Lamb Supply - Report funded by the Institute of Logistics and Transport largely misses the point

Foot and Mouth Report recommends major changes to the lamb supply

Critical assessment by

Dr James Irvine, FRSE, DSc, FRCPEd, FRCPath, FInst Biol.
Director, Teviot Scientific Consultancy, Edinburgh

The following study was funded by the Institute of Logistics and Transport (www.iolt.org.uk). The IOLT website states:

"The Institute of Logistics and Transport (IOLT) is an active player in the logistics and transport policy field; it makes regular submissions on current issues to the UK Government, European Commission and other bodies, and publishes reports and papers which review current issues in a thorough and contemporary manner."

Indeed the IOLT is a major player in forming transport policy in the UK and beyond, but clearly it has not being doing too well in terms of either rail or road transport, as every member of the public must surely know.

It is therefore important to analyse with some care what this particular report says, as it carries the status of the University of Newcastle and its conclusions are therefore likely to affect IOLT policy, and subsequently that of the UK Government and ultimately the European policy makers.

The Report is entitled:

The Aftermath of the Foot and Mouth Crisis in
Agricultural Logistics:
the Case for the UK Fat Lamb Chain

Dr Michael Bourlakis and Miss Johaane Allinson

Centre of Rural Economy
School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development
University of Newcastle upon Tyne

Public release date 27th January 2003

The report can be downloaded in full (Microsoft Word, 492 KB) by clicking here.
The report is reproduced with permission of the
authors and IOLT who funded the project.

This is a somewhat extraordinary report. It is written by academics in Newcaslte, but is remarkably unacademic in its character. Neither does it appear to display an in-depth knowledge of sheep farming that is so central to the rural economy, agriculture, food and rural development - which is in fact the name of their University Department. This report gives further concern about the quality of the outpourings from certain Centres of Rural Economy or Centres with similar names.

For starters, it has been inappropriate for some years to refer to lambs ready for the consumer market as “fat”. The correct term is “prime”. The term “prime” will be used throughout this article, unless it is necessary to quote directly from the authors’ text.

From their ivory tower somewhere in urban Newcastle it is pronounced in the first paragraph of the Executive Summary:

"FMD in the UK in 2001 exposed the complex nature of the structure and relationships in the fat lamb chain and has drawn attention to poor logistics mechanisms and practices that prevail. For example, the lack of ‘passports’ or similar tagging and traceability mechanism that are used in other livestock chains acts to compound this complexity"

One also has to wonder at the statement:

"However, it is not clear who is responsible for the various stages in the channel and what is the role of every member"

The nature of the prime lamb trade has been transparently obvious, to anyone who has sought to make the most superficial of enquiries, for years. There has been no great mystery about it, although sadly it apparently came as a bit of a shock to Government Departments with responsibilities for agriculture (MAFF and SEERAD) at the start of the FMD Crisis 2001.

Extensive movement of live sheep has been a feature of the industry for 100’s of years. All that has happened is that it is now faster, more frequent and with larger numbers. Intrinsically it is the same as it always has been from the days of the drovers.

The supermarkets, together with the large food processors, have been largely responsible for these increases in movements, as they increasingly demand centralisation of facilities for bulk buying. The fact that there are now so few players in this highly competitive commercial game has focussed attention on a practice that is long-standing. Surely the Institute of Logistics and Transport knows that. However, it seems to come as a surprise to the Centre of Rural Economy, and the School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Newcastle upon Tyne.

Where were these academics prior to 2001? Should they not have been ringing alarm bells loud and clear about the risks of disastrous spread of FMD should it get into the country? After all if you are going to function properly in a Department of Rural Economy you should know the basics of how that economy works, and the hazards and risks involved. It is not that clever being wise after the event.

One did not need to read far before becoming aware that this could be a dangerous report as far as influencing future policy in the important area of prime lamb production and marketing. In the second sentence of the Executive Summary the following remarkable statement is made:

"For example, the lack of use of 'passports' or similar tagging and traceability mechanisms that are used in other livestock chains acts to compound this complexity"

This statement placed prominently at the start of the Executive Summary implies that sheep should have passports and that a tagging system for sheep is not in place. Even academics in urban Newcastle should appreciate that there are enormous problems with operating passports for sheep. So much so that if a requirement for sheep passports was introduced, they would create more problems of traceability than they would solve on account of the enormous bureaucratic burden. Also, the authors seem remarkably out of touch with what tagging regulations (and use) are in fact in place.

Sadly this is the sort of alarmist introduction that academics too often use to draw attention to their work and justify their funding. In my view this is ethically unjustifiable and is not excused by the pressure academics are under to raise funds for their own survival. It is folly for the academics to lower their standards, and that is what has apparently happened here.

In the second paragraph of the Introduction the Report states:

"A key feature of the (domestic fat lamb) chain is the substantial number of sheep movements that are not always recorded"

This is a wild allegation that is not substantiated in the report.

This report is based on interviewing some 23 persons. Oral evidence was taken while having what sounds like a chat, but based on a list of questions for which the interviewer sought responses (albeit duly tape recorded). At best this is simply anecdotal evidence - hardly a convincing standard for an academic report from a supposedly academic institution.

Evidence from what is essentially gossip from a very limited number of persons, whose selection is not even discussed, is not good enough: no matter what references are used to suggest that it is by quoting the opinions of other academics (presumably also in ivory towers).

To quote from the Report again:

"According to Yin (1984), the case study is a useful methodology for a researcher interested in gaining rich knowledge of a specific context and in total, twenty three cases were examined"

The 23 cases consisted of 11 farmers, 2 specialist hauliers, 2 multiple retailers. 2 meat processors, 2 auction companies, 2 abattoir managers, 1 small butcher and 1 livestock dealer. We are informed that:

“the vast majority of the interviewees were fairly co-operative”

It is difficult to assess what this means. At best it questions the validity of the data.

The interviews were carried out between January - April 2002. In characteristic academic style the results are not reported until January 2003, although they do not appear to have been peer reviewed or published in any journal. But are the findings relevant to January 2003 as the farm standstill regulations are shortly to ease from 20 days to 6 days?

It is clear from the quoted comments in the report from the interviewees that many were highly focussed on their specific activity within the chain, clearly disregarding the broader picture. Some of the printed comments simply reflected characteristic rivalry between sectors of the industry. It is doubtful if the design of this so-called research even meets the requirements of Yin (1984) referred to above.

The structure of the questions put to the interviewees is flawed. For example, in relation to questions about food safety and animal welfare the nature of the questions imply that there are problems with both these issues, when in fact there are not. The question as to whether the interviewee considered that there was or was not a problem with regard to either food safety or animal welfare was not on the list. The questions were therefore biased and a University lecturer should have corrected them had this been a student exercise.

The main message is that the authors would like to see movements largely involving dead sheep rather than live ones. They may indeed have a point that this would help reduce the risk of spreading such diseases as FMD, but their other claims seem somewhat doubtful, including food safety and animal welfare. There is no evidence that transportation of live animals is a threat to food safety and they did not produce any. There is also little valid evidence (if any) that, within current UK transportation rules, there is a problem with animal welfare. So the change to transporting dead animals rather than live ones is supposedly to reduce perceived rather than real problems in terms of either animal welfare or food safety.

The case for using transportation of dead rather than living lambs would be in relation to preventing disease spread (such as Foot and Mouth) and reducing road traffic and the consumption of diesel, with commensurate saving in transport costs. Now we understand why this study was funded by the Institute of Logistics and Transport. What is more than a little disappointing is how an academic Institute such as the University of Newcastle can produce such an unbalanced report presumably to curry favour with the funder, in this case the IOLT.

The way forward in terms of preventing the spread of FMD is not to limit live animal transport, which is so essential for the industry, but to ensure that animals so transported are free of FMD, and likewise the lorry. The science whereby sheep can be rapidly tested on farm for FMD on a flock basis is available (1, 2, 3, 4). What is distressing is how long it is taking the authorities to apply the science in practice (3, 4). The OIE have acknowledged that the new diagnostic tests are capable of differentiating between infected and vaccinated animals and have approved their use on a herd or flock basis (5).

The Report recommends the setting up of multiple local abattoirs. So many in fact that there would be competition between local abattoirs for trade. That would be very nice, but consider the cost, largely incurred by Government imposing huge charges for Health & Safety etc. The authors of the report made no attempt at estimating such costs, although they belong to a Centre for Rural Economy. Only on direct discussion with the first author by telephone was it agreed that to have an insufficient number of local abattoirs replacing the auction markets would lead to non-competitive prices being offered to farmers and would therefore be untenable. The cost would certainly far outweigh any savings in diesel, in spite of the fact that many more dead than living animals can be transported in a lorry.

The Report rightly points out the massive decline in the number of local abattoirs. There are two main reasons for this. As already mentioned the Government has imposed extortionate charges on them in the context of Health and Safety and especially with regard to the meat inspectorate (6). The second reason is the progressive monopolisation or food processors and retail supermarkets. These organisations like everything to be centralised as much as possible. It is these organisations that are the central villains in creating so much unnecessary transportation. By breaking the monopoly of the supermarkets (and of the food processors that supply them) the amount of transportation involved in the prime lamb market would drop dramatically. This does not even get a mention in the Report.

I submit that it would not be realistic to have so many local abattoirs that they alone could provide a competitive market. Local abattoirs should indeed have a greater presence and support in order that local produce can be processed locally, and thereby branded. There should remain competition between selling prime lambs through auction markets, local abattoirs and more distant abattoirs. Until such time as the stronghold of the supermarkets and major food producers is broken, the animals, dead or alive, will travel to large distribution centres many miles away. A good proportion of these animals, once slaughtered and processed will do the return journey for the retail trade. If the Centre for Rural Economy at Newcastle University had known a bit more about the whole picture of the prime lamb trade, I would have thought this would have been obvious.

What is needed is a Government policy that exerts some control on the growth of the power of the now ridiculously small number of major supermarkets chains and the food processors who supply them. There is a start in Scotland with regard to the Specially Selected Scotch Farm Assured Beef and Lamb label (7). From July 2003 it will have to have been born, bred and slaughtered in Scotland. There should be a sufficient number of local abattoirs to avoid unnecessary travel, and indeed to maintain additional brands within that brand. Thus, to maintain its brand name the only way it can travel to England or further afield is as dead. This principal should be extended for other foods.

To get a good product the farmer producing it needs to see that it is profitable to do so. He needs to see that there is a competitive market. The added value comes from having a range of outlets competing for quality goods, not monopoly giants. The trouble with supermarkets is that they have so much control that they determine people’s taste. Since when could anyone get a really good piece of meat in a supermarket (8)?

Local production and marketing through farming co-operatives is the way forward. The transportation problems studied by the Report would then be largely resolved. An adequate provision of local abattoirs is an essential part of that, and it is encouraging that the EU has opened the way for small abattoir inspection costs to be reduced (9). This could certainly benefit small abattoirs.

The recommendations of the Report should have been:

Break up the large monopolies in the food processing and retail chain
through an agency such as the monopolies commission.

The Government should choose a senior advisor other than Lord Haskins
who was previously chairman of one of the biggest food processors and monopolies in the country, and whose thinking clearly continues along these lines (10).

Reduce the charges imposed on local abattoirs so as to encourage enough of them
to attract business from local farmers, in competition with auction marts and bigger abattoirs.

Expedite stricter labelling regulations to properly identify local produce.

Alright, so The Rural Centre at Newcaslte University was just trying to earn a crust from the IOLT. But their responsibilities should have been wider than that.

References

1. Shen at al (1999). Differentiation of convalescent animals from those vaccinated against foot and mouth disease by a peptide ELISA. Vaccine, 17: 3039-3049.

2. Intervet Press Release (2001). Intervet announces FMD marker test, 11 October 2001, click here to view.

3. Breeze, Roger (2001). Written evidence supplied to the Royal Society of London FMD Inquiry (Download PDF).

4. Breeze, Roger (2001). Written evidence supplied to the Royal Society of London FMD Inquiry (Download PDF).

5. OIE Press release (2002). 70th General Session of the International Committee of the Office International des Epizooties, 26 -31 May 2002, click here to view.

6. Hundreds of UK Abattoirs Could Close if New EU Regulations are Implemented. CLA News Release, 26th November 2002.
(Filed 26 November 2002, www.land-care.org.uk, click here to view).

7. Quality Meat Scotland: www.sqbla.org.uk

8. A beef about supermarkets. Land-Care (2003).
(Filed 4 February 2003, www.land-care.org.uk, click here to view).

9. Small Abattoir Inspection Costs could be reduced says EU. Land-Care (2003).
(Filed 7 February 2003, www.land-care.org.uk, click here to view).

10. Northern Foods plc and Lord Haskins. Is Lord Haskins a suitable person to be the senior advisor to Government on agriculture?
(Filed 23 January 2003, www.land-care.org.uk, click here to view).

MENU

12 February 2003

Lamb Supply - Report funded by the Institute of Logistics and Transport largely misses the point

Foot and Mouth Report recommends major changes to the lamb supply

Critical assessment by

The Aftermath of the Foot and Mouth Crisis in
Agricultural Logistics:
the Case for the UK Fat Lamb Chain

Dr Michael Bourlakis and Miss Johaane Allinson

Centre of Rural Economy
School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development
University of Newcastle upon Tyne

Public release date 27th January 2003

References

Further Reading Recommended by Land-Care

MENU

12 February 2003

Lamb Supply - Report funded by the Institute of Logistics and Transport largely misses the point

Foot and Mouth Report recommends major changes to the lamb supply

Critical assessment by

The Aftermath of the Foot and Mouth Crisis in Agricultural Logistics: the Case for the UK Fat Lamb Chain

Dr Michael Bourlakis and Miss Johaane Allinson

Centre of Rural Economy School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development University of Newcastle upon Tyne

Public release date 27th January 2003

References

Further Reading Recommended by Land-Care

The Aftermath of the Foot and Mouth Crisis in
Agricultural Logistics:
the Case for the UK Fat Lamb Chain

Centre of Rural Economy
School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development
University of Newcastle upon Tyne