BIM Presentation J Fagan Food Product Development
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Like this? Share it with your network


BIM Presentation J Fagan Food Product Development

Uploaded on

Presentation by John Fagan of BIM as part of Enterprising Donegal Business Week 2013

Presentation by John Fagan of BIM as part of Enterprising Donegal Business Week 2013

More in: Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads


Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 5 4 1

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide


  • 1. John Fagan
  • 2. Tech-transfer
  • 3. Researching Innovative technologies for industry
  • 4. Kinds of queries we deal with… “I have the raw material – what will I make”? “I found this French product, can I make something similar”? “Where can I source these trays/film”? “How do I package it”? “I’m only getting 6 days shelf-life, I want 12…21...”“What kind of packaging equipment will I buy”? “Ive already bought a packaging machine – do you think its suitable”?!
  • 5. We deal with numerous Irish and International packaging companiesEquipment suppliersTraysFilmBottlesCansPouchBag etc
  • 6. We deal with numerous National and International packaging suppliers
  • 7. We deal with numerous National and International equipment suppliers
  • 8. Numerous ingredients companies..
  • 9. Numerous other processing equipment suppliers
  • 10. To date….Over 300 company NPD projectsRanging from small to largeRaw, chill, frozen, pasteurised, freeze-chill etc.Consumer foods, baby foods, pet-foodsDairy, beverage, meat/muscle foods, cereals etc.No “One-fits-all approach”Each situation is different
  • 11. Every company is differentSize of operationStages of growthBudget available for CapexRequired shelf-lifeTarget marketMarket size/volumeLevel of automation requiredExpertise/skillsProvenanceUse of ancillary equipment/processesEtc
  • 12. However one common factor…The most successful NPD ideas are market-led. Packaging represents most queries to date.
  • 13. Important to have a starting point for NPD processVaried nature of queriesNot all complete A-Z projects (farm to fork / boat to throatDifferent competencies of companies/individualsDifferent requirementsNeed to have a formal approach to dealing with client queries
  • 14. Develop our own model building on tried- and-tested methodologies1. Marketing Input 9. Shelf life and nutritional testing2. Concept Research 10. Customer Presentation3. Proposed ingredients and 11. Product sign off with raw material source customer4. Initial first product make up 12. Photography and pack5. Recipe Formulation design6. Sensory Evaluation 13. Confirm packaging7. Process technology 14. Pre production trials8. Work up costings 15. Launch Exhaustive process – stage gates at each stage to allow project to proceed/kill to next step Ref: Leatherhead UK
  • 15. Client comes in to discuss numerous Launch and ideas with team monitor Companycapabilities/strengths/equipment etc. versus Capex/equipment/ competitor outsourcing etc Tweak/adjust prototype based Market-specific on buyers spot check to look requirements at opportunity Working prototype If business-case Project proceed to project design/timelines/respo design (if not nsibilities/stage kill/adjust) gates/deliverables
  • 16. All NPD should be market-led “one-in-ten products are successful” “”a new product can take 18-months to get to market”
  • 17. Importance of market researchFirst step on the NPD processIs there a gap / demand for your product?Market research is essential & time well spent.Benchmark your concept against competitor offeringsSee what multiples require in terms of pack size/price-point etcOpportunity to determine what your competitors are using and try to improve upon this
  • 18. Store checks- quick and convenient
  • 19. Store checks allow you to buy and reverse-engineer successful productsGastropub: Main For Count on us: Low Fat Range Haddock CumberlandTwo€10.49 per 720g €5.99 per 400g Pie€3.39 per 300g Ensuring competitor USP’s are improved upon
  • 20. Additional sources of data e.g. Mintel/Kantar Bord Bia
  • 21. Recipe formulation/reverse engineering(Mintel) Tesco Thai Crab Fish Cakes Company: Subcategory: Date Published: ID:1592970 Tesco Fish Products 12 Jul 2011 Tesco Thai Crab Fish Cakes contain Alaska pollack and sweet chilli melt in the middle. The fish cakes are free from artificial preservatives, flavours and colours. This product retails in a 290g recyclable pack containing two pieces. Country: Ireland Storage Type:Frozen Ingredients: Crab meat (21%) (white crab meat (70%), brown crab meat (30%)), Alaska pollack (15%), wheat flour, sweet chilli sauce (12%) (water, red pepper, sugar, fructose, tomato, vinegar, cornflour, fish Nutrition: Per 100g: Energy 770kJ/185kcal, Protein 10.2g, Carbohydrate 18.1g (of which Sugars 4.7g), Fat 7.8g
  • 22. E.g. Mintel data
  • 23. Market-data can help you decide which strategy to go with Branded v’s own brand ?
  • 24. (Does the retailer have room for another fish chowder?!)
  • 25. Packaging has important role to playIn getting your product and brand noticedCan be retailer-push towards packaging formats e.g. MAP versus Skin-packAlso importantly, packaging must deliver optimal product quality over duration of shelf-life (food contact packaging)Important to screen competitor offerings
  • 26. Remember we are still in the initial stages of the project and are defining how market requirements 1. Marketing Input 9. Shelf life and 2. Concept Research nutritional testing 3. Proposed ingredients 10. Customer and raw material Presentation source 11. Product sign off with customer 12. Photography and 4. Initial first product pack design make up 13. Confirm packaging 5. Recipe Formulation 14. Pre production trials 6. Sensory Evaluation 15. Launch 7. Process technology 8. Work up costings
  • 27. Initial first product make-up…. From the food scientific perspective….Try to identify packaging materials/technologies early-onPackaging materials and equipment must deliver maximum quality throughout the shelf-lifePrototype development must ensure commercial scalability
  • 28. Physical functions of packaging Colour OxidationMicrobialTexture Odour SPOILAGE Moisture/Aw Chemical Sensory
  • 29. Spoilage organisms – Fresh meat E.g. Pseudomonas, Acinetobacter,Moraxella,Shewanella, Alcaligenes, Aeromonas, Escherichia, Enterobacter, Serratia, Hafnia,Proteus, Brochothrix, Micrococcus, Enterococcus, Lactobacillus, Leuconostoc, Carnobacterium and Clostridium.The predominant spoilage flora in a meat is determined by nutrient availability, oxygenavailability, storage temperature, pH, storagetime of the product, and generation time of themicro organisms present in a given environment
  • 30. Bacterial spoilage beer For brewing industry, beer spoilage bacteria have been problematic for centuries. They include some lactic acid bacteria such as Lactobacillus brevis, Lactobacillus lindneri and Pediococcus damnosus, and some Gram- negative bacteria such as Pectinatus cerevisiiphilus, Pectinatus frisingensis and Megasphaera cerevisiae. They can spoil beer by turbidity, acidity and the production of unfavorable smell such as diacetyl or hydrogen sulfide
  • 31. Yeasts and mouldsYeasts and Moulds are major spoilage organisms predominately in low water activity foods (e.g. jams, syrups, dried foods) and foods with low pH (e.g. 3.8 pickles/marinades). In general, Yeasts will grow in the presence or absence or oxygen while moulds are generallyinhibited by oxygen-free environments. However “oxygen-Free” status isdependent on effectiveness and integrity of packaging medium
  • 32. Packaging….Is only one Hurdle used in conjunction with others.Temperature (heat and/or cold- chain)pH/AwAir/Modified AtmosphereHeat treatmentsIngredients/additivesPackaging maintains inhospitable environment to spoilage bacteria
  • 33. Packaging has numerous functionsPhysical protectionBarrier protection – air/water etcAvoid Cross contamination/securityFacilitate TransportRetard spoilage (NB ***)As a processing step e.g. can/jarMarketing toolConvenience e.g. microwave/oven
  • 34. When developing a new productImportant to use commercially-available packaging equipment and materials early-on in trialsEnsures commercial simulation of the cold-chainTest seal integrity and associated properties of productAllows natural spoilage to occur as per commercial cold- chain/logisticsGenerates usable microbiological data for development of HACCP/FSMSUse accredited micro-testing when possible
  • 35. Many packaging suppliersUnderstand incremental growthNumerous entry-level solutions to help you to get up and runningEntry-level equipmentHire of larger equipmentSmall print runsAllows you to test concept at prototype stage before large investment
  • 36. IngredientsTrend towards clean-label ingredientsRetailers have list of preferred suppliersRetailers have list of ingredients they do not want in productsChoice of ingredients may be dictated by price-points and target marketE.g. M&S UK v’s ChinaImportant to screen ingredients suppliers in terms of BRC, quality systems etc
  • 37. IngredientsTrend towards clean-label ingredientsRetailers have list of preferred suppliersRetailers have list of ingredients they do not want in productsChoice of ingredients may be dictated by price-points and target marketE.g. M&S UK v’s ChinaImportant to screen ingredients suppliers in terms of BRC, quality systems etc“fresh ingredients” may require more expensive processing technologies to deliver shelf-lifeDried ingredients can often make more financial sense
  • 38. Raw Pre-pack + IngredientsSauces/spices/ glazes etcSavoury crumbButters/toppingsIncreased convenienceBacteriologicalAnti-oxidant affect
  • 39. Ingredients work well with raw seafood Chilled shelf-life (+ gas) <10 days Frozen raw shelf-life < 1 year
  • 40. Raw Pre-pack +Ingredients… Add flavour Mask odours Increase convenience Rosemary can reduce microbiological growth Lemon/lime/citric can reduce oxidation However must source from reputable supplier Spices can be loaded with bugs!!! Wash vegetables well!! Early identification of ingredients will ensure usable results e.g. shelf- life trials/nutritional
  • 41. Develop our own model building on tried- and-tested methodologies1. Marketing Input 9. Shelf life and nutritional testing2. Concept Research 10. Customer3. Proposed ingredients Presentation and raw material 11. Product sign off with source customer4. Initial first product 12. Photography and make up pack design5. Recipe Formulation 13. Confirm packaging6. Sensory Evaluation 14. Pre production trials7. Process technology 15. Launch8. Work up costings
  • 42. Product sign-off with customerProject so far has identified correct look and feel of productInitial shelf-life determinationCalculation of associated costs (materials, equipment, labour, over heads etc)Sensory trials to identify consumer feedback and adjust/incorporate as suggestedProduct specs maximised before approaching buyerUnderstanding of all associated costsFinalise branding/pack design/labelling etc
  • 43. Photography and pack design
  • 44. Both commodity and own-brand can make money
  • 45. Develop our own model building on tried-and-tested methodologies 1. Marketing Input 9. Shelf life and nutritional testing 2. Concept Research 10. Customer 3. Proposed ingredients Presentation and raw material 11. Product sign off with source customer 4. Initial first product 12. Photography and make up pack design 5. Recipe Formulation 13. Confirm packaging 6. Sensory Evaluation 14. Pre production trials 7. Process technology 15. Launch 8. Work up costings
  • 46. Case study 1.Artisan seafood producer who wanted to produce ready meal products with min 21 days shelf-life Small company with €30k to spend on equipment (combi-ovens)
  • 47. Product LimitationsHe tried Gas flushing but not effective due to physical nature of productCompany using combi-oven to cook fish, sauce, potato etcFollowed by cold assemblyMicro Log 7 after 8 days.Too short to access UK market (and beyond)Plans to distribute throughout EU and needs 21+ days
  • 48. Choice of tray
  • 49. Competitor offerings identified during store check M&S Foil + C-pet Foilwaxed card D2/Topfilm D2/Topfilm
  • 50. Early screening suggested Foil oven tray (12c) 40-60mm deep tray D2/group 6 footprint (200x155) Dual oven/microwavable Recyclable 200-350g portion size (adult serving) Cardboard sleeve (22c – 5 colours)
  • 51. Ingredients considerationsStore-checks suggested mixture of clean-label and not-so-clean on marketAs chowder product, fish stock crucial componentCompany did not want to make own stockChose foodservice (dry) product with reasonably clean ingredients deckDecided to use frozen fish cubes and par-cooked veg
  • 52. Equipment trialledIlpraMultivacPromensHired for 1 €27-30k month each€750- 1200/monthD2 footprint8-12 trays/min
  • 53. Practical considerationsCold-fill delivered 8 days shelf-lifeTo achieve 8+ days, necessary topasteurise in-tray (e.g. 85 deg C for 30 minchamber temp)Therefore Polypropylene (PP) or HighDensity Polyethylene (HDPE) materialrequired (C-pet/foil misshapen after cook)Possible suppliers e.g. Promens orMecapackRH Packaging V511 machine
  • 54. Deciding factors…MAP not suitable for this application as cooking step (process)Polypropylene tray chosen as with-stands high temperaturesAntifog top film to increase visibilityThroughput (Promens 511) 6-8 trays per minCost 12-15c each + 5 c top web + 12c cardboard sleeve (volume dependant)Machine - €27kFinal product microwavable but not oven-able (but working on this)
  • 55. Other product produced with similar packaging technologies
  • 56. Case study 2 Smoked meats manufacturer considering upgrading packaging €30k spend on equipment.
  • 57. Artisan salami and cooked meats
  • 58. Issues with current packaging range Competitor offerings more visually appealing Manual filling/vacuum packing Handling time and cross contamination Manual packaging bottleneck Inconsistent look to product range No shelf-ready packaging therefore poor product placement on shelves (Plan-o-gram) Difficult to Brand current pack
  • 59. Competitor PackagingEquipment - Thermoforming ILPRA Multivac Ulma Optional gas- flush application Forms its own trays High volume throughputCosts €75k-220K
  • 60. Solutions tested Printed pouch – Alert Packaging and Fosters Packaging Multivac T250 – Tray and skinpack Mecapack S1000 Skin packer Trays and film supplied by Versatile packaging, Monaghan Group 4 PP with skin-pack top film
  • 61. Printed PouchBetter visual impact / brandingStill issue of manual fillingOption to develop similar style pack on flow-wrapperBut flow-wrap = 75k (“not a runner”)Buyer liked the new packaging but manual packaging too expensive
  • 62. Multivac T250 Dual tray sealing and skin-pack (in tray) D2 x 4 trays (200x155) (PP) 20mm deep tray skin-pack (in-tray) Option to gas flush salamis/smoked chorizo in tray (50mm deep) on same machine Cost per tray 12c + 5c top-film Tray material – optional as reheat/oven/microwave not required (PP chosen) Optional printed top-film Machine €35k Throughput – 4 up die set (4 trays per cycle) – 12 trays per min skinpack/8 per min gas flush (product dependent)
  • 63. Mecapack S1000Polypropylene 20mm traySkin-pack top-film4-6 trays per minS1000 heads fit large machines (trade-up possibility)Same supplier manufacturers PP traysCost trays 18-25c (per 5000)/topfilm 6-8c)
  • 64. Deciding factorsOne stop shop for machine + film (Mecapack)Possibility to trade-up and save money on sealing heads/die setClient also sourced wrap around cardboard sleeve from Dollard Packaging (12c each)Shelf-life extended by 1 week due to removal of cross contamination issue (manual packaging – Entero)Rent-to-buy option with this companyWill probably scale up to a Multivac Thermoformer in near future (greater efficiencies)
  • 65. These packaging technologies can also be used for
  • 66. Case Study 3 Nut and cereal based snack bar. 6 bars per box (printed carton).
  • 67. Competitor offerings
  • 68. Packaging used by competitors Large Flow wrappers €75-200k
  • 69. In terms of packaging materials…Important when dealing with film manufacturers • The size and weight of the bar • Product, Positioning, Price (Premium vs “cheap-as-chips”) • Reverse engineer (copy!) competitor product packaging or bespoke • Shelf-life required (this will dictate barrier properties e.g. laminate of barrier Polypropylene) • Throughput per hour • Laminates trap ink and avoids scuffing • On what type of machine will you pack . (DIY vs. OUTSOURCE) • Packaging machine dimensions • What kind of work have they done before? • Min print runs (e.g. 5000 linear metres entry level) • Costs per additional colour (gold & metallic ink expensive) • Can they do artwork or bring myself? • Finalise material specs and document (important is unexpected change in product down the line) • Check supplier ISO, BRC, Repack accreditations (important for selling to multiples)
  • 70. Paddy’s O’ Granola Range 75% common colours throughout with distinct colouring to indicate variations in rangeWhite background and“Paddy O’s” common
  • 71. Trialled during this project + Flowrap one (Basic packaging Ltd, UK)
  • 72. Machine & material sourcingFlow-wrapBasic Packaging Ltd. (£9995 entry)(Also supply VFFS for Crisps)(£7995 entry)Print Registration Unit (PRU)Acrylic coated outer layerPolypropylene inner layerBarrier film inner layerGas-flushed with nitrogen (to eliminate air)Rental option – rented for 3 months with rentalcost deducted from final priceThroughout 20 packs per minOptional extension on carousel line
  • 73. Final product important factsWater activity (Aw) control crucialProduct discoloured with lightFoil layer used to omit lightClient had 3 products5000 linear metres film best utilised with common coloursourceSpot colouring to show variations in product/ingredientsClient explored Paper : PP material for artisan feel.Client also needed to source a printer for BB date etc.
  • 74. ANSER U2 PRINTERS • 300 DPI Printing • Dates, times, counters and logos • Handy remote control • Available as network version • Clean, no mess • Up to 5 lines of text • Prices from €1,650.00 • Also see CODICO (Ire)
  • 75. Want to know moreabout flow-wrapping??Good site re Flow wrapping and material;But always consult your materials supplierwho will discuss cost and shelf-lifeimplications and different materials
  • 76. Flow wrapping has application for
  • 77. Case Study 4Chowder producer looking for longer shelf-life (currently 14 days). Monies available – €20k “at a push”!! “But I’m not buying new”
  • 78. Current processBrat panBrought to boil and fish added for last 20 minLadled and hot-filled into tamper- evident tubsBlast chilledSticker/label applied by handPlaced into outer cardboard box12 in outer cardboard box (2 x 6 per layer)
  • 79. Competitor technology  Limitech mixer/heating  Automatic dosing into tubs  Mondini tray sealer with de-nester  Pasteurised in steriflow retort  Shelf-life 1year (ambient) (minimum)  Printed tubs  Traceability system  Already paid for factory & equipment  Large workforce
  • 80. First of all…..REALITY CHECK !!!High volume competitor productNot main product (ready meals)Major supplier to Tesco (UK)Use of additives and thickenersContrary to brand values of our clientCapex investment €2million ++Go back and start your market check againCompare yourself to more realistic competitor
  • 81. Benchmark against similar products Range of product with 3 months max shelf- life Small volumes Artisan values, provenance, freshness etc Start small e.g. local Supervalu Focus on freshness, quality and “local” Improve upon competitor products Allow for growth
  • 82. Packaging trialledHand sealer with profile cut (4 up die €12k set – circular tubs) x 2 HDPE tubs (150ml)Wrap around cardboard sleeve (Dollard packaging) €1100Second-hand Semi- automated depositor (Riggs autopack, UK) Riggs autopack
  • 83. Value for money??Pro’s16 trays per minSemi-automated dosing into HDPE tubsOption to use printed top-film and eliminate cardboard sleeveDosing machine reduced handling/cross contaminationCon’sStill a manual operationAdditional investment required for scale-upLonger shelf-life requires further heat-treatment in- pack
  • 84. However…. This client needed to produce min 3000 units per week to supply retailer Capex would have been too small Decided to OUTSOURCE (in short-term) Pros Large-volume possible Can focus on sales You know your capacity Slightly more expensive €1.12/pack) HACCP/FSMS/BRC etc responsibility of another company Cons Different factory number (FR) Tied in to 6-12 month contract Eventually outsourcer might take business
  • 85. Outsourcing production Outsourced to ready meals company Did not want to fillet/skin/bone Additional costs for outsourcing filleting etc Outsourcing company wanted to use commercially-available ingredients E.g. dried spices, UHT cream, Kibbled onions etc Balance had to be struck between original product and outsourced Outsourced more realistic in terms of price-points However fresh herbs, cream etc were not allowed in factory Work in progress…
  • 86. Important when outsourcing…  Pre-meeting  Confidentiality agreement  Bring prototypes/competitor products  Go armed with market data re price-points  Research outsourcing company product portfolio  ID positive and negative attributes  Meeting  Taste your prototype  Discuss ingredients/shelf-life “Remember your brand can  Understand their capabilities/capacity be affected by quality  Discuss packaging requirements issues related to  Especially min runs (product, process, packaging)  outsourcing” Ask for contact point on factory floor re product spec/prototype dev  Agree project plan (Slide 11)  Follow-up  Finalise product spec/ingredients  Check/review regularly
  • 87. Case Study 5 Large seafood processor wanted to test Thermoforming/skin-packagingEquipment trials & costs analysis/throughput
  • 88. Skin-pack/Thermoform Equipment – RawPre-pack (Trialled 4 machines) €28k €120k++
  • 89. Focus group and buyer feedback re skin-pack Increased visual spec Less plastic/packaging More in box/pallet Increased logistics (cheaper transport) Tactile – can see underneath of product Retailer wanted this in fish section Company had to be prepared to do 2 for 1’s three times a year
  • 90. Client gathered quotes for equipment Multivac R095 Flex R105 Semi rigid (MAP+ skin) R125/145 Cooked meats R175 DARFRESH R275 Darfresh MAP + SKIN DARFRESH 45mm above tray + 50mm deep ULMA TFS 300 TFS 500 TFS 700 Mondini TRAVE 590 E340 Client also visited All MAP and skin-pack other machine demo 100-200k facilities
  • 91. We carried out trials re materials/usage/costs withfilm manufacturers Topweb TC201 650m long = 2400 trays/roll Cryovac, alert packaging etc Bottom web EGEV supplying materials to Irish 200m long = 740 companies trays/roll
  • 92. Calculating costs Throughput per hour Dictated by machine size E.g. 420mm carousel E.g. 3 x 127 x 270mm packs (381mm) Rest of film excess/waste Approx cost 11-15c per pack Plus cardboard sleeve 22c/pack Printed top-web – 18-22c per pack Potential savings
  • 93. Shelf-life analysisDarfresh material versus barrierGas flush = 6 daysVaccum = 6 daysDarfresh = 8 daysSensory/odour/chemcial/microbiological analysisSet up sampling plansLabelling requirementsIn-factory prototype developmentActing in neutral capacity for SME’s
  • 94. Thermoforming has applicationfor
  • 95. So when developing new products Identify markets and competitor offerings Identify RTM strategy and buyer requirements Narrow down packaging formats based on competitor offerings/new technologies Link with agencies to define how product is produced (upstream and downstream) Hire/trial equipment on site/incubation unit Preliminary sensory trials before expensive micro trials Ensure micro carried out using commercial conditions (simulate cold-chain) Teagasc/BIM/Bord Bia/EI/Universities etc can give neutral advice re equipment suitability/selection Work on developing innovative culture in your company and don’t be afraid to try new technologies
  • 96. Thank youJohn Fagan087 9045047