engagement in the NMPAN advisory board throughout this project. Bielaczyc (market intermediary), Barry (PI) anda leader in Michigan pork productionand marketingfrom south west Michigan presentedinformation on the Michigan Meat Networkat the 2017 New England Meat conference. This provided professional development for all three Michigan participants through expandingnetworks and knowledge base. Bielaczyc and/or Barry have presented to Michigan meat stakeholders on this work at multiple meetings and conferences including: The New England Meat Conference, an MMA Board meeting and the MMA Annual Convention in March 2018. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Over this last year results have been communicated in a number of ways. - Papers and bulletins (see citations) documented many of the findings and learnings and were written to support outreach and education to meat and livestock producers. - Research and extension work shared via email and or websites. Information transfer through the MSU Extension website and the MSU CRFS website. - Michigan Meat network in person events and other educational programs where the information has been shared. Examples include but are not limited to: - Michigan's Upper Peninsula (U.P.) Growers Conference in July 2017, - The Michigan Meat Association Annual Convention in March 2018, - The New England Meat conference 2017 - The Niche Meat Processors Assistance Network board meetings What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?Sustained interest and participation from stakeholders in Michigan Meat Network activities indicates continued strong demand for a shared space for business-to-business learning and relationship building for small & midscale producers, processors, and buyers in Michigan. CRFS staff will plan and convene two MI Meat Network meetings and tours in 2018 - 2019. Building on the success of previous cross-network activities with MFIN, we will continue working to expand opportunities for small and mid-sized producers to access institutional markets. We will also work to develop new connections with other food systems networks in Michigan, including the Local Food Council Network, with the hope to develop new market opportunities for small to medium sized producers. We will continue to improve coordination and communication with other in-state and national partners to deliver more effective and programming and technical assistance and to seek sustained market intermediary assistance that can contrinute to stronger market networks, improve market coordination and continue the network model to address challenges and building business cooperation for small and medium sized producers. Targeted dissemination of publications developed during this project will be ongoing. At least one further extension type bulletinfor research project one is planned. Outputs from research project 6 will be finalized and disseminated in the coming year.PDF documents will be finalized that reference the relevant regulations for becoming a USDA inspected processing facility along with an explanation of what the processor facility needs to implement. In addition, sample programs for everything that is needed (such as sample HACCP plans) will be produced.These documents take the USDA documents and piece together the programs that are necessary to operate under federal inspection.The Ready to Eat and the Shelf Stable HACCP plans need to be completed and beta tested (in addition to those that are almost completed -mentioned in the accomplishment section). This will be the focus of work in the next two quarters.All aspects of this part of the project are expected to be completed by the end of 2018.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Strategy 1 and 3 (Bielaczyc and Barry) The Michigan Meat Network continues to foster a culture of greater collaboration across the meat value chain: The Michigan Meat Network has maintained a website presence since 2016 that provides access to resources and technical assistance. The Network's Google Group has expanded organically to include around 70 subscribers, many of which are new to the Network. Despite strong interest and growth in the Google Group, information sharing is infrequent and more outreach & encouragement is required. In-person meetings and events continue to draw participants from across the value chain and generate valuable dialogue: On September 27, 2017 the Michigan Meat Network hosted a meeting and tour at Louise Earl Butcher shop, a whole animal retail butcher. About 30 people participated from across the value chain, including several livestock farmers, meat processors, and retailers. A facilitated discussion covered a variety of topics ranging from mail order marketing to improving communication through the meat value chain. Evaluations indicated the meeting was very valuable and provided good opportunities for networking. When asked what the most important thing learned at the meeting that can be used in their work, several responses included: "Marketing ideas" and "Building the professionalnetwork" All participants that attended responded that they found the event valuable or very valuable, 50% of attendees indicated that they had believed they had learned new ways to be more profitable, 90% learned what others are doing in the inductry and 40% gained confidence to talk about what they are doing with decision makers. Cross-network strategies show greatest potential to create new local and regional markets and increasing sales for small and mid-sized livestock producers: Cross-network collaborations continue to produce exciting opportunities in this area of work. Building on the success of a 2016 farm tour planned in partnership with the Michigan Farm to Institution Network (MFIN), we planned another MFIN farm tour but had to postpone due to weather. This tour has been rescheduled from July 16th, 2018 and outreach efforts are focused on reaching food service directors and regional distributors. Efforts to develop cost-competitive locally-sourced protein products for institutional markets have benefited greatly through partnership with MFIN. To date, CRFS specialists have developed 6 new products at the MSU Meat Lab including beef and bean hamburger patties, hotdogs, and taco filler. Currently, the beef and bean hamburger patty is being piloted by a hospital system and their processor partner and we are currently exploring opportunities to pilot these products in a university and K-12 setting. On June 20, 2017, a group of institutional food service professionals learned about and sampled these products as part of a the MFIN Cultivate Michigan Bean Tour in Frankenmuth, MI. Feedback from this and other tastings have been overwhelmingly positive. CRFS specialists have provided ongoing technical assistance to food hubs, distributors, and processors on operating profitable regional meat marketing programs. Closer coordination with state and national partners has increased access to information and resources for Michigan's small and mid-sized producers and their value chain partners. Examples include: Regular monthly meetings/ calls with MSU Extension educators and MSU Product Center specialists to provide programmatic updates and better coordinate statewide efforts around meat value chains; New communication channels with Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) have created opportunities to leverage funding resources and create opportunities for data sharing and research. For a third year, investigators presented updates, publications, and research data at the Michigan Meat Association convention in March 2018. MSU CRFS staff continue to be active advisory board members of the Niche Meat Processors Assistance Network which provides opportunity for transfer of knowledge. Strategy 2 Research Project 1 (MILLER): Completed in previous year. Publications to disseminate to target audience was developed. Research Project 2 (KNUDSON):This project was completed in the second year of the project. Publication to disseminate to target audience was developed. Research Project 3 (ROWNTREE): Research Project 4 (SCHWEIHOFER): This project was completed in the thirdyear of the project. Research Project 5 (EHRHARDT):This project was completed in third year of project Research Project 6 (KNUDSON WITH CONKLIN):The research piece of strategy 2 took a different direction with an identified need, through research studies, for supporting more USDA licensed processors. This will enable the state to meet more retail and food service markets in Michigan with the intention to increase capacity for processing for local and regional producers. Procedure documents to assist in the complex process of federal inspection standards are being developed to ease the process for processors. Accomplishments in the past year include: - Sanitation Standard Operating Procedure samples have been completed along with the regulatory reference.This information has been forwarded on to MSU staff to beta test. - A sample HACCP plan for Heat Treated but Not Fully Cooked (bacon) and Raw Non-Intact meat and Raw Intact meat have be completed with regulatory references, and one heat treated buy not fully cooked meat has been beta tested by MSU staff. Raw Non-Intact meat has also been beta tested. - Included with the sample HACCP plans are supporting pre-requisite programs (pest control, scale verification, room temperature monitoring, thermometer verification, and receiving programs) that have been beta tested as well. - A HACCP plan for slaughter is almost complete and will be beta tested on July 19. - The Listeria monitoring program is written and the next step is to find a facility for beta testing.
Publications
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2018
Citation:
Barry, J., Bielaczyc, N., Heisler, D., Henne, R., Hembroff, L., Raven, M., Reed., K., Cotter, M. and Howell, K. (2018) Michigan Livestock Producer Capacity Assessment Final Report. Michigan State University Center for Regional Food Systems. Retrieved from: http://www.canr.msu.edu/resources/ michigan-livestock-producer-capacity-report
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2017
Citation:
Barry, J., Miller, S. and Schweihofer, J (2017) Developing Michigan meat processing, Part 1: processing and regulation. East Lansing, MI. Michigan State University Center for Regional Food Systems. Retrieved from http://www.canr.msu.edu/resources/developing-michigan-meat-processing-part-1-processing-and-regulation
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2018
Citation:
Knudson, W. and Barry, J. (2018) Understanding the Demand for Local meat in the Grand Rapids region of Michigan. East Lansing, MI. Michigan State University Center for Regional Food Systems. Retrieved from http://www.canr.msu.edu/resources/understanding-demand-for-local-meat-in-grand-rapids
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2017
Citation:
McCann, N., (2017) Deciding to Process Beef or Hogs (or Deer) in Small Meat Plants. East Lansing, MI. Michigan State University Center for Regional Food Systems. Retrieved from http://www.canr.msu.edu/resources/deciding-to-process-beef-or-hogs-or-deer-in-small-meat-plants
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2017
Citation:
McCann, N., (2017) A Case for Daily Slaughter in Small Meat Plants. East Lansing, MI. Michigan State University Center for Regional Food Systems. Retrieved from http://www.canr.msu.edu/resources/a-case-for-daily-slaughter-in-small-meat-plants
- Type:
Websites
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2017
Citation:
http://www.canr.msu.edu/michigan_meat_network/resources
A compilation of resouces generated with this project. NIFA support is acknowledged within many of the resources.
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2017
Citation:
Barry, J., Bielaczyc, N., Schweihofer, J and Miller, S. (2017) Regulatory Routes to purchasing Michigan Meat. East Lansing, MI. Michigan State University Center for Regional Food Systems. Retrieved from: http://www.canr.msu.edu/resources/regulatory-routes-to-purchasing-michigan-meat
|
Progress 04/15/16 to 04/14/17
Outputs
Target Audience:The target audience for strategy 1 and 3 efforts include: business owners across the local and regional meat value chain including Michigan meat producers, Michigan meat processors, distributors, aggregators, food service and retailers. Organizations that support these business owners have also been part of our target audiences. Examples include Michigan Meat Association (a group of small meat processors), Michigan Farm Bureau, Michigan State University Extension and Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD). The target audience for strategy 2 efforts include: Research Project 1 (MILLER): Michigan meat processors and producers that are serving local and regional markets and Michigan regulators. Research Project 2 (KNUDSON): This project was completed in the second year of the project. Nothing to report in this period. Research Project 3 (ROWNTREE): Nationwide producers, processors and consumers. Also Michigan meat processors, producers, packers and end users and faculty at MSU. Research Project 4 (SCHWEIHOFER): Small meat producers and processors in Michigan Research Project 5 (EHRHARDT): Meat producers in Michigan, especially sheep farmers. Research Project 6 (KNUDSON WITH CONKLIN): Michigan Meat producers and processors and Intermediary distributors, retail businesses and food service establishments seeking to move meat to local and regional markets. Changes/Problems:Strategy 1: Processor establishment data acquired from MDARD in 2016 proved to be outdated and largely unusable for mapping and directory purposes. Bielaczyc has since reached out to the coordinator of Michigan Market Maker and is working towards a partnership to create a meat-specific map directory using this existing platform. To support additional activities and convening associated with the Michigan Meat Network, CRFS staff hired a consultant to assist with planning and coordination of events across the state. This has increased food system experience and knowledge to the project team, and improved our ability to deliver high-quality programming in a timely fashion. Research Project 5: There was difficulty in finding the appropriate data for inputting into the simulation model. The initial plan was to look at the amount of capital required for a variety of sheep farm sizes. However, after an initial data collection, we realized that the farm variability is so varied in the Michigan area that this goal was not attainable. Even if there were average amounts of buildings, equipment, land, etc. for different farm sizes, it might not be entirely useful as each individual producer is most likely different than the one presented. Instead, the focus was changed to look at animal and feed factors, which can be simulated under a variety of different management scenarios in order to determine which ones are most profitable. From this information, farms can determine how to shape their farm capital around these requirements. Feed requirements for growing lambs that reach different markets in Michigan are not well defined. The requirements for small frame vs. large frame lambs, how fast they grow, and the diets they are consuming needed to be examined more thoroughly in order to make the simulations more accurate. In addition, ewe milk production is important when nursing lambs, and the intake data during this time also had to be re-evaluated. The data was refined, and researchers are now in a better position to input feed consumption values. Research Project 6 During the third year (on June 15, 2016), the plans for research project 6 changed direction. Craig Harris left the project as a Co-PI and a project proposal review process was conducted to identify another research project that more appropriately meets the objectives and scope of work of the project. Proposals were sent to our advisory board who made recommendations about which proposals best met the objectives and scope of work of this projects and a new project was developed in response to the developmental needs of the project. The overall objectives were not changed with the project, but an exciting project is being conducted with Bill Knudson (Co-PI) and his colleague at the MSU Product Center, Tina Conklin. Tina Conklin has extensive federal regulatory experience in the meat industry and in order to assist processors in becoming federally inspected, thereby creating more locations for small and mid sized producers to process and sell directly consumers, their project will be addressing challenges in becoming federally inspected through developing the following: A detailed checklist and procedures needed to obtain the grant of inspection Templates for programs such as allergen control, Letter of Guarantee or Certificate of Analysis Guidance of providing the Decision Making Document and addressing unforeseen hazards Templates for forms (thermometer calibration, room temperature monitoring) Templates for recall programs and Pest Control A facility checklist of items that are needed ("Not an Exit" and "Exit" signs, fire extinguisher, etc.) What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Strategy 1 In person networking provided professional development for producers, processors and distributors of Michigan meat. Including meat marketing development at the Michigan Good Food Summit, provided an opportunity for many to gain a better understanding of the role of meat in local and regional food marketing development. It also provided meat producers and marketers with new ideas for networking and moving product. Investigators have continued engagement in the NMPAN board through this project McCann and Bielaczyc presented two webinars (June 2016, and Feb 2017) in conjunction with the release of publications in the Meat Marketing Series, directed at small and midscale processors and distributors. Bielaczyc and/or Barry have presented to Michigan meat stakeholders from this work at multiple meetings and conferences including: The Upper Peninsula (U.P.) Growers Conference in July 2017, The Michigan Good Food Summit in Oct 2016, The MMA Annual Convention in March 2017, and the Kalamazoo Foodways Symposium in April 2017. Bielaczyc attended the annual Pigstock event in Oct 2016 in Traverse City, MI. Pigstock is a meat cutting and charcuterie workshop for food service professionals with a focus on heritage breeds and local, sustainable production practices. Research Project 2: Co-PI Knudson attended and presented this work at the International Food and Agribusiness Management Association in Denmark in June 2016. Research Project 4: MSUE specialist Schweihofer presented at the Michigan Meat Association convention in March 2017 to approximately 60-70 Michigan Meat Processors. Research Project 5: Staff have been able to attend two MSU Modeling conferences and use information learned during these conferences to further ability to model the farms. Also learned a new mental modeling technique enabling a producer workshop to help Extension specialists understand how producers view opportunities and challenges with the ethnic market. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Results have been communicated in a number of ways. - Papers and bulletins (see citations) documented many of the findings - Research and extension work shared via email and or websites. Information transfer through the MSU Extension website and the MSU CRFS website. - Michigan Meat network in person events and other educational programs where the information has been shared. Examples include but are not limited to: - Michigan Shepherds Weekend Program, Lansing, MI; attendance of 348; Jan 7, 2017, - The Upper Peninsula (U.P.) Growers Conference in July 2017, - The Michigan Good Food Summit in Oct 2016, - The Michigan Meat Association Annual Convention in March 2017, - The Kalamazoo Foodways Symposium in April 2017. - The Niche Meat Processors Assistance Network board meetings - Specialized Meat Processing Variance (Variance) implementation trainings for meat processors and MDARD inspectors - one in East Lansing, MI and one in Gaylord, MI. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?Strategy 1 and 3: Continued growth in interest and participation from stakeholders in Michigan Meat Network activities indicates the strong demand for a shared space for business-to-business learning and relationship building for small & midscale producers, processors, and buyers in Michigan. CRFS staff with support from Marty Gerencer, will plan and convene three MI Meat Network meetings and tours in 2017 - 2018. Continue to investigate new ways and tools to develop market opportunities for small to medium sized producers through engaging stakeholders and responding to market needs. Strategy 2: Research Project 1: Three extension style bulletins will be produced to share the information developed from this paper. Research Project 2: Finalize paper and publish. Research Project 3: Project complete. Research Project 4: Update MSUE website where this information will be shared electronically; continue sharing information created in contact with meat processors. Include results in online curriculum being developed for implementing Variance that will be available for meat processors. Research Project 5 We have a draft of a paper that details model development and evaluation. We are currently working with a collaborator in the MSU Engineering Department to test the model's robustness and determine an appropriate equilibrium point at which to start simulations. After these tests are completed, we will be able to submit the paper, most likely to the Small Ruminant Research journal. Our investigations have determined a set of scenarios that are the most relevant ones with which to compare profitability. We will be running these within the next year and publish them in journal form and/or via the MSU Extension website. Research Project 6: This project will be addressing challenges in becoming federally inspected through developing the following: A detailed checklist and procedures needed to obtain the grant of inspection Templates for programs such as allergen control, Letter of Guarantee or Certificate of Analysis Guidance of providing the Decision Making Document and addressing unforeseen hazards Templates for forms (thermometer calibration, room temperature monitoring) Templates for recall programs and Pest Control A facility checklist of items that are needed ("Not an Exit" and "Exit" signs, fire extinguisher, etc.)
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Through our work we have developed a network model that contributes to improving the viability of small and medium sized producers through helping review and sell more product into new markets, think strategically about production practices and better understand bottle necks in processing that can help to increase the demand for local meats in Michigan (MI). Strategy 1 and 3: The conditions have changed with a culture of greater collaboration. Meat value chain participants now have access to the Michigan meat network, wihich includes a website presence, a Google Group, and more frequent information sharing through inperson meetings and events. In June 2016, ~20 stakeholders toured Byron Center Meats (a USDA processing facility), and participated in value chain panel discussion at a nearby brewery restaurant that sources and serves local beef. The panel included a producer, distributor, processor and restaurant buyer, all involved in overcoming challenges in putting MI meat on the menu. In October, a group of ~15 stakeholders toured Ebel's General Store (a USDA slaughter/ processing facility) and participated in a facilitated discussion. Evaluations indicated the meeting was very valuable and provided good opportunities for networking. When asked what the most important thing learned at the meeting that can be used in their work, responses included: "Contacts made with agricultural producer and agribusiness customers and an overall excellent tour of USDA meat processing, packaging, storage and retail sales." "The help that is available to us from state agencies" "Seeing a comprehensive view, from the point of a processors lens, provides the context I need to successfully produce the best product possible. This is a key partnership/relationship to develop in the food chain. A very intimate view that introduced business capabilities with a compelling story of history and beliefs." Jointly hosted a network event in conjunction with the Michigan Meat Association (MMA) Annual Convention in March 2017. There are plans to make it a regular feature at MMA Conventions. Actions have changed with small and mid-sized producer being able to acces new markets and increasing sales to local and regional markets; A number of cross-network collaborative projects and events have emerged from this work. An example can be shared of a farm tour of a mid-sized pastured pork producer held in October 2017 in partnership with the Michigan Farm to Institution Network (MFIN). Institutional food service staff toured a pasture-based production facility. A number of new institutional accounts can be directly attributed to this event. Additional collaborative projects with MFIN, include interest in the development of cost-competitive locally-sourced protein products for institutional markets. MSU CRFS staff connected with staff at the Montana State University to learn about the Montana Beef to school project. This work has leveraged other resources to contribute to it's success. Knowledge has increased within MI with increased understanding of the role of an intermediary for producers, public-private partnerships to assist producers, and iproduct development and marketing in the state. Examples include: Intermediary advising and participating in the MI Upper Peninsular (UP) Multi-Species Processing Feasibility Study Project including support and feedback to the Project Advisory Committee, including session at the MI UP food summit. Investigators hosted and moderated a session at the MI Good Food Summit titled "Bringing Local Meats into the Good Food dialogue". the panel included Heffron Farms, Tolman's Wholesale Meat and Grant Fletcher of Bronson Healthcare. Evaluation feedback included; "Important to bring to the conference" "Worth keeping this topic next year. Meat is under-represented at most of these conferences." Investigators presented data on meat work at the annual Michigan Meat Association convention in March 2017 and shared materials. The Meat Processing Capacity Infographic report continues to receive strong interest and an updated version is planned. MSU CRFS staff are active members of the Niche Meat Processors Assistance Network which provides opportunity for transfer of knowldege. Strategy 2 The following research projects have changed the knowledge conditions within the state with an increase understanding of product development and marketing and the capacity of the value chain to address specific bottle necks in the value chain: Research Project 1: Interviews with industry and regulators revealed key issues that have the potential to hinder development of a local meat system. These issues spanned from regulatory oversight to market-based obstacles. Solutions or directions for solutions entailed reviews of management of the state and federal regulatory agencies in administrating the regulatory function, educational training sponsored by industry for processors and labor development, and considerations of aggregating marketing efforts and channels to customers. One report was generated and two briefs are being developed based on this effort. Research Project 2: Research project 2 was completed in 2016 before the end of year 2 of the project, so outputs for this work have previously been reported. Research Project 4: Processors are adopting temperature data logging devices to assist them in monitoring cooking and cooling critical limits. Some processors are investing in pH and water activity equipment to measure product parameters that allow for shelf stable storage and marketing of products that meet certain food safety criteria. Information was shared at two in-person Specialized Meat Processing Variance (Variance) implementation trainings for meat processors and MDARD inspectors - one in East Lansing, MI and one in Gaylord, MI. Participants were able to view demonstrations of pH and water activity being measured and different equipment that can be used. Overall food safety of processed meat production is improved with implementation of the Variance and ability to monitor and measure product characteristics. Work was published and disseminated (see publications section). In addition to working papers/bulletins were developed for the field: The guide: "Processed Meat Quick Guide: pH and Water Activity Protocol" is a two page protocol document distributed at the Michigan Meat Association's annual conference (3/17) and will be posted on the MSUE website. 4 page report: "Specialized Meat Processing: Measuring pH and water activity in-house or third party." bwas distributed at the Michigan Meat Association's annual conference (3/17) and will be posted on the MSUE website. Research Project 5: After evaluating the data available determined there was insufficient farms to evaluate economics of low input seasonal lamb production. Therefore redirected the project to produce a dynamic lamb production simulation model that utilizes input costs, productivity, animal requirements and other factors to compare different seasonal and year round production systems for any size farm. The "Spartan Sheep Production Model (SSPM)"was developed in Vensim DSS (Ventana Systems, UK) using system dynamics principles (Sterman 2000). Presented the SSPM and described its application in evaluating cost of production as well as management changes. We are currently using the SSPM in combination with other tools to help understand marketing options in non-traditional ethnic markets in the greater Detroit area. The model is being used to add a dynamic component to feed and growth calculators to determine overall profitability over short and long-term time frames. The SSPM is also being used in educational `programs to explore marketing options, to compare modes of lamb production and to examine production economics. We have generated a lot of producer interest in the model and they have expressed desire to use the model to evaluate many production scenarios and marketing options.
Publications
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2016
Citation:
McCann, N., Bielaczyc, N. (2016). Meat Marketing Series: Selling the Whole Animal and Managing Variability. Michigan State University Center for Regional Food Systems. East Lansing, MI. Retrieved from: http://foodsystems.msu.edu/resources/meat_marketing_series_selling_the_whole_animal_and_managing_variability
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2017
Citation:
McCann, N., Bielaczyc, N. (2017). Meat Marketing Series: Inventory Management Through Buffers. Michigan State University Center for Regional Food Systems. East Lansing, MI. http://foodsystems.msu.edu/resources/meat-marketing-series-inventory-management-through-buffers
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2017
Citation:
Miller, S. (2017)Opportunities and Barriers to Growing Michigan's Local Food Systems: The case of meat processing. Staff Paper 2017-001. January 2017. MSU Agriculture, Food and Resource Economics. East Lansing, MI.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313302771_Opportunities_and_Barriers_to_Growing_Michigan%27s_Local_Food_System_The_Case_of_Meat_Processing
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2016
Citation:
Theisen, M. and J.P. Schweihofer. 2016. Measuring pH and Water Activity in Cured Reduced Oxygen Packaged Snack Sticks. Journal of the NACAA, 9(2). ISSN 2158-9429. Available: http://www.nacaa.com/journal/index.php?jid=671
- Type:
Websites
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2016
Citation:
The Michigan Meat network.
http://foodsystems.msu.edu/our-work/michigan_meat_network/
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2016
Citation:
Knudson, W. (2016) The Market for local meats in Grand Rapids. International Food and Agricbusiness Management Association Annual Meeting - academic symposium. Aarhus, Denmark. June 19-23, 2016. http://ifamaeurope.org/symposium/#iLightbox[gallery_image_1]/6
- Type:
Other
Status:
Awaiting Publication
Year Published:
2017
Citation:
Theisen, M. and J.P. Schweihofer. 2017. Specialized Meat Processing: Measuring pH and water activity in-house or third party. MSU Extension Bulletin
|
Progress 04/15/15 to 04/14/16
Outputs
Target Audience:Strategy 1 and 3 The target audience for strategy 1 and 3 efforts include: business owners across the local and regional meat value chain including Michigan meat producers, Michigan meat processors, distributors, aggregators, food service and retailers. Organizations that support these business owners have also been part of our target audiences. Examples include Michigan Meat Association (a group of small meat processors), Michigan Farm Bureau, Michigan Restaurant Association, Michigan State University Extension and Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD). Strategy 2 Research Project 1: Michigan meat processors serving local and regional markets and Michigan regulators (The Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development). Research Project 2: Grand Rapids producers, processors and buyers. Research Project 3: Attendees at the National Grassfed Exchange Conference, hosted in Michigan this year. 250 people from 23 States in the USA and Argentina and Canada. Also Michigan meat processors, producers, packers and end users and faculty at MSU. Research Project 4: Small meat processors in Michigan Research Project 5: Meat producers in Michigan, especially sheep farmers. National sheep producer groups. Changes/Problems:Strategy 1 and 3: The time involved in developing a network is extenisive. As part of this project we have recruited assistance in organizing regular network meetings to ensure a growth in this work. Strategy 2: Co-PIs on research projects 1, 2 and 3 reported no changes or problems in their approach. Research Project 4: Technical issues with some of the purchased equipment (pH meter) created a delay in the testing for the comparison portion of the project. Thus, the project is taking longer to complete (currently in writing and editing stage) than planned. Additionally, temperature monitoring devices were purchased to demonstrate the ability to continuously monitor product temperature during cooking and cooling to comply with regulatory requirements. Research Project 5 experienced some changes to their project. It was concluded that, while the original statement of work included collecting data from sheep farms across Michigan, in reality, the number of sheep farms where data could be collected to evaluate the model that was developed was limited. Production systems were so different nationally, that to compare the data from accelerated and seasonal lambing systems across the country was also not possible. The production model developed has been created so that people can measure within the resource and conclude the lambing system that is best for them. Research Project 6: The plans for research project 6 have changed due to unforeseen circumstances. Objectives for the project will not change, but delays in output and resulting expenditure will be seen. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?The PI and market intermediary at MSU Center for Regional Food Systems attended the North Carolina Meat conference 2015. This has helped develop ideas for programming in Michigan and built strong collaboration opportunities for this work across the country. Our PI and market intermediary facilitated a discussion at the MSU Center for Regional Food Systems Network Coordinators group to better understand the needs of network development for the Michigan Meat network. This was a good professional development exercise for the Michigan Meat Network coordinators and other food systems network coordinators. Begun sharing of learning experiences with other states (specifically NY, NC and OR) on outreach opportunities to develop local and regional meat value chain participants. The market intermediary completed the VT food hub management course in early 2016 to better understand and manage aggregation of value chain products (this was conducted under different funding sources, but related to the work of the Michigan Meat network) MSU students were given the opportuity to attend Michigan conferences to build their understanding of meat value chain work. Under separate funding, staff on research project 5 attended professional development conferences in modelling. MSU was asked to be on the advisory board of the Niche Meat Processors Assistant network (NMPAN) For research Project 4 In-person training was conducted at two different locations (East Lansing, MI and Gaylord, MI) and results from this project were shared with meat processors. Additionally, temperature monitoring devices (data loggers) were purchased to demonstrate continuous monitoring to meat processors. These devices were demonstrated and showcased at the two trainings and have been used in processing facilities for demonstration purposes. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?MSU CRFS had a display and outreach table at the Michigan Meat Association convention in March 2016 and distributed information about the Michigan Meat network and the michigan meat processors capacity work. Michigan Meat processing infographic was developed and shared with the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Inter Collaboration Committee Food Policy Subcommittee and the board of the Michigan Meat Association. It has also been shared with food buyer groups and at the Michigan Meat Association convention. Michigan Meat Infographic is on the MSU Center for Regional Food Systems website and has been shared with stakeholders through listservs and network events. Email communications with a range of stakeholders with information on the Michigan Meat network and other resources have been sent on a regular basis throughout the year. Michigan grassfed beef producers, with leadership from Co-PI Dr Rowntree hosted the National Grassfed Exchange conference and presented details of the grassfed beef work during this time. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?We plan to hold 4 Michigan Meat Network meetings to build business to business partnerships. These network meetings will include educational opportunities, networking time and tours of different meat business faciliteis. We anticipate significant engagement by stakeholders. The Michigan meat network website and listserv will be more widely populated and engagement will increase. The Market intermediary will be using the resources developed in the first 2 years of this project to build specific business to business partnerships and develop markets. Mapping of meat processors is anticipated. This will be in conjunction with Michigan Market Maker. Opportunities for collaboration with Market Maker will be explored. The livestock producer capacity survey will be completed. There are plans to further develop case studies demonstrating business to business partnership that show significant value chain meat marketing have been initiated and will be advanced in year 3 of this work. Ongoing communication across PIs and the advisory group will be continued. Research Project 1: Dr Miller and Dr Barry plan to complete a report and 2 pager, put it on MSU Center for Regional Food Systems website and dissemeinate through different network sources including the Michigan Farm to Institution Network, the Michigan Food Hub Network, the Michigan Meat Network. Research Project 2: Dr Knudson plans to present findings at the International Food and Agribusiness Management Association annual meeting in Aarhus, Denmark 2016 Research Project 3: Work concluded. Research Project 4: Dr Schweihofer plans states that project testing of pH and water activity and comparison with third party lab was completed. The report including results is currently being written and edited. An extension bulletin/fact sheet on shelf life of meats will be distributed to meat processors and posted on the MSUE website. Research Project 5: Dr Ehrhardt states that dissemination of this project will be largely conducted in the coming year. The Co-PI will present the model at the Michigan Sheep Producers Association Shepherds weekend and will also likely present it at the national level in conjunction with the American Sheep Industry association. Outreach materials will be developed and shared through the Michigan Meat Network and on MSUE and MSUCRFS website. Research Project 6: the co-PI team will be reassessing this area on July 18, 2016 and will be drawing up a plan to better achieve the objectives and goals of the project.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Contributing to Strategy 1 and 3: Research has been conducted on the capacity of the industry in Michigan and stakeholders were brought together to discuss bottlenecks in the value chain. It became increasingly apparent that a network structure could support value chain actors in moving meat within local and regional markets in Michigan. The Michigan Meat Network was launched in March 2016, with a google groups conversation list serve, website underway, a pilot newsletter and information sharing. As part of the launch development we held one on one vidoeconference/phone conversations with 15 organizations and businesses to better understand the needs/demands of the Michigan Meat network and how it can serve organizations and business to business partnerships. We obtained and organized data from the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development on meat processors in Michigan. It is anticipated that this will help with network development. The data is in the process of being mapped to understand where processors are located and the type of services that they offer. A better understanding of the Processor industry is being developed under this project. This AFRI work has developed a novel way of presenting state processing data using infographics. This was shared with the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Inter Collaboration Committee Food Policy Subcommittee and the board of the Michigan Meat Association. It has also been shared with food buyer groups and at the Michigan Meat Association convention. With presenting this publication to policy makers and other interested groups and people within the industry and state government, we believe that there is a better understanding of the capacity of the meat processing industry in Michigan. Data has been collected and is currently being processed on the capacity of Michigan livestock producers to supply meat within the Michigan meat market. A stakeholder meeting was held at the end of April 2015. A lively discussion on the roles of different organizations within the value chain was held. In addition, challenges around regulation were discussed. A restaurant owner spoke about meat processing in the restaurant and highlighted speciality meats that were of value to his business. The Market intermediary worked with groups in Michigan's Upper Peninsula on a multispecies processing feasibility study. With this work, he provided counsel on their RFP. The project advisory group met 2 times to guide the work to meet the goals. They made suggestions about the network development and provided counsel on the value of the research projects. The Co-Pis met 5 times during the year to assist with collaborations and opportunities to strengthen each part of the project. Contributing to Strategy 2: Research Project 1(Co-PI Miller) : Individual processors, the Michigan Meat Association and regulators at the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development were interviewed to document the meat marketing efforts of processors and the regulatory barriers associated with these. Data has been processed and a report and 2 paged bulletin under development. It is hoped that the report can be used for planning market development, policy issues. Research Project 2 (Co-PI Knudson): Market for local meats in the Grand Rapids area was assessed. It was determined that such a system is feasible and is currently operating. The lack of processing capacity was identified as the primary shortcoming to increased production of local meats for consumers interested in local meat products. The lack of marketing capacity was also mentioned as a barrier. Firms operating in the local meat system were able to obtain a price premium for their output. Research Project 3 (Co-PI Rowntree): Further data was collected to determine the most valuable way to market retail cuts from a carcass. By generating databases containing retails cut weights and percentage of the carcass, producers can calculate the necessary financial amount needed to cash flow and profit from each carcass. Research project 4 (Co-PI Schweihofer): The comparison project of measuring pH and water activity in cured meat products (snack sticks) was compared to sending samples for third party analysis was completed. The information gained from this project is being shared with meat processors and will assist them in deciding which is more advantageous for their operation - investing in equipment and supplies needed or sending samples to a third party laboratory. Research Project 5 (Co-PI Ehrhardt): A production simulating model to compare annual vs accelerated lamb production systems was developed. Data from farms was collected and used to create and evaluate the model.
Publications
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2015
Citation:
Bielaczyc, N., Schweihofer, J., Miller, S and Pirog R. (July,2015) Michigan Meat Processing Infographic Report
http://foodsystems.msu.edu/resources/michigan_meat_processing_infographic
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2015
Citation:
Rowntree, J. E. Editor. 2015. Grassfed Exchange National Meetings-Lake City Beef Report.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2015
Citation:
Martin, R.M. and J. E. Rowntree. 2015. Forage finished steer performance & carcass characteristics from grazing high-energy forages. Grassfed Exchange National Meeting-Lake City Beef Report. 3: 12-14.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2015
Citation:
Rowntree, J.E., D. Carmichael, K. Cassida, J. Lindquist, K. Thurlow. 2015. Michigan State University Grass Finishing Report. Grassfed Exchange National Meetings-Lake City Beef Report 3: 15-16.
|
Progress 04/15/14 to 04/14/15
Outputs
Target Audience:Strategy 1 and 3: The target audience for strategy 1 and 3 efforts include: business owners across the local and regional meat value chain including Michigan livestock producers, Michigan meat processors, distributors, aggregators and retailers. Strategy 2: Research Project 1 (Co-PI Dr. Miller): Michigan meat processors serving local and regional markets. Research Project 2 (Co-PI Dr. Knudson): Of particular importance have been retailers and processors of meat products. Research Project 3 (Co-PI Dr. Rowntree): Data was presented to multiple groups; This includes one speaking venue in California, The Grazing For Change Conference, which had almost 400 in attendance. This audience consisted of ranchers, academics and NGO organizations. Data was also presented to the Center For Regional Food Systems Livestock Advisory Board. This group consists of livestock and meat industry leaders among other university colleagues and government officials. Research Project 4 (Co-PI Dr. Schweihofer): Target audience to this point: Undergraduate worker on the project, The ultimate target audience will be meat processors. Research Project 5 (Co-PI Dr. Ehrhardt): A limited number of Michigan Lamb producers to date, more in the future. Research Project 6 (Co-PI Dr. Harris): Intermediary distributors, retail businesses and food service establishments in the Grand Rapids area that are current or potential customers for meat from the region. Changes/Problems:Strategy 1 and 3 Due to a delay in hiring the market intermediary only 1 stakeholder meeting (April 2015) and one advisory committee meeting (March) were held in year 1. Despite the delay, stakeholders were engaged in networking around the challenges and potential solutions for local and regional meat markets through conversational presentations at the Northern Michigan Small Farms conference (January 2015) and the Michigan Meat Association Convention (March 2015) Strategy 2 Co-Pis on research projects 1, 3 and 6 reported no changes or problems. Research project 2 (Co-PI Dr Knudson) reported difficulty in getting people together for the focus groups. Additional outreach to interested parties and collaboration with partners doing similar research will be necessary. Research project 5 (Co-PI DR Ehrhardt) reported difficulty in identifying a significant number of producers that use the accelerated lambing program in the Great Lakes Region. Model development on the project was delayed because the team started the project with one software program, but changed to another one that would allow for greater visual comprehension and usability by producers. Research project 4 (Co-PI Dr Scweihofer) reported that the time for the project was extended to year two because of late start due to change in co-PI and receiving of funds What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?The MSU CRFS Livestock Workgroup hosted a webinar in November 2014 featuring Iowa State University's Food System Value Chain Coordinator, Nick McCann. This business-oriented webinar explored new ways of approaching Meat Plant Management that focus on increasing throughput, generating cash flow, and improving business efficiency. A stakeholder meeting discussing research work specific to understanding Michigan meat markets was held in April 2014. An additional stakeholder meeting including a presentation and discussion considering new markets (including charcuterie and specialty breeds) was held for 30+ stakeholders in April 2015. This included presentations and discussion on regulations, practice and challenges associated with adding value to local and regional meats in this way. A presentation at the Northern Michigan Small Farms conference in January 2015 engaged a panel of presentations from a processor, a distributor and a retailer to a room of 50 Michigan producers/meat industry professionals on the preparation and movement of meat in Michigan. Work under research project 1, 2 and 6 did not provide trainings to date. Under research project 3, student workers were trained in completing the research work (cuts, weights etc). Research project 4 has not provided any training opportunities in year 1. It provided information that will be used in training held for meat processors related to testing pH, water activity, and other testing needed by meat processors. Research Project 5 has thus far not trained farmers to use the tool they have developed on this project. The team hopes to make training available to producers after its completion for the purpose of using it to make decisions about the most beneficial economic strategies for small ruminant business. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?While initial results and plans of the work with all strategies and research projects has been shared with stakeholder groups through the April stakeholder meeting, conference presentations, in advisory groups and in newsletter and email communications, full data is not ready to be shared with larger communities of interest. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?Strategy 1 and 3 A number of plans are in place for year 2 of the work around strategy 1 and 3 of this work based on stakeholder input. These include developing stakeholder conversations that focus on areas of branding, market research, marketing/ brokering, showing the value of buying locally, simplifying the meat value chains and selling meat into institutions. Feedback from stakeholders also indicated their need to build communications between value chain partners, develop tools for coordinating logistics and assist with resources to assist with rules, regulations and inspection status. Stakeholder meetings will continue to provide outreach and new communication tools will be developed. Strategy 2 With respect to strategy 2, Co-Pis report the following planned accomplishments for year 2: Dr Miller on research project 1 will complete the interview instrument for interviewing Michigan processors, with the intent to collect quantitative on value chain transactions and qualitative data around market conditions, policy issues, and planning perspectives as they relate to meat marketing efforts within the state including objectives of the business, barriers to meeting business objectives, national and local markets for livestock processing, economic drivers impacting selling capacity and regulatory barriers to local markets. Data will be analyzed and disseminated. The primary goal on research project 2 (Dr Knudson) is to schedule focus groups, gather data and analyze results. Dr Rowntree on research project 3 in year 2 will break down additional cattle to generate weights of retail cuts. This will be the second and final year of collecting data. From here, they will analyze data and develop breakeven calculations for producing grass fed beef. Dr Schweihofer on research project 4 plans to continue to collect data and develop the resource for meat processors. Dr Ehrhardt on research project 5 plans to collect data from farmers they have identified, input that data into the model, calibrate and evaluate the model, and run potential scenarios to find the most profitable ones for different types of operations. They will then inform producers in the region that they have developed a tool that producers can utilize for understanding potentially more profitable management scenarios on their operation. Producers will be given access to the model and connected to enable them to use their specific farm information in the model to make strategic business decisions based on profitability. Dr Harris on research project 6 will conduct and analyze additional interviews. On the basis of all the interviews, a report will be produced describing the opportunities in the various stages of the value chain. This report will be disseminated to interested actors along the value chain.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Contributing to strategy 1 and 3 The Market Intermediary was hired. In collaboration with the MSU CRFS livestock workgroup and the MSU CRFS Michigan Food Hub Network, Bielaczyc has spent the first year developing a sound knowledge base of stakeholder needs across the state and what was required to build stronger marketing networks, improve market coordination and develop business-to-business cooperation for small to medium-sized livestock businesses. Presentations and facilitated discussions at conferences and stakeholder meetings are thought to have enhanced business-to-business collaboration. Regular meetings with Co-PIs occurred in the first year to assess and refine progress. The advisory committee (made up of local meat professionals from different states across the country (including VT, MI, IA, OR) met once and plans to meet 2 times per year. Contributing to strategy 2 In research project 3 (Co-PI Dr. Rowntree) it is understood that a primary challenge for small scale beef producers is determining the most valuable way to market retail cuts from a carcass. By generating databases containing retail cut weights and the percentage of the carcass, producers can then calculate the necessary financial amount needed to cash flow and profit from each carcass. This year beginning data was generated to share with producers. Research Project 4 (Co-PI Dr. Schweihofer) has been initiated but due to personnel changes there has been delay in accomplishments. Research project 5 (Co-PI DR Ehrhardt) has identified factors to consider between accelerated and annual lamb production scenarios, and have developed a model to simulate their economics. In research project 6 (Co-PI Dr Harris), through the interviews described previously, various actors in the meat and livestock value chain became more aware of the opportunities to procure and sell local and regional products.
Publications
- Type:
Websites
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2015
Citation:
Tores, H. Pirog, R and Barry, J. February 2015 Before We Seek Change, is There a Demand for Local Meats? Citation at http://foodsystems.msu.edu/resources/demand_for_local_meats_review
|
|