Seaboard is concerned with maintaining a sustainable pork business while balancing customer demands. Its objective is to contribute to the greater good at the societal level by cooperating with other pork stakeholders to send consistent, non-conflicting messages about sustainability to society. Its action is to help shift the conversation from fear and confusion to highlighting the benefits of pork production while showing leadership on issues like animal welfare, food safety and carbon footprint. This aims to preserve and grow the overall pork industry for the future.

1. “THE GREATER GOOD”
Gary Louis & Luc Dufresne
An Integrated Pork Producer’s Perspective

2. 2
Dr. Bob Morrison

3. 3
“Are you
contributing
to the greater
good? “
Dr. Bob Morrison

4. 4
“The greater good?”
• Clearly define the objective
• What selfless actions can you
take to help achieve the
objective?

5. Source: National Animal Health Laboratory Network
As of 7/9/2014

7. “The Greater Good”
A. Overview of Seaboard
B. Seaboard & Triumph Foods Partnership
C. “The greater good” at 3 levels:
1. Company
2. Pork Industry
3. Society
D. Q & A

8. • Global food, energy and transportation company
• Founded in 1918 by the Bresky family – 77%
Ownership
• 4 Main companies: Seaboard Foods
Seaboard Marine
Seaboard Overseas Trading
Butterball (50% Owner)
• Fortune 500 Company with $5.4 billion in sales in
2016.
• Over 24,000 employees
8
Seaboard Corporation

9. Revenue By Region
9
2016
United States
Caribbean, Central and South America
Africa
Pacific Basin and Far East
Canada/Mexico
Eastern Mediterranean
Seaboard Corporation

10. Seaboard Foods Live Production & Plant

11. Seaboard Foods Operations

12. St. Joseph, MO Triumph Plant
Marketing Agreement with SEB
2006

13. Sioux City, IA
2017
2015
• Missoula, MT
• Salt Lake City, UT
• St. Joseph, MO

14. Seaboard Foods, Triumph Foods, STF &
Daily’s Locations

15. STF Plant, Sioux City, IA 2017

16. 16
3 Companies Aligned as 1 Integrated Company
• Allied Producers
• Christensen Farms
• Eichelberger
• Hanor
• New Fashion Pork
Live Ops
TF Owners
Live Ops
336,000 Sows
446,000 Sows

17. U.S. Pork Producers & Processors
Source: Informa Economics & Seaboard projections after 2nd shift at STF
17
Rank Producer
US Sow
Base
Share
%
1 Smithfield 880,000 14%
2 SEB/TF 782,000 13%
3 The Maschoffs 218,000 4%
4 SMS of Pipestone 185,000 3%
5 JBS / Cargil 177,000 3%
6 Prestage Farms 175,000 3%
7 Iowa Select Farms 171,000 3%
8 Carthage System 145,000 2%
US Total 6,150,000
Rank Processor
Daily
Capacity
Share
%
1 Smithfield 115,000 24%
2 JBS 89,800 19%
3 Tyson 80,950 17%
4 SEB/TF 62,000 13%
5 Hormel 36,800 8%
6 Hatfield 21,700 5%
7 Indiana Packing 17,500 4%
8 Rantoul Foods 6,700 1%
US Total (Top 27) 478,320

18. “The greater good?”
At an integrated pork companylevel
At the pork industry level
At the societylevel

19. “The greater good?”
At an integrated pork company level
SEBOARD CONCERN: Keeping our plant full of qualifying hogs
“GREATER GOOD” OBJECTIVE: Improve herd health across
the industry
“GREATER GOOD” ACTION: Share data and research related
to Seaboard herd health with
pork industry

20. The Greater good on Transport biosecurity
• Truck wash
– Need to be operating consistently to bring cost down
– Labor is difficult to hire and keep
– Quality of wash will vary through time
– Historically rely on
• Audit
• Segregation
– Truck wash
– Trailer
• Downtime
– Cost of wash consistently increased
– Varied $75 to over $300 per wash
• Trailer “baker’
– Building $225,000 ; Operation $15.00 per bake
– Added cost ?
– Or can a Trailer baker be used to reduce some of those costs ?

21. BIO DRI SYSTEM

22. Inner-Sanctum movement Assumptions
• After a complete wash and Bake at 160F for 15 minutes, trailers do not
require any downtime and can be used for movements on top of the
biosecurity pyramid
• Trailers that follow biosecurity order can do more than one movement
without being wash
– Wean to nursery Feeder pig to finisher (same source)
• Impact
– Reduction of Trailer purchase ($60,000 per trailer)
– Reduction of Mileage driven
– Reduction in number of washes and water usage
– Reduction in wood shavings
– Reduce carbon footprint

23. Other Advantages
• Automatic process
– Easy to control and audit baking process
• Reduce the variation of our process
• Second validation for Market wash
– Do we need thorough wash if the trailer is baked?
– Potential benefit: Reduce labor needs per truck and
increase truck wash throughput

24. Bio-Dry System Projects
• Project 1 - Demonstration of modified wash and repeated baking of a
live haul trailer
• Project 2 - Inactivation of PEDv by thermal assisted drying device
(TADD)

25. • Regular wash :90 minutes
• High volume rinse: 27
minutes
• Detail wash :118 minutes
• Combined: 44 minutes

26. TADD System Projects
• Project 1 - Demonstration of modified wash and repeated baking of a
live haul trailer
• Project 2 - Inactivation of PEDv by thermal assisted drying device
(TADD)
– Manure from PED exposed gilts
– Place on trailer floor material directly
– Baked in BIO DRY 160 for 15 minutes
– Feces were scraped and feedback to naïve piglets

27. Trial # Post-bake
rinse
Intestines (40+ hrs
post-challenge)
Average Ct # positive Lowest
Ct
1 23.21 1 38.04
2 18.27 0 NA
Pre-bake diamond floor
Post-bake and rinse diamond floor
*Trail was repeat a 3rd time using a
baking time of
12 min and all CD pigs remain
negative
*All pigs infect with non baked fecal
material (Cts 14-16)develop PED
diarrhea within 24 hours of exposure

28. Conclusion
• The high volume wash program reduced the overall
wash time by half (44 minutes vs. 90 minutes)
• Baking the trailer floor (covered with manure highly
infected with PED) at 160° F for 15 minutes
completely inactivated PED virus
– Simulates the WORST case scenario
– Note that despite low CT value of manure sample after
baking the manure was non infectious

29. Conclusion
• Based on those results we conclude that following a high
volume wash, baking trailers at 160° F for 15 minutes will
inactivate any virus left in the trailer
– Independent of the quality of wash
– No disinfection is needed if the trailers are baked
• Wash bay capacity would be increase to 30 trailers/day
• If we use a high volume wash program we will need two
Bio-Dry bays, for each washing bay
– Easier to build a Bio Dry than a truck wash
• Reduction of Labor cost offsets operating cost of bakers

30. “The greater good?”
At the pork industry level
SEBOARD CONCERN: The sales price of our pork products

31. 31
Plant Capacity vs. U.S. Pork Production

32. 32
Plant Capacity vs. U.S. Pork Production

33. New Pork Processing Plant
Processing Capacity, 000/Day @ Full Production
STF
219-17

34. 5 New Pork Processing Plants
Processing Capacity, 000/Day @ Full Production
Prime Pork
STF
Moon Ridge
20
2.5
6
20
21 Prestage
Clemens
4-17
9-17
8-16
9-17
1-19

35. 5 New Pork Processing Plants
Processing Capacity, 000/Day @ Full Production
Prime Pork
STF
Moon Ridge
20
2.5
6
20
21 Prestage
Clemens
4-17
9-17
8-16
9-17
1-19
Modernization of Swine Slaughter Inspection Rule?

36. 36
Pork Production vs. Consumption
15,000
17,000
19,000
21,000
23,000
25,000
27,000
29,000
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
MillionsofPounds
Pork Production Pork Consumption
EXPORT

37. THE BIG QUESTIONS
Sow Expansion?
Plant Closings?
Domestic Consumption?
Export Volume?

38. “The greater good?”
At the pork industry level
SEBOARD CONCERN: The sales price of our pork products
“GREATER GOOD” OBJECTIVE: Preserve and grow our export
markets
“GREATER GOOD” ACTION: Get involved in developing
an FAD strategy

39. IF a Foreign Animal Disease enters the US
• Immediate shut down of export of meat from species affected by
that disease
– Swine specific diseases
• Classical swine fever
• African Swine fever
– All Cloven-Hooved animals
• Foot and Mouth disease
• This would be catastrophic for the US meat industry
– Excess meat on US market unable to be moved outside of the country
• Virtually eliminate 25% of swine production in US

40. What is currently done
• Try to build vaccine stockpile
• Decide if we will try to stamp it out or vaccinate
• Handling animal movement between states after the disease is
diagnosed
• Not enough is done currently to develop strategy to maintain flow
of pork out of the country
– USMEF / NPPC and NPB Trade teams have had some discussions on
maintaining exports in the face of a FAD outbreak
• Although research are in progress, we still have not moved to
using Oral fluid or other quick sampling technique that can test
large populations
• We still use 1950’s approach to 21st century
animal production system and disease
management

41. What can be done
• Reduce risk of introduction of FADs from region where those
diseases are endemic
– Determine material/ingredient that represent risk
• Continue to fund research
– Develop and Implement adequate mitigation technique
• Increase cost
• IF an FAD is introduced
– How can we still move pork products outside the United States?

42. United States VS European Union

43. When a FAD hit an EU country: The EU plan
• The country affected will stop movement but not all EU is shut down
• Animal movement between country in EU is overall very similar to
animal movement between states in the US
– Country where feeder pigs are coming in
• Germany
– Country that ship out wean pigs
• Nederland
• Why can’t we move to a similar approach in the US?
– States can take unilateral action (States rights)
– Mandatory pre traceability system
• Animal movement
• Premise identification

44. Growing pig movement between region in the US

45. Animal Movement
• In the US there are regions that are essentially not moving any
growing pigs into their area and have slaughter capacity (East
coast, southern Midwest, West coast).
• Have a good chance of remaining free if not initially infected
• Risk in those area would be associated with
– Replacement animals
– Cull market animals
• Experience with Ractopamine testing program has shown us that
every load can be rope tested with oral fluid in the lairage area
BEFORE animal are processed.
• Can we use similar technique to test loads coming in to the plant
for FADs?

46. What could we do
• Develop a country wide system to follow animal movement
• Develop and validate an aggressive testing protocol(s) that would
satisfy our trade partners.
• When a FAD disease hit the US swine population
– Determine the low risk area
– Initiate aggressive testing at the plant level to show freedom of disease
– The Goal is to resume quickly international trade from the free region(s)

47. How can it be done?
• Database
– National premise ID
– Unified animal movement system between States
• Research
– Validate Antigen test on oral fluids and other ways to test large populations
with a low number of tests
– Validate sampling technique in processing facilities to insure sensitivity and
specificity of the technique
– Develop testing capacity to insure testing can be done in a timely matter
• Other Research needed
– Meat treatment to inactivate FADs

48. How can it be done?
• Politically
– Convince USDA and US trade organizations that this is an essential part of
developing a preparedness plan for FAD so adequate resources are allocated
to it
– Convince USDA that they need to deputize independent and company
veterinarians and their staff to allow rapid validation of disease freedom in non-
affected area(s)
– Once the disease is in the US, proving disease freedom in certain regions is
critical for industry survival and resource must be allocated accordingly

49. The Greater good for our
industry?
• As an industry we need to :
– Agree on the strategy and how to get there
– Push the message
• It’s a long term process with several hurdles but we
need to get on it right now and start moving our
FAD prevention control and mitigation into the 21st
century.
• The long term survivability of the US pork industry
depends on it.

50. “The greater good?”
At the society level
SEBOARD CONCERN: Maintain a sustainable pork business
“GREATER GOOD” OBJECTIVE: Balance customer/consumer
demands with sustainable
pork production

51. Increasing our % of the industry pork sales
Industry

52. NGOs
Consumers
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

53. NGOs
Consumers
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
r

54. NGOs
Consumers
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
Carbon Footprint
Cost of Production
Animal Welfare
Food Safety
Consumer
Confidence

55. NGOs
Consumers
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
Carbon Footprint
Cost of Production
Animal Welfare
Food Safety
Consumer
Confidence
Sustainable?

56. “The greater good?”
At the society level
SEBOARD CONCERN: Maintain a sustainable pork business
“GREATER GOOD” OBJECTIVE: Balance customer/consumer
demands with sustainable
pork production
“GREATER GOOD” ACTION: Cooperate with other pork
stake holders to send
non-conflicting messages
to society

57. 57
HEALTHY
ANIMALS
HEALTHY
PEOPLE
HEALTHY
PLANET
One Health
Healthy, efficient
animals are critical
to healthy people
and a healthy
planet.

58. Changing the Conversation
Today’s Reality Tomorrow’s
Conversation
Balance
Influence
Perception Shift
Change Actions

59. Changing the Conversation
Today’s Reality Tomorrow’s
Conversation
Balance
Influence
Perception Shift
Change Actions
FEAR &
CONFUSION
BENEFITS &
CONSISTENCY
LEADERSHIP

60. Historical Importance of
Size of Pie vs. Pie Size
Lbs of
Pork
Sold IndustryIndustry

61. 61
Pork Production vs. Consumption
15,000
17,000
19,000
21,000
23,000
25,000
27,000
29,000
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
MillionsofPounds
Pork Production Pork Consumption
EXPORT

62. Future Importance of Size of Pie vs. Pie Size
with Increased Pork Production
Industry
Lbs of
Pork
Sold Industry

63. 63
“Are you
contributing
to the greater
good? “
Dr. Bob Morrison

64. QUESTIONS?
TEXT: 651 492 6964