Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility* ACollaborative*Cooperative*

  • View
    10

  • Download
    6

Embed Size (px)

Text of Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility ... 1! Feasibility*Study;*Meat*Processing*Facility*...

  •  

     

    1  

    Feasibility  Study;  Meat  Processing  Facility   A  Collaborative  Cooperative  

    Salmon  ID,  Challis  ID,  MacKay  ID    

       

     

  •  

     

    2  

    Project  Team:    

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

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

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

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

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

    Island  County  Cooperation   Puget  Sound  Meat  Processing  Co-­‐op  

    CPoW  Livestock  Processors  Coop–Odessa  WA   Taos  Economic  Development  Corporation  

     

    University  of  California,  Extension  Svcs   Polar  King  Industries  

    Mike  Callicrate;  Ranch  Foods  Direct   TriVan  Conversions  

  •  

     

    3  

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

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

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

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

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

  •  

     

    4  

    TABLES:     Table  1-­‐1:  Summary  Of  Options                 6   Table  1-­‐2:  Risk  Adjusted  Returns                 6   Table  2-­‐1:  U.S.  Retail  Beef  Sales  between  2012-­‐2013           11   Table  3-­‐1  Processing  Scenarios  and  Markets  Served           15   Table  4:  Cost  Estimates  for  fixed  facility,  Mendocino  County  Feasibility  Study     31   Table  5:  Estimate  of  Upfront  Start-­‐up  Project  Costs  for  Two  Options       39   Table  6A  and  6B;  Conversion  Tables  for  EAU  and  total  Head  Count       40   Table  7:  Operating  Assumptions  for  Revenue  Calculations         40   Table  8:  Option  A,  Phase  1:  Personnel  Costs             41   Table  9:  Option  A,  Phase  1:  Start-­‐up  and  Personnel  Costs           41   Table  10: