Progress 09/01/04 to 08/31/05
Outputs
Farmed salmon set a standard for consistent quality that seafood buyers sought in wild product. Alaska Quality Seafood Program was designed to respond to that expectation by creation of voluntary processing standards. This grants purpose was to institutionalize handling practices & research the resulting change in market & value of wild salmon. 1: Develop quality handling procedures for drift & set gillnet & purse seine fishermen, & product quality grades, based on 2003 lessons learned & best available science. Results: Handling procedures & seafood product quality grades were clarified (easier to follow), set net handling revised (on & off-shore), product grade criteria revised, handling procedures developed for new product forms and audit procedures were streamlined. 2: Orient & train stakeholders. Results: Increased numbers of harvesters & processors in AQS. Processors worked with AQS, private inspection firms, processing staff, tender boat operators, buying station
staff and fishermen to carry out AQS program training (a requirement for certification). 3: Improve the system of data-taking & record-keeping, to support evaluation of the program. Results: More accessible & flexible data-logging & management systems were implemented and audit scoring methods were streamlined. A new AQS seafood inspection company, ISIS, used a system of data-taking (on handheld data recorders) which was compared with the AQS system (paper) resulting in long-term adoption of hand-held data collection for optimum management of AQS quality systems. 4: Evaluate the program, from the industry viewpoint. Results: AQS product certification was used to differentiate participating company product & resulted in a price premium over non-certified product. Plants & regional processors wanted access to local inspection teams. AQS developed/implemented programs to accommodate. QC/QA staff shifted to new plants or move on to other companies, requiring continuous training in AQS. 5:
Provide oversight of the program. Results: The 2004 business environment had changed. Consistent quality systems were being adopted, however, year 2 of implementation posed challenges for institutional AQS implementation. Larger plants had incorporated elements of AQS to their quality system, but were resistant to creation of a separate brand outside of their own. Processors were barraged with govt & buyer specs and the long-term commitment (time and money) to the AQS program was now looming. Smaller companies borrowed pieces of AQS, but did not adopt the entire system due to limited resources. Complexities in food markets made it challenging to introduce an added cost (AQS certification) & label (AQS certified). A well communicated value proposition and more integrated AQS program was required. 6: Evaluate the programs marketing efforts. Results: Graphics showing the certification process were published & helpful in communicating the program purpose. Tradeshows allowed AQS to meet
seafood buyers who offered feed-back & particularly liked the strength the AQS third-party oversight. 7: Assess the overall effectiveness of in the market. Results: (see impact)
Impacts
7: Assess the effectiveness of AQS. Results: Buyers paid more & sustained their relationship with sellers, as AQS reduced bruising, broken bones, extended shelf life & established confidence in a consistent quality wild salmon product; harvest to harvest & year to year. One new plant was certified, which made a total of 112 harvesters, 12 tenders & buying stations& the staffs of 8 plants that were AQS trained. The program demonstrated further diversity adding 3 types of gear (drift gillnet, set gillnet, purse seine) & 3 product types (H&G or H&G fillets, portions (fresh & frozen)). Processors increased their contribution by paying directly for AQS contract inspectors, plus an additional, $94,424 (cash & in kind) was raised outside of CSRESS research monies. AQS prepared a new plant, with certification for controlled fillet portions. This rapid plant certification demonstrated the quick AQS response to market demands. Fishermen increased earnings as they were paid more
for their AQS fish. The 2004 price premium for AQS (comparison to non-certified wild salmon) ex vessel to fishermen (+$.05 to .29 per lb), Frozen H&G (+$.34 per lb) frozen fillets (+$.68) & once frozen fillet/portions (+$.40 per lb) Processors reported price premiums for their certified products of 10-30% (1st wholesale level). Buyers recognized the value (product differentiation) resulting in buyer sustainability. A greater amount of AQS was produced in 2004. 2003 2004 Round (unprocessed) lbs delivered 789,080 1,090,928 Certified product lbs. 226,508 246,982
Publications
- No publications reported this period
|