Issuu

The official magazine of the Robert M. Kerr Food & Agricultural Products Center, Oklahoma State University

fapc.biz

Fall/Winter 2013

Giving BAck PAGE 12

fapc.biz

contents

Fall/Winter 2013 Volume 8 | Issue 2

Managing Editor/Designer Mandy Gross | mandy.gross@okstate.edu Editors Rebecca Bailey | rrbaile@ostatemail.okstate.edu Dorothy Pugh | dorothy.pugh@okstate.edu Robert M. Kerr Food & Agricultural Products Center | Oklahoma State University 148 FAPC, Stillwater, OK 74078-6055 405-744-6071 | 405-744-6313 FAX www.fapc.biz | fapc@okstate.edu

12 foundation focus Photo/Todd Johnson

Giving back

3 director’s comments Adding value

14 oilseed processing Sunflower

4 client success Planning for the future

16 food safety Shutting down

6 industry perspective Customer service

18 product development Cereal transformation

7 business & marketing Caring for customers Crumbs from the kitchen Product pricing

20 food processing Something new

10 meat processing Lessons learned from brown water

22 quality management Controlling pests

Oklahoma State University, in compliance with Title VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order 11246 as amended, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and other federal laws and regulations, does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, age, religion, disability, or status as a veteran in any of its policies, practices or procedures. This includes but is not limited to admissions, employment, financial aid, and educational services. Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma. This publication is printed and issued by Oklahoma State University as authorized by the Vice President, Dean, and Director of the Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources and has been prepared and distributed at a cost of $2021 for 700 copies. 1113

director’s comments INTRODUCING FAPC’S INDUSTRY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Adding Value Before the Robert M. Kerr Food & Agricultural Products Center opened and well before the ribbon-cutting activities, the Oklahoma Legislature engaged in discussions about the launch and longevity of FAPC. After extensive considerations and considerable input from producers and food processors across the state, the legislature passed a state statute that established the Industry Advisory Committee. This committee was to provide external oversight for FAPC and provide business logic for the activities of FAPC. The state statute identified particular agribusiness and food industry sectors that should be represented on the committee, how these appointments would be made and who would make the appointments. The legislature decided to create a 16-member committee, which includes food and agricultural business leaders across the state and the vice president, dean and director of the Oklahoma State University Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources. These men and women advise FAPC without pay, taking time away from their businesses to provide a service to FAPC and to the state of Oklahoma. They are to be commended, and their work is much appreciated. The statute not only identified how the committee would be selected and who would select them, but also how the committee would be self-managed. The statute requires an identified chair, who is elected by the committee, to provide leadership within the committee. Currently, Paul Schatte, co-owner and vice president of Head Country Food Co., is the chairman. The governor of Oklahoma appointed these four business leaders to the committee: • John Griffin, president and chief executive officer of Griffin Food Co. and Griffin Holdings Inc., Muskogee, representing the national food processor sector doing business in Oklahoma; • Tom Kramer, executive director of the Durant Economic Development Authority, Durant, representing the economic development sector in Oklahoma; • Ed Clements, president, Clements Food Co., Oklahoma City, representing an Oklahoma food processor active with the Made In Oklahoma Coalition; and • John P. Lopez, vice president of operations, Lopez Food Co., Oklahoma City, representing a national food processor doing business in Oklahoma. The speaker of the Oklahoma House of Representatives appointed these four business leaders to the committee:

•

Allen Mills, president and chief executive officer, Reasor’s Foods, Tahlequah, representing the food marketing sector in Oklahoma; • Nancy Addington, transportation manager, Associated Wholesale Grocers, Oklahoma City, representing the food transportation sector; • Paul Schatte, co-owner and vice president of Head Country Food Co., Ponca City, representing the Oklahoma food processor sector; and • Luis Bogran, plant manager, Curwood, a Bemis Co., Pauls Valley, representing the industrial/pharmaceutical sector. The president pro-tempore of the state Senate appointed these four business leaders to the committee: • Dave McLaughlin, co-owner, AdvancePierre Food Co., Enid, representing the food transportation sector; • Gary Crane, owner, Ralph’s Packing Co., Perkins, representing the Oklahoma food processor sector; • David Howard, owner, president and chief executive officer of Unitherm Food Systems, Bristow, representing the industrial/pharmaceutical sector; and • Rodger Kerr, director and chief operating officer of the Southwest Technology Center, Altus, representing the textiles sector in Oklahoma. Finally, the vice president, dean and director of the Oklahoma State University Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources appointed three business leaders to the committee: • Virgil Jurgensmeyer, chairman of the board, J-M Farms, Miami, representing the agricultural production sector in Oklahoma; • John Williams, president and owner, Chef’s Requested Foods Co., Oklahoma City, representing the Oklahoma food processing sector; and • Scott Dvorak, Dvorak Farms, Perry, representing the agricultural production sector in Oklahoma. These agricultural and food industry leaders offer leadership, business experience, and industry knowledge and technology as an advisory board for FAPC, and they are highly appreciated. The men and women on this committee are truly adding value to Oklahoma. By Dr. Roy Escoubas, director roy.escoubas@okstate.edu

Corey Carolina, owner of Carolina Food Co., received product development assistance from FAPC to help grow his business.

Photo/Mandy Gross

client success

Planning for

the future Oklahoma entrepreneur celebrates one year of business selling Toasted Wine Fruit Spreads. Tulsa-native Corey Carolina wanted to take his grandmother’s passion for making jelly and start his own business developing delicious wine fruit spreads, and he did just that. In August 2011, he created Carolina Food Co. LLC. However, Carolina knew little about how to market his product. He turned to FAPC for assistance and attended the center’s Basic Training for food entrepreneurs, which helped him develop a plan for the future of his business. “I learned so many important things in the Basic Training class, such as marketing and the importance of looking at the competition,” Carolina says. “The jam/ jelly market is extremely competitive. When one of the presenters showed a slide of a grocery aisle with jelly products from top to bottom, I really realized that this was my competition. I needed to find a niche and be unique.” After attending Basic Training, Carolina followed the Client Success Path, a model established by FAPC to help clients enter the market. He continued to work with FAPC specialists for product scaleup, label and nutrition panel assistance, and marketing assistance, including food show opportunities. As a result of hard work and perseverance, Carolina sold his first jar of Toasted Wine Fruit Spreads in April 2012. This spring, he celebrated the completion of his first year of selling the unique wine spread.

“This is a big milestone,” says Rodney Holcomb, FAPC agricultural economist and one of the organizers of Basic Training. “Of the more than 1,200 Basic Training graduates, only about 15 percent of these new food product companies are in business after one year.” In addition to Carolina’s success in selling Toasted Wine Fruit Spreads, the company was named one of the top six in the 2013 Tulsa Community College Startup Cup business model competition. The seven-month competition is designed to support entrepreneurial growth, expand business and community connections and maximize promotional opportunities both locally and nationally. It awards local entrepreneurs who develop and pitch the best business model. The grand winner will be announced later in the year. The first-place winner receives $30,000, second place wins $5,000, and third place is awarded $2,500. “I have been blessed to have been selected to the top six entrepreneurs in the Startup Cup,” Carolina says. “My dreams have come true; I have been able to sell Toasted Wine Fruit Spreads to great Oklahomans who have been so supportive.” Carolina said FAPC is essential to the success of a small business, and the center has gone above and beyond to help his company. “I want others to take the leap of faith and start selling their products,” Carolina says. “The Startup Cup coaches and

judges have helped me improve my business. It is opportunities like this that really support the small business industry.” Today, Toasted products are available in six flavors: Strawberry with Sangria Wine, Peach with Peach Chardonnay, Plum with Sangria Wine, Grape with Blush Wine, and a Wine Pepper Spread and Wine Pepper Sauce, both with bell peppers and jalapeños. The fruit and wine spreads can be used on sandwiches, meats, cream cheese, toppings for cakes or ice cream and more. Carolina said his future plans include continuing to work with FAPC to further develop his brand and distribution methods and launch at least two more products. What advice does he have for others wanting to start a food company? “Be willing to work late and often seven days a week,” Carolina says. “Be willing to travel, give out free samples and make a personal financial investment. Follow your dreams.” Carolina’s products are available at more than 50 retail outlets including several Oklahoma wineries; Green Acres Market in Jenks, Okla.; Akin’s Natural Foods and Whole Foods in Tulsa and Oklahoma City, and Reasor’s in northeastern Oklahoma. The products also can be purchased online at www.toastedwinespreads.com. By Mandy Gross, communications services manager mandy.gross@okstate.edu

industry perspective

Customer Service Customer service is a company’s ability to provide what its customers want or need. Good customer service is important because customers will turn their backs to businesses that do not provide it. Because it adds value to a company’s product, the importance of good customer service cannot be emphasized enough. Getting customers is not the big picture; keeping them is. Customer service will make or break repeat business, and your customers’ loyalty is a measure of how well you are doing.

Whether a company is small or large, every aspect of operation is vital. Good customer service procedures are no exception. Head Country Food Co. proudly manufactures Oklahoma’s No.1 selling barbecue sauce. If our customers feel they are not getting value for their money, then they will find another barbecue sauce to try. We don’t stay No. 1 by resting on our laurels. Following are Head Country’s fundamentals of good customer service.

ustomers are No. 1. It is the key to creating customer loyalty and how to build your business.

nderstand the customer’s concerns.

how sensitivity to the customer’s concern.

nergy makes good customer service great.

esources to provide good customer service are necessary.

riginating a good customer service plan will help you meet your company’s goals.

raining is vital. Listen and evaluate how your employees talk to your customers. Give positive and, if necessary, constructive criticism to improve customer service.

anagement must create an environment that builds staff morale and, therefore, good customer service.

veryone in the company must be involved.

espond quickly to diffuse a negative situation.

imple steps will take you a long way, like a smile.

ision for growth is vital. Your customer service plan should be based upon your company’s mission statement and vision. Don’t have a mission statement? Now is the perfect time to put on paper your vision for your company and your plans for growth.

ntegrity is important.

ommunicate effectively.

valuate customer service efforts to know if the company’s plan is effective. By Paul Schatte, Head Country Food Co. pschatte@headcountry.com

business & marketing

Caring for customers After the majority of new entrepreneurs go through the process of starting a new business, it is their mission to find their first customer to buy their product. For the purpose of this article, let’s focus on selling in retail grocery stores. Regardless of the product, there are always many options for the consumer to consider. National brands will be prominent, as well as the ever-increasing private label/store brand products, and in some categories a presence of Made in Oklahoma products. Food entrepreneurs must research several stores to evaluate the competition, amount of shelf space and prices to focus and plan where the best fit might be in the category. It also is important to remember to sell the attributes of a product — why it would sell and information about the history of the recipe. The majority of retail grocery stores have category managers that may include all products on both sides of the aisle, so

it is important to get the name of the right person to present the product. It is always best to make an appointment with the proper manager rather than just “pop in” unannounced. After all, the managers’ No. 1 priority is to get the shelves stocked for the consumers. Entrepreneurs also must be prepared for that appointment with samples, pricing information and any sales materials or brochures to answer any questions. An entrepreneur’s best bet is to start with a local store where they shop and might be recognized from shopping there. Always offer to do demos to get sales started and to show the category manager that the entrepreneur is committed to the product. This is where the caring for the customer becomes important not only for the entrepreneur, but also the store itself. Too many new companies think that once the product is on the shelf, it will automatically continue to sell, and that is not the case at all.

Remember consumers may not even notice a new product, given their shopping habits of always buying the same product. The entrepreneur should always do store visits at least every two to three weeks to talk to the manager about sales and any feedback received from shoppers. If there are any concerns about sales, the entrepreneur should be ready to address the issue and offer a viable solution. In some cases it may take up to six months to establish a consistent volume of sales, and having established a relationship with the category manager may keep the product from being discontinued or buy additional time to increase sales. Competition is fierce in the retail grocery business and particular product categories, so small businesses must care for every customer they have. By Jim Brooks, business and marketing services manager jim.brooks@okstate.edu

KITCHEN

business & marketing

FAQs FAPC

I just registered my company with the Food and Drug Administration. Will I ever need to renew my application, and if so, how often? The Food Safety Modernization Act requires food companies to re-register every two years. This can be done for free online following the step-by-step instructions at www.fda.gov/food/guidanceregulation/foodfacilityregistration/ucm2006832.htm.

How is a label for a pet treat different than a product made for human consumption? Both types of labels need to list the following information: brand name, statement of identity, net quantity of contents, ingredient list in the order of most to least by weight, and the name and address of the manufacturer or distributor. Additional information is required on a pet treat label, including the name of the species for which the item is intended. It must be conspicuous in words on the display panel and can be included in the product name, such as “Chicken Treats for Dogs.” A guaranteed analysis is also mandatory for pet treats. Similar to a nutrition fact panel, this lists the percentage of each nutrient in the food. The label must list the minimum percent of crude protein and crude fat and the maximum percent of crude fiber and moisture. These four are always required. Note that “crude” refers to the analysis method, rather than the quality of the nutrient. As in a nutrition fact panel, the guarantees must be given in a particular order, in specified units and as a minimum or maximum, depending on the nutrient. If the product is pet food, the label also must include feeding directions and a nutritional adequacy statement to let the consumer know the food is balanced and complete for a specific life stage in an animal’s life (i.e., puppy food, for dogs 1-6 years old, etc.) and how much and how often to feed. The FDA considers pet treats, snacks and supplements as exempt from these two requirements as long as this is stated conspicuously on the principal display panel. For more information about pet treat labeling, contact FAPC or visit FDA’s website at www.fda. gov/AnimalVeterinary/ResourcesforYou/ucm047107.htm.

By Andrea Graves, business planning and marketing specialist andrea.graves@okstate.edu

business & marketing

Product Pricing When starting a food business, there are many details to think about and understand before manufacturing a product. One key factor is pricing, and it is important for food producers to know the starting price of their product. During the beginning stages of product development, food entrepreneurs usually purchase ingredients from a retail market or grocery story. Those ingredients are priced for retail, which means they are paying more than buying the ingredients at a wholesale market. This is important to understand because the starting cost will more than likely give the food entrepreneur a worst-case scenario for the cost of production. So, how does one calculate the beginning cost of making a product? First, when purchasing ingredients for a product, keep all receipts. Evaluate the recipe and determine how much of each ingredient is used. The easiest way to determine the cost of the ingredients is to know the weight of each ingredient. Measure the ingredients used in the recipe by the same method of measurement of the purchased product. If the product purchased is measured in ounces, measure the weight of the ingredient used in ounces. Once the weight of the ingredient used, the weight of the product purchased and the price paid for the product is known, then the price of the ingredient can be calculated using cross multiplication. This process should be repeated for each ingredient used in the recipe. Add all ingredient prices to figure the cost of making that product. Food entrepreneurs can go one step further and calculate the cost of the product per container. To do this, determine how many containers are used when making the product and divide the number of containers by the cost of the product produced. Knowing the starting price of a product is essential to determine whether the product can be sold at a price that covers the production costs. By Erin Johnson, business and marketing client coordinator erin.joy.early@okstate.edu

meat processing

Lessons learned It was the first day of classes at Oklahoma State University in Stillwater, Okla., and that week is often referred to as Welcome Week. Beep. Beep. Beep. Buzz. Buzz. I received an image on my smartphone from a colleague at FAPC. The text stated, “OSU welcome week … Even the toilet water has an orange hue.” The image was a toilet where the water had an orangish-brownish hue to it. I chuckled and began to deduce all the reasons for this discolored water. Briefly, discolored water is nothing new, especially when the university’s utilities department periodically flushes the distribution lines. Sometimes sediment gets awakened and jostled back to life, discoloring the water briefly. I dismissed the discoloring. But the colored water persisted and worsened. During the next few days, the water supplied to FAPC transitioned from mostly orange (cool for OSU) to mostly brown (not so cool). The discolored water was not just in our facility, but a campuswide problem. And the fact that it was unsightly and embarrassing when visitors needed an explanation wasn’t even the real headache. FAPC operates a food-processing facility and is co-regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture — Food Safety Inspection Service, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Oklahoma State Department of Health and others. USDAFSIS stations inspection personnel at the facility every day of the work week. Water is crucial to food manufacturing, and during this event, it became clear that water potability could be questionable. The campus utilities department sent a mass email message across campus: “OSU Water Treatment Plant is aware of the discoloration in the potable water on

campus. Chemical treatments have been adjusted over the weekend; however, the discoloration has continued. This discoloration can affect clothes washed in laundry so caution should be taken on lighter colors. The water [drinking] fountains on campus have additional filtration, which successfully removes the discoloration, so we encourage drinking from fountains if you are concerned. While the direct cause is still being investigated, water tests still show that the water is potable and meets DEQ requirements.” This statement came from James Rosner, the engineer responsible for the water supply for campus. He had the credentials for his position, but we required data for our regulators. The federal meat inspectors at FAPC became concerned about the conclusions offered by the campus water and utilities authorities that the discoloration was the result of elevated manganese levels due to an environmental phenomenon at the water source of Lake Carl Blackwell. Our regulators were not satisfied with an email dialogue, which continually affirmed the potability of the water. The federal inspection team requested a formal report from Oklahoma State University. FAPC shared with Rosner the law for meat-processing regulations: 9CFR, specifically 9CFR 416.2(g), which uses direct language describing the requirements for water used by meat-processing establishments, such as “reports … certifying the potability of the water supply.” FAPC eventually received a formal report of potability, which satisfied the regulatory requirements. So what are the lessons? First of all, food-processing establishments should get to know the keepers of their water supply before a crisis occurs. Introduce yourselves and help the utility provider understand

your water usage and your water needs — not just volume, but how it is used as well. Rosner eventually came to visit FAPC, which cleared up questions he had about our type of water usage, and he understood our needs better.

meat processing

brown water And secondly, you must understand the regulatory requirements and be able to explain them to others. There are multiple regulatory instruments for water use and water potability. All parties should do their best to understand the requirements.

What is the big lesson? Clean water is often a luxury, and you may not know its value until it’s no longer available. Be prepared with a plan of action in the event of a sudden removal of clean water.

By Jake Nelson, meat processing specialist/facilities manager jacob.nelson@okstate.edu

foundation focus

Longtime friend and supporter Dave McLaughlin supports product innovation and food safety at FAPC.

Giving B

foundation focus

BAck

Photo/Todd Johnson

Dave McLaughlin, a longtime friend of FAPC, provided a stock gift valued at $50,000 to FAPC’s Product Innovation Fund. McLaughlin, co-founder of Advance Foods in Enid, Okla., which merged with Pierre Foods of Cincinnati in 2010 to form AdvancePierre Foods, is a charter member of FAPC’s Industry Advisory Committee and has served since before the center opened in 1997. “I have been involved in the center since its inception,” McLaughlin says. “I hope this gift will encourage others in food and agriculture. I think it has a great future, and I think OSU is a great place to find out about it.” FAPC Director Roy Escoubas says McLaughlin has been a true supporter of FAPC. “Dave has been a visionary leader for us, always asking pointed questions and donating freely of his time and talents,” Escoubas says. “He has greatly assisted FAPC in providing the best possible service for our clients and stakeholders across the state, with a particular emphasis on programs that provide food safety assistance to Oklahoma’s food industry.” Providing the stock gift is not the first time McLaughlin has donated to FAPC. “We appreciate Dave’s leadership and commitment to FAPC’s mission,” says Karen Smith, FAPC workshop coordinator and Foundation Focus team member. “Over the years, Dave has helped fund many projects both through support from Advance Foods and personally with his wife Jean.” McLaughlin, along with Advance Foods, provided $213,000 to support programs in research and global food safety at FAPC. This money helped to fund the Advance Food Company/S.E. Gilliland Professorship in Microbial Food Safety. FAPC’s Food Microbiologist Peter Muriana received this professorship. Muriana says the long title of the Advance Food Company/S.E. Gilliland Professorship in Microbial Food Safety is indicative of its importance. “The title of the professorship carries two names: one a large, successful

Oklahoma food company, and the other an eminent faculty member of OSU and noted food microbiologist, so to be associated with a title baring both of these names is an honor,” Muriana says. Throughout his post-graduate and professional career, Muriana says he has always worked on research related to beneficial and inhibitory cultures, which was also one of Gilliland’s areas of expertise. Muriana says perhaps some of his work may be applied to ensuring the safety and quality of AdvancePierre Foods’ products. “It’s what I am able to do with the endowed professorship that is important,” Muriana says. “With this professorship, I intend to use the funds to enrich my activities in research, extension and teaching.” These types of monetary opportunities to support research benefit not only FAPC, but also the entire food industry. “We have a lot of great employees who graduated from OSU and wanted to support the institution,” McLaughlin says. “Basically, we wanted to give back in some way. We weren’t sure exactly how it was going to end up, but decided to give the resources to the university and let them decide how to best use it.” FAPC’s Foundation Focus team serves to support and enhance the programs that carry out FAPC’s mission through donations of individual and industry partners to the Product Innovation Fund. To date, the Product Innovation Fund has received more than $1 million in contributions from the Oklahoma value-added industry and from private individuals. Future fapc.biz magazine issues will feature other research and technical projects and programs supported by FAPC Foundation Funds. To learn more about the Product Innovation Fund, visit www.fapc.biz/fund. You also may direct your questions to Chuck Willoughby, FAPC manager for business and marketing relations, by calling 405744-6071 or emailing chuck.willoughby@ okstate.edu. By Chuck Willoughby, business and marketing relations manager chuck.willoughby@okstate.edu

oilseed processing

It is believed that the sunflower was domesticated from its wild counterpart around 1000 B.C. in what is now the western United States. Although Spanish explorers introduced the sunflower to Europe in 1510, Russians were the first to recognize that sunflower could be used as a food crop in the late 1800s. Work in sunflower crop improvement started in Russia around 1860, and sunflower varieties with about 50 percent oil content were in production by the late 1940s. At the time, U.S. varieties had only 20 percent to 30 percent seed oil content. Sunflower (Helianthus annuus) is a very attractive crop to grow, partly because of its short growing season, 90 to 100 days from planting to maturity in the north-central U.S. Full-season varieties require slightly longer to mature. Sunflower exhibits heliotropism, which means the flowering heads track the sun’s movement. However, heads of some new varieties face the ground as the plants mature, which could reduce bird damage and disease development. Since sunflower survives droughts through its extensive taproot, poorly drained soils or soils that would prevent taproots from penetrating are detrimental for sunflower growth. Yields can be more than 3,000 pounds per acre, although more likely to be 1,000 pounds to 1,500 pounds per acre and up to 2,500 pounds per acre under good growing conditions. Oil content of the seeds may vary from 40 percent to 50 percent based on seed weight. Sunflower did not become a viable commercial crop until the mid-1970s in the U.S. Over the years, the North American sunflower market faced many challenges. Crop properties have been modified and production moved to more arid regions, leaving most processing plants out of position.

Until the 1960s, animal fat was the top choice for cooking applications. Developed countries began switching to vegetable oils as more and more research findings implicated animal fat as a contributing factor to heart disease. In the U.S., hydrogenated soybean oil was the main substitute for animal fat while Western Europe switched to sunflower oil. The Soviet Union was the main supplier of sunflower seed and oil to Western Europe until supplies started to dwindle because of the increasing domestic demand, production issues and exports to Soviet allies such as Cuba. At the same time, farmers in the Red River Valley were in need of alternative crops to spring wheat and barley, which were produced in excess with low prices. Barley and wheat yields increased significantly when grown in rotations with a broad leaf crop such as sunflower. Farmers in the U.S. and Canada were quick to seize the market opportunity in Europe, and they increased the sunflower production to meet the demand for sunflower seed that was crushed into oil and meal in Europe. Unfortunately, the lucrative business did not last long. In the early 1980s, the European Union agricultural policy was redirected, and farmers were given lucrative subsidies to produce oilseeds, mostly rapeseed and sunflower. Western European demand for North American sunflower seed declined dramatically, and so did plantings. Three large sunflower crush plants were built in North Dakota during the late 1970s to early 1980s, but the domestic demand for sunflower oil was small. Although Mexico filled part of the lost European market, the U.S. market for sunflower oil did not recover until another health issue, the adverse effects of trans fats, emerged.

The 2006 implementation of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration trans fat labeling rule had a great impact on sunflower oil markets. North American food manufacturers were urged to find a suitable replacement for the market dominated by partially hydrogenated soybean oil. A new variety with high oleic acid content found new domestic demand. The traditional price relationship between U.S. sunflower and soybean oil of approximately $40/metric ton escalated to approximately $110/metric ton. After a devastating sunflower production season in 2011 and consequently limited oil production, oil prices skyrocketed and food companies sought alternative sources of supply once again. This was extremely damaging to sunflower future market demand in the U.S. Global sunflower seed production varies between 30 million and 40 million tons a year. Ukraine (6-9 million tons a year), Russia (5-10 million tons a year), China (about 2 million tons year) and Argentina (2-4 million tons a year) are the largest producers. U.S. production for 2010, 2011 and 2012 were 1.2 million, 0.9 million and 1.2 million tons a year, respectively. Mostly oilseed varieties (about 85 percent of the production) have been grown in the U.S., but snack food and birdfeed are also important markets. Sunflower mixed with millet and other grains is sold as birdfeed. The black oilseed varieties are usually favored as birdfeed over the striped confectionary seeds because of their lower cost. Sunflower seed is a good energy source because of its high oil content. The production, processing and packaging of confection sunflower, which is directly consumed as a whole seed, require special care. Sunflower for the confection market is grown on contract basis. Farmers have to

Sunflower

A oi fo

oilseed processing

potential ilseed crop or Oklahoma.

area has immature seeds. Delayed harvest until after the flowering stage will result in crude protein loss and an increase in lignin content. Sunflower should be allowed to wilt and dry out before being ensiled. Sunflower silage contains a higher amount of crude protein than that of corn silage, the same as that of tall fescue hay but lower than that of alfalfa hay. Sunflower silage is suitable for steers and dry or low-producing milk cows, but not for high producing milk cows. Although the markets are not large, sunflower hulls are also marketed as poultry litter, fireplace logs and other highfiber products. Generally, sunflower oil is considered a premium oil due to its light color, mild flavor and low level of saturated fatty acids. Conventional, also referred to as regular sunflower seed oil, is rich in linoleic acid (an essential polyunsaturated fatty acid) and low in saturated fatty acids. Decreasing linoleic acid and increasing oleic acid content in the oil is beneficial for improving oxidative stability. Indeed, many oilseeds, including sunflower seeds, have been modified through genetic engineering or traditional breeding to produce oils with a fatty acid profile suitable for different product applications and meet the consumer and food industry demands for oils with high nutritional quality, oxidative stability and functional properties. Regular (about 58 percent linoleic, 29 percent oleic), high oleic (90 percent oleic acid), high-stearic/high-oleic (24 percent stearic and 62 percent oleic), high-stearic/ high-linoleic (30 percent stearic and 50 percent linoleic), high-palmitic/high-linoleic (32 percent palmitic and 46 percent linoelic) and high-palmitic/high-oleic (29 percent palmitic and 56 percent oleic) sunflower seeds have been developed.

Like most oils, sunflower oil has potential for many industrial products, but has not been used much for non-food applications in the U.S. Sunflower is a relatively new crop in Oklahoma. Only about 2,400 tons of sunflower were grown in the state in 2011, ranking it No. 9 in production after South Dakota, North Dakota, Kansas, Colorado, Nebraska, Texas, Minnesota and California. However, the growing oilseed industry in the state provides an excellent opportunity for farmers to adopt sunflower production. The Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Services has been running sunflower field trials at the Stillwater Agronomy Research Station and the Goodwell Research Station the last few years. The goals of these trials are to provide producers, extension educators, industry representatives and researchers with information on sunflower height, yield, oil content, lodging, first bloom date and conditions in which the crops were grown. As the sunflower acres grow in the state, Producers Cooperative Oil Mill in Oklahoma City is in an excellent position to expand its oilseed crushing capacity from cottonseed and canola to sunflower. Other oilseed crushing operations currently idle or operating below capacity also could benefit from sunflower production in the state. By Dr. Nurhan Dunford, oil/oilseed specialist nurhan.dunford@okstate.edu

National Sunflower Association. www.sunflowernsa.com/ all-about/ Robert L. Myers and Harry C. Minor. Sunflower: An American Native. extension.missouri.edu/p/G4290 FAO. 2013. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) FAOSTAT Data Base: FAO. faostat.fao.org/site/567/ DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=567#ancor

Photo/Todd Johnson

adjust seeding rates, plant spacing, disease and insect management, harvesting and storage conditions carefully to guarantee the best contract price. Off-spec seed delivery is rejected, and there are not many market alternatives for rejected confection sunflower. The crushing plants cannot utilize these seeds due to their large size, light test weight and low oil content. Typically, confection farmers are paid an $80 to $120/metric ton premium over oil type sunflower. There may be additional price premiums for percent large seed. Seed companies have developed hybrids that produce a higher percentage of large seed for human consumption. Specific markets require particular types of seeds. For example, export markets in Spain, Turkey and parts of the Middle East generally require a larger, longer seed. These consumers eat one seed at a time. North American consumers generally put handfuls of seeds in their mouths so these seeds must be slightly smaller. Sunflower also is used as a livestock feed and silage crop. Although it is not common, sunflower can be used as a forage. The meal seed residue after oil extraction, which contains 28 percent to 42 percent protein, is a good feed source. Most often, the seed is hulled or partially dehulled. The presence of hulls lowers the protein content in the meal. Hulled or partially dehulled sunflower meal is higher in fiber but lower in energy and protein contents than soybean meal. Sunflower meal is best substituted for soybean meal on an equal protein basis, which means that more sunflower is needed. Sunflower hulls are sometimes used as a roughage for ruminants, but more often are burned at the processing facility to avoid the high cost of transportation. The best time to harvest sunflower for silage is when about half of the head

The government shutdown affected food safety across the nation, including food safety activities of FAPC’s own Peter Muriana.

Photo/Mandy Gross

food safety

Shutting Down There is no doubt that what happens in the political arena in Washington, D.C., affects us all in ways we never would imagine. The original “sequestration” resulted in $85 billion in across-the-board cuts enacted for the remaining 2013 fiscal year. So every government entity had their resources reduced, even those that regulate food safety activities. More recently, because a new federal budget could not be agreed upon by Oct. 1 (the beginning of the new federal fiscal year), the government also had to be shut down. The government shutdown resulted in news that was rife with accounts of the nation’s parks and national monuments being closed and the government not making its promised payments for deaths of servicemen to military families. Perhaps not as well publicized is how the government shutdown affected U.S. regulatory agencies overseeing the safety of the foods we eat. The Food and Drug Administration suspended all routine food safety inspections during the shutdown. Only those presenting an imminent threat to public health continued, and the states had to take over inspecting approximately half of the normal load of inspections. The FDA’s activities involving routine facility inspections, monitoring imports, notification programs and laboratory research were significantly curtailed. Other food-related issues affected by the shutdown included the Environmental Protection Agency halting its monitoring of air pollution and pesticide use, the National Institutes of Health stopping the intake of new patients for clinical research,

I think there might be a sentiment by those not involved with any kind of shutdown-furlough that this was all overblown hype. However, the sequestration and the government shutdown affected projects with which I am directly involved. For instance, I am a member of the USDA-FSIS-organized committee, the National Advisory Committee for the Microbial Criteria of Foods. The committee postponed conference calls and meetings because of the government shutdown. Although these are not life threatening, it delays the work of the committee, which often addresses several

food safety issues simultaneously, and I’m sure the USDA workers who were furloughed felt the pain. A research colleague of mine at USDA-Agricultural Research Service lost data on precious on-going experiments because he was forced to abandon his lab for several weeks. I know others were still working behind the scenes despite the shutdown, and I imagine this type of working through it all likely occurred in many other scenarios. In my opinion, people who feel they have a responsibility to do their job often don’t let interruptions (or shutdowns) get in their way.

and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stopping its flu-monitoring program and cutting back its response to foodborne outbreak investigations. On the other hand, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service was allowed those regulating meat and poultry products to continue working since the absence of inspectors would have meant shutting down the meat and poultry industry, since inspection is needed to allow meat and poultry to be sold. The shutdown happened the same time as a large nationwide Salmonella (S. Heidelberg) outbreak. The outbreak was associated with raw poultry, which is regulated by the USDA, conjuring thoughts

about whether the public is adequately protected. Although USDA inspectors may remain on-site for inspections, the agency often works hand-in-hand with the CDC in helping investigate nationwide outbreaks. But CDC personnel could not conduct cross-state investigations and laboratory work that helps link cases to specific outbreaks during the shutdown, a sign that public food safety was ill served by this government shutdown.

By Dr. Peter Muriana, food microbiologist peter.muriana@okstate.edu

product development

Cereal transfor Saturday morning cartoons, cereal and pajamas make up a classic combination if there ever was one. However, don’t believe that ready-to-eat cereal is confined to either children or the early morning time slot. In fact, cereal is not even confined to a bowl anymore. It seems the one constant factor in cereal’s long life is its grain base. James Caleb Jackson, who was something of a multi-disciplined character in the late 19th century, invented cold, ready-toeat breakfast cereal in the U.S. He was an abolitionist, editor and lecturer. He also was what would now be called a health/fitness buff.

Believing in the healing power of water, Jackson opened the Jackson Sanatorium in Dansville, N.Y., in 1859, where patients received, in addition to various water-based treatments, counseling on how to live a healthy lifestyle, including advice on diet and exercise. Additionally, Jackson served his patients specially formulated foods that he thought would promote better nutrition. One of these foods, created in 1863, was graham flour that had been mixed with water and baked into thick sheets, which were then broken into small pieces and baked again. This collection of small, brittle, rock-hard pieces was called Granula, a food that had to be soaked in milk overnight before it could be eaten. Voila! The first ready-to-eat breakfast cereal was born. Jackson was not alone in his quest to improve public health. John Harvey Kellogg was a surgeon, author and, like Jackson, something of a character in addition to being a fitness buff. He served

product development

rmation as the head doctor at the Medical and Surgical Sanitarium in Battle Creek, Mich., where he also advised his patients on health and healthy lifestyles. It seems that he found inspiration in Jackson’s work and created his own ready-to-eat cereal by mixing wheat flour, cornmeal and oatmeal together, then forming dough biscuits that were baked slowly. The biscuits were broken into pieces and dried out. Voila, part deux! The second breakfast cereal was born. Unfortunately, Kellogg also decided to call his creation Granula. Obviously, this didn’t sit well with Jackson, who sued Kellogg and won. Kellogg changed the name of his cereal to Granola. Kellogg would continue to refine his vision for breakfast foods and would eventually take wheat, boil it, roll the resulting dough out thin and bake it. The resulting sheet was broken in into small flat pieces called Granose. Voila, part trois! The first cereal flake was born. Kellogg would apply for a patent for his invention in 1894. Leaping forward to present day, and missing quite a bit of interesting history, including the bitter rivalry between John Harvey Kellogg and Charles William Post, some things in the world of cereal have changed and some have not. The basic intent of the ready-to-eat breakfast cereal to serve as a healthy meal hasn’t changed; however, how it is marketed has. Basic nutrition and re-fueling for the day after a long night’s sleep isn’t enough to connect cereal to consumers, who also want transparency and to feel connected with the products they purchase. With that in mind, One Degree Organic Foods launched a line of veganic, sprouted, Non-Genetically Modified Organism Project Verified cereals that are packaged in boxes bearing Quick Response, or QR, codes, which allow consumers to track each ingredient’s origin back to the farm. Fortification also can help a cereal out in a teeming field. Protein fortification was a popular 2012 trend. While common in cereal bars, it is relatively new in breakfast cereals.

Another popular trend of 2012 was the use of ancient grains, such as quinoa and spelt, in breakfast cereals. Additionally, modern consumers’ tastes and sensibilities have required manufacturers to package their products differently, as one might expect. One packaging trend in 2012 was portability. Brands such as Kellogg’s Krave, Quaker Life and Cap’n Crunch Crunch Berries offered single serving cups of cereal as convenient meals with minimal mess and reduced waste. To target today’s consumers successfully and match their tastes and expectations, manufacturers market cereal not only as a vehicle for health, but also as a means for consumers to attain a sense of well-being. Companies allow consumers to feel connected to the ingredient supply chain and thus the food they eat, and allow them to feel like good environmental stewards by reducing food waste through convenient, portion-control packaging. By Dr. Darren Scott, sensory specialist darren.scott@okstate.edu

www.preparedfoods.com/articles/112457-cereals-and-bars-expand-and-diversify www.preparedfoods.com/articles/113040-vegan-cereal Bruce, Scott and Bill Crawford. 1995. Cerealizing America: The Unsweetened Story of American Breakfast Cereal. Faber and Faber Inc., Winchester, Mass. Gitlin, Marty and Topher Ellis. 2011. The Great American Cereal Book: How Breakfast Got Its Crunch. Abrams, New York, N.Y.

food processing

Something New Discussions of food product development usually start with quoting numbers that go something like this: Around 20,000 new food products are introduced each year, and about 90 percent fade away. The rest hang around for a while. The numbers noted may not be spot on, but the point is few products stay, and most go away. The good part is that consumers get many products to try out and plenty of variety to enjoy in the long haul. The not-so-good part is significant resources are used to come up with the few “pot-of-gold” products. Most new food products are a spin on existing products. For example, Phil Lempert, who bills himself as the Supermarket Guru, evaluates five new food products weekly, ranking them as a hit or a miss. During a recent 10-week period, the top five product categories were sauces, snacks, bars, beverages and products with a healthy claim of some kind. According to U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service data, the top categories in 2010 were candy, gum, snacks, beverages and processed meats. A trend appears to be the proliferation of line extensions, typically flavor varieties, for food and beverages of all types. With all the new varieties, it is sometimes a challenge to find the original product among the expanded line. Most new food products are “evolutionary” rather than “revolutionary,” where the end result is lots of new items fighting for shelf space. Product development should start with a plan, continue with a plan and end with a plan. The plans are part of a system to be followed and revised, as experience dictates. Remember that a system consists of interacting inputs, processes and outputs. The plan should not be based solely upon “gut feel” and results solely dependent upon “luck.” “Luck” and “gut feel” can contribute, but facts also must be gathered. An excellent product does not guarantee success, as there are many so-so products that are highly successful, as well as many excellent products that fail. The product is only one part of the system. A system for product development can range from “my gut says ‘just do it’” to a formalized series of target events, or in most cases, someplace in between. Like a business plan, who, what, when, where, why and how should be defined for the product before product development begins. This does not always happen. For example, entrepreneurs often start with a product and build a plan based on “now what?” If a business case cannot be

made for the product, move on to something else or revise the product or plan. When developing a system, focus more on “why” and less on “what.” “Why” does the product /company exist, not what can/ cannot be done? Do not get boxed in by assuming something cannot be done. Expand the power of “why” to “why not” and follow up with the challenge of “how.” Let’s look at six components that should be in a product development system, as well as some questions to answer and tips.

The product business plan Begin by answering what is the product, concept and niche? Next, define who needs it, who is the customer and who is the competition. Determine where the product will be made and sold. Estimate volume, cost, margins and financial requirements to answer the why do it question. Consider how the product differs from its competition. As planning evolves, the initial product idea may be redefined several times. Finally, build a case for or against the product.

The benchmark The new product’s competition and niche should be specified by now. The question now is: How does the proposed product and/or the competing products match up? Does the new product offer greater real or perceived value in some way? Obtain competitor product sample for in-depth analysis. Study and record packaging, including materials, labeling, claims, ingredient statements and nutrition facts for comparison as applicable. Prepare and evaluate texture, flavor and any unique sensory characteristics. Perform laboratory analysis to determine product composition. Summarize key differences and determine what may or may not be desired for the new product.

The go-ahead This is where “let’s do it” comes into play. All information from the product business plan and the benchmark is reviewed, broken down into small pieces and used to closely define and prioritize development objectives. If the information is incomplete or needs clarification, get the questions settled. Plan focus groups or test marketing, if applicable. Make sure everyone is working toward the same objectives and timetable.

food processing

Review pertinent regulatory and food safety issues. Consider upcoming issues such as Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls as noted in the Food and Drug Administration Food Safety Modernization Act. Begin to set product specifications.

The product development If product development has already taken place, go back to item one. The product concept and objective should be very clear by now, with target specifications finalized. Prepare prototypes to evaluate product performance and robustness. Finalize recipe, ingredients and quality standards. Establish yield, process reliability and costs.

The production plan Invite operations’ input throughout the development to minimize surprises and smooth the transition to production. You don’t want to get to the end and hear, “We can’t make this unless … .” It is better to hear, “We can handle it,” or “We can handle it, if … .”

The marketing plan Create a marketing plan beyond “It is so good it will sell itself.” Potential buyers must be aware the product exists and will fill a need before they will buy it. Think of marketing of as how companies speak to potential customers and as a way to build awareness. Speak in a way that will inspire and create loyalty rather than, “We have this product and will sell it for less than any competitive product.” The marketing plan also should cover scheduling, pricing, delivery, promotion, advertising and services beyond customers’ expectations. The objective of this article has been to bring up a few thoughts to consider when planning a system for new food product development. The most important factor is left for the end. At the start, put together a team that will participate throughout the entire process. It should be “cross-functional” and represent technical, marketing, accounting, operations, purchasing or many “multi-hats” throughout the company. If there is buy-in between various functions, the system will perform like a well-oiled machine. As time goes on, continue to improve the system.

Product Development System 1. The product business plan

2. The benchmark

3. The go-ahead

4. The product development

5. The production plan

6. The marketing plan

By David Moe, food process consultant david.moe@okstate.edu

quality management

Controlling Pests Is your pest control program GFSI ready?

Review of the pest control program has been 20 percent of the audit points in traditional food safety and sanitation audits. The current audit schemes that meet the Global Food Safety Initiative have moved pest control within the site standards for good manufacturing practice and pre-requisite programs. The pest control program looks to be buried, but it is not. The standards identify that an effective pest management program is absolutely critical. The evidence or presence of live rodents, birds or insects will lead to problems or even failures in audits. According to the British Retail Consortium Global Standard for Food Safety, “The whole site shall have an effective preventive pest control program in place to minimize the risk of infestation and there shall be the resources available to rapidly respond to any issues which occur to prevent risk to products.” In addition, “The methods and responsibility shall be documented and effectively implemented,” according to the Safe Quality Food Code. Integrated pest management, or IPM, is the underlying theme in the GFSI schemes, says Zia Siddiqi in “Pest Control: Past and Present,” an article in

the August/September 2010 issue of Food Quality & Safety magazine. “IPM is no longer a nice-to-have for the big brands but a must-have for all food processors who want to distribute their products to major retailers,” Siddiqi says. “Food processors now view pest management providers as partners in food safety rather than as vendors who practice what the industry has long referred to as ‘spray and pray.’” Just as the GFSI schemes are riskbased approaches to food safety, IPM is a risk-based approach to pest control. Pest control is moving away from the prescriptive instructions on where to place monitoring devices and using a results-based approach. Trends, inspection and annual reviews by professionals will determine the effectiveness and validation of the pest control program. The GFSI schemes will provide the criteria for pest control, but the National Pest Management Association provides pest management standards for food plants. Food safety professionals emphasize how programs must be based on regulation, science and historical evidence. The NPMA Pest Management Standards provide the risk-based approach to IPM.

Food companies and their pest control operators should have a copy of this standard and incorporate the concepts into their IPM systems. Pest control and even IPM programs have been well defined in the traditional food safety audits. The GFSI schemes take the next step and ask, “Is the program effective?” Trends of the findings, review by pest control operators and training the employees will verify the effectiveness of pest control programs. Trending According to the BRC criteria, “Results of pest control inspections shall be assessed and analyzed for trends on a regular basis.” (See sidebar.) Using graphs such as bar graphs or plot graphs can make the data visual for employees, management and auditors. The graphs should clearly define the “action threshold” or the level of pest activity that requires a response. For some facilities, this could be one; others may be higher, based on the risk of contaminating food product. When the threshold is exceeded, then a non-conformance or corrective action report is to be completed identifying the

quality management

investigation and conducting a thorough root cause analysis and preventive actions. If there are no results to trend or the trends did not meet an action threshold, it is important to document the assessment with a date and signature to meet the GFSI scheme. Review The BRC criteria also states, “An in-depth, documented pest control survey shall be undertaken at a frequency based on risk, but typically quarterly, by a pest control expert to review the pest control measures in place.” This documented review should be done by a pest control operator professional other than your weekly technician — if possible, the pest control company field biologist. The review brings an additional expert in to ask, “Is the pest control program designed and implemented correctly?” The review will consist of an in-depth assessment of the entire pest control program, including examination of the facility for a thorough inspection. The NPMA Pest Management Standard identifies this step as quality assurance and states, “At least once per year, prior to the anniversary of the date on which the company began pest management services at the food plant, a supervisor, quality assurance staff person, or a manager from the pest management company shall review the entire program onsite.” Training The SQF criteria requires the facility to “outline the methods used to make staff aware of the bait control program and the measures to take when they come in contact with a bait station; outline the requirements for staff awareness and training in the use of pest and vermin control chemicals and baits.” Food plant employees have rights to know what, when and where pesticides are used around the plant. Food plant employees also can be used to help identify issues before action thresholds are exceeded. Pest sighting reports should be available to staff to document if a rodent, insect or bird has been seen as an added layer of inspection. The NPMA Pest Management Standard identifies this step as annual training and states, “At least once per year, the pest management company shall offer to conduct an educational program for plant personnel.” Insects, rodents and birds harbor and spread disease-carrying organisms that can easily contaminate food products. An improperly applied pesticide also can result in the loss of thousands of dollars in product.

Food-manufacturing companies are not the place for a “doit-yourself” pest management approach. A well-designed IPM program using the NPMA Pest Management Standards along with the GFSI scheme will give these companies a GFSI-ready pest control program. By Jason Young, quality management and GFSI specialist jason.young@okstate.edu

Oklahoma State University Robert M. Kerr Food & Agricultural Products Center 148 FAPC Stillwater, OK 74078-6055

NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION U.S. POSTAGE PAID STILLWATER, OK PERMIT NO. 191

Adding value to Oklahoma Oklahoma State University

148 FAPC •• Stillwater, Ok 74078 Phone •• 405.744.6071 Www.fapc.biz