Evaluating Mobile Slaughter Access for Producers and Local Partners

Final Report FS20-323

Final Report

Survey respondents were asked to report data from their 2019 and 2020 farm operations, the thought being that the Covid pandemic likely disrupted their business. Some survey respondents did not answer all questions. So, the number of participants who replied to each question is indicated in the tables and figures that follow.

Tables 1-3 provide a summary of demographic information provided by the 159 respondents who participated in this survey.

In terms of years of operation, 62% of respondents indicated they had been in business for less than 10 years.  Of note, the USDA defines beginning farmers and ranchers “as those who have operated a farm or ranch for 10 years or less either as a sole operator or with others who have operated a farm or ranch for 10 years or less.”  Only 38 percent of the respondents indicated that they had been in business for 10 years or longer.

Nearly half of the operations (47 percent) were less than 10 acres in size, with another 39% being between 10 and 50 acres. Six percent of the operations were between 50 and 100 acres, and 8 percent were over 100 acres in size.

Annual revenues from 2019 showed a strong tendency toward smaller sized operations. Thirty two percent of respondents indicated revenues less than $1,500, while another 30 percent reported revenues between $1,500 and $5,000; in other words, over 60 percent of survey respondents reported annual sales of less than $5,000. Twenty seven percent of respondents reported revenues of between $5,000 and $10,000 and 18 percent reported revenues between $10,000 and $20,000. Only 3 percent of respondents indicated that their operation generated revenues between $20,000 and $100,000, and another 3 percent reported revenues in excess of $100,000.

Table 1 Number of Years in Operation

¹ The percentage of farmers responding to years in operation.

Table 2 Number of Acres in Farm Operation

¹The percentage of farmers responding to acres in operation

Table 3 Revenue Produced from Raising Small Ruminants

¹ Revenue earned by categories [less $1500, $1500- $5000 or between $5500-5600].

² Actual income, earned by respondents per category.

³ Percentage of income earned by respondents per category. For example, 3% of the respondents    

  earned $120 or 6% earned $5,000 annually from farming.

Farms by Florida County

While the original goal of this project was to look at goat meat markets and processing, the project survey generated responses from approximately as many sheep producers as goat producers. Since both goats and sheep are small ruminants, and because of similarities between goats and sheep in terms of meat processing and marketing, we have included the responses of both goat and sheep producers in this report.

Figure 1.  Goat and Sheep Farms by Florida County

The following map (Figure 2) illustrates the distribution, by county, of goat farms as reported by survey participants. While Marion County is also the largest county with goat farms, there seems to be a more scattered distribution of goat farms, again with the majority being in north-central Florida.

Figure 2.  Goat Meat Farms by Florida County

However, based on the data, there was a wider distribution of sheep farms in the state's southern region than goat farms, as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3.  Sheep Meat Farms by Florida County

Goat and Sheep Availability by Month

Most farms in the study had goats and sheep for slaughter from July through September, while fewer small ruminants were butchered during the winter months (Figure 4). The following figure (5) represents the number of goats and sheep available for slaughter by month from survey respondents in Florida. The monthly patterns shown are generally consistent with the data from figure 4 on the number of farms that have animals available for slaughter.

Figure 4.  Number of Florida Farms with Goat and Sheep for Slaughter, by Month, Based on Survey Responses

Figure 5.  Number of Goat and Sheep Available for Slaughter in Florida, by Month, Based on Farms Reporting

Travel for Processing

Table 4 summarizes the data provided by the survey respondents on the number of miles they currently travel or are willing to travel for custom exempt and USDA-inspected meat processing and packaging services. The first row in the table revealed that 31 participants reported the distance they traveled to access USDA-inspected processing was from 4 to 100 miles, with an average of 44.9 miles. A single respondent noted they traveled 4-miles, as was the case for the 100-mile response.

The second row of the table (4) showed that 25 participants reported how far they travel to access custom exempt processing, with responses varying from 1 mile (1 respondent) to 100 miles (1 respondent). The average for these responses was 30.8 miles, which is reasonable as ranchers would not be expected to travel as far to access custom-exempt processing as they would USDA inspected processing.

Furthermore, 37 participants responded to how far they would be willing to travel for custom exempt packaging. Their responses varied from 1 to 100 miles, with the average response being 40.7 miles, as shown in table 4. In both cases, the respondents indicated they would be willing to travel somewhat further than they presently travel to access USDA and custom exempt processing.

Table 4. Travel for Processing

Are Current Processing Options Meeting Your Needs?

The next three charts reveal additional information on processing difficulties that respondents face.

Figure 6 reports the results of the question whether current meat processing options are meeting the needs of 43 survey participants who responded.  Forty-two percent of the respondents reported that their current options for meat processing are not meeting their needs.

Figure 6.  Current Options for Processing Goat Meat

Forty percent of the respondents, as shown in Figure 7, revealed that they do not have access to USDA inspected packaging or custom exempt packaging.

Figure 7.  Accessibility to USDA or Custom Exempt Processing Facilities

However, respondents reported were almost evenly split on access to slaughter and processing as a barrier to the growth of their operations (refer to Figure 8).

Figure 8.  Barriers in Expanding Producer Farm Operation

When respondents were asked to describe the difficulties associated with meat processing, most who responded reported difficulty finding USDA certified processing, many of them also indicated that they had to travel too far for the service (refer to Table 4).

In Figure 9, sixty-four percent of respondents said they preferred USDA certified processing, indicating their difficulties accessing federal processing facilities. Thirty-one percent of respondents remarked that they favored custom exempt processing, and 5% of respondents revealed that they would like access to both forms of processing to satisfy their customer needs and marketing plans.

Figure 9.  Processing facility preference

When asked to describe the range of processing needs that are not being met, responses tended to point to the same few issues:

• Access to nearby processing facilities.
• Prohibitively high costs of processing small batches.
• Difficulty even finding processors who would handle small batches.

One respondent even indicated the quality of the cuts obtained from the USDA inspected facility they used was extremely poor.

Other Survey Responses

From this point onward in the survey, a relatively small number of participants entered responses, making it difficult to draw a more decisive conclusion. However, there are interesting insights to be gained from the data. The survey asked respondents to provide information on what they paid for slaughter and cut-and-wrap for USDA inspected and custom exempt processing. Unfortunately, very few participants responded to these questions. The reported prices varied over such a wide range that it was impossible to draw any useful information from the responses. Survey participants were also asked if they have current market opportunities for USDA inspected or custom exempt products that they cannot fully serve. 

The lack of processing facilities did not seem to be a constraint for goat and sheep producers. More than two-thirds of respondents indicated that they did not have markets they couldn’t serve because of processing.

The survey also questioned if slaughtering and processing access were barriers to growth for their farm operation. Over half of respondents indicated that it was not a barrier to growth.  Survey participants who answered that processing was a barrier to the development of their farm operation were asked to specify the obstacles to growth. The responses to this question were limited in number.

The primary complaint was about high processing fees, but also there were restrictions on access altogether, issues with transportation and related costs, and poor quality.

The survey then asked participants to identify if they served a customer base that requires specific processing methods to satisfy religious practices. Approximately 20 percent of producers indicated that they serve a customer base that compels special processing. Most of these producers also report they process goat or sheep to satisfy the Halal requirements and some Kosher demands.

Furthermore, scarcely more than 20 producers responded to the question about their level of satisfaction with USDA-inspected slaughter facilities. Their responses are in Table 5 and Table 6.  It should be noted that respondents often tended to give the same ranking for all categories. Also, some respondents did not reply to all categories, so the total number of responses varies slightly across categories.

Table 5. How satisfied are you with using Florida USDA-inspected slaughter facilities for each of the following categories? 

Table 6. How satisfied are you with using Florida Custom Exempt slaughter facilities for each of the following categories? 

When asked where survey participants marketed their goat and sheep products, 6 respondents indicated that they sold their animals live, 22 respondents indicated that they sold their meat products on farm direct to customers, 2 responded that they sold their meat products at farmers markets, one indicated that they sold their meat products to a local restaurant and one respondent indicated that they delivered their meat products directly to customers. 

Survey responses regarding the percent of annual goat and sheep sales going to each market the respondents serve, suggest very focused marketing channels, with nearly all farms relying on only a single market channel for all of their sales.

Nineteen producers reported primarily serving their own county in which they operate. Responses for geographic markets served are contained in Table 7.

Table 7. Geographic Areas Served

Slightly over half of producers who responded (13 out of 21 respondents) indicated that they had recently experienced challenges in serving their current markets. Challenges identified included:

• COVID-19
  • can't take sheep to fairs to gain exposure
  • reduced custom slaughter availability
• Can't find quality advertising outlets
• Limited ability to arrange for slaughter and marketing
• Concern about being dependent on only a single marketing channel
• Lack of USDA facilities nearby
• Can't sell meat due to law/expense
• Can't get the processing done
• Inability to sell online
• Higher gasoline prices
  • Customers won't travel as far to purchase meat, therefore, decreasing my sales
  • Customers expect discounts to cover their extra fuel costs
• Breed association and registration company restricting flock management under threat of losing registration.

Once again, responses regarding the maximum amount that producers would be willing to pay for USDA-inspected and Custom-Exempt slaughter and processing services were very limited and spread over such a wide range that they offered no useful information or insights. 

Concluding Observations

Discussion

It must be noted that the COVID-19 pandemic presented a great challenge to completion of this grant.  The recruitment and survey dissemination methods written into the grant were simply not possible to execute given the shut-down of public events.  An unforeseen opportunity to collaborate with a University of Florida grant, similar to this SARE grant to survey livestock producers in Florida, allowed us to combine survey instruments and recruit from additional populations. This widened our pool of respondents and made in-person contact with producers less of a barrier to completion.

Survey responses suggest very focused marketing channels, with nearly all farms relying on a single market channel for all of their sales.

More than two-thirds of respondents indicate that they do not have markets they are unable to serve because of processing limitations.  The survey also questioned if slaughtering and processing access were barriers to growth for farm operations. Over half of respondents indicated that it was not a barrier to growth.

In looking at the survey results for satisfaction with current use of USDA-inspected slaughter facilities and current satisfaction with use of Custom Exempt slaughter facilities, the nature of producer’s relationship to the processed meat must be considered.  For Custom Exempt, the producer facilitates the processing for the buyer of the animal.  For USDA-inspected slaughter, the producer takes ownership of the processed meat for sale and thus may have higher expectations for the quality of the meat.

Based on the results of this survey, at this time, it does not appear that a Mobile Slaughter Unit (MSU) or small USDA slaughter facility could be supported in Florida for small ruminants as,

• current production is limited to farmers with small acreage (production constraints)
• the existing production constraints limits sales
• the majority of current small ruminant producers are beginning farmers and relatively inexperienced