MENU

HOMEPAGE

Animal Health/
Welfare/Zoonoses

Environment

Land Reform

Social/
Economic/
Political

Food

Science

Fishing

Tourism

Education

Cultybraggan
Farm

Trade

Book Reviews

Light Relief

Links

Glossary

Correspondence

Vacancies

Contact Us

Back to SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage

Talk up farming, don't talk it down and
never mind the reality:

a review of "Taking marketing opportunities"

SAC Outlook conference, Murrayfield,
Edinburgh 15th November 2005

James Irvine

Teviot Scientific at Cultybraggan Farm, Comrie, Perthshire

Filed 17 Dec 05
©www.land-care.org.uk

The Scottish Agricultural College (or SAC as it prefers to be known, presumably so that it can do things other than farming) held its annual Outlook Conference at Murrayfield, Edinburgh on Tuesday 15th November. These are important conferences as they provide an opportunity for the Minister responsible for the Scottish Executive's Environment and Rural Affairs Department (SEERAD) to give his views on the state of the nation as far as his brief is concerned. Such conferences also give an insight into how the SAC is functioning within itself and in conjunction with SEERAD, which allegedly provides about a third of its total funding.

The SAC as an organisation

The SAC is an extraordinary body in so far that it is a mix of a frankly commercial advisory organisation and an academic establishment, with the boundaries between the two distinctly blurred - at least in the eyes of some consumers. Indeed, the inability for the individual farmer (or other form of "land manager") to distinguish between what is supposed to be high standard research and what carries rather lower ethical standards of marketing can on occasion be difficult to determine. Unfortunately, that can lead to a loss in confidence in what the SAC may be promoting at any one time. The subject of organic farming would be a clear example, where organic programmes are promoted with little clear evidence of the benefits and even less attention to the established disadvantages.

For many farmers the main use of the SAC is to help them with the masses of SEERAD regulations, which have increased rather than decreased with the recent reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP reform). The more complicated the regulations, the bigger the business for the commercial wing of the SAC. But what seems to be lacking is independent and open advice from the SAC to SEERAD, in terms of how SEERAD chooses to exert its powers. Indeed one seldom hears or reads of the SAC criticising SEERAD for implementing unreasonable or damaging policies. Indeed, it would appear that the SAC acts as a vehicle to get SEERAD policy across to farmers, and to give such policies credibility where in some circumstances that credibility appears to be sadly lacking. There is an impression that the SAC acts in substantial part as though it was some kind of Scottish Executive quango in all but name, but with the addition of a commercial wing that benefits massively from the bureaucracy that is generated via SEERAD and its much criticised agency, Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH).

In recent years the SAC was in dire financial straits, having diversified its activities inadvisably (1). Following the guidance of the auditor's report, changes in its Board of Directors, and further financial assistance from SEERAD, it is understood that the SAC overall (the combination of commercial and academic activities) is "showing a positive operating margin" (2).

 

Figure 1:
Ian Ivory,
Chairman SAC since October 2003.
He is a chartered accountant who manages some
2000 acres of family farms mainly in Strathmore
Photo ©Kimpton Graphics

The chairman of the SAC since October 2003 is Mr Ian Ivory (Figure 1), a chartered accountant. He was formerly a Partner and Director of the investment management company, Stewart Ivory, a company which he helped set up. His extensive business interests include membership of the Board of Finsbury Pharmaceutical Trust, a company with £200 million of investments, exclusively in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. He is also a Director of Hardy Underwriting plc which underwrites over £60 million in Lloyds.

He is currently involved in the management of family farms, mainly in Strathmore, which extend to more than 2000 acres. Apart from cereal, potato and beef enterprises, the farms are home to two pedigree herds, Charolais and Simmental. His agricultural credentials include the Vice Presidency of the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland in 1996/97 and his trusteeship of the Scottish Society for Crop Research (Invergowrie) and the Mylnefield Trust (Invergowrie).

How did the title of the conference come to be chosen?

The fact of the matter is that much of Scottish farming is currently in crisis and has been heading that way for sometime, be it dairy, beef, lamb or cereals. That has been so even when subsidies based on production were available. The situation currently is made worse by the progressive erosion of subsidies starting this year, heading for their disappearance.

There are mighty few opportunities for farming to take in the market, thanks to the massive monopoly of supermarkets in the UK and the manner in which they trade, the huge amount of unproductive bureaucracy generated by a combination of the EU, DEFRA and SEERAD, and the over emphasis on quasi environmental issues by lobby groups that have little regard for farming and too often do not have a sufficiently wide knowledge of land management to justify their single interest demands (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).

Given these circumstances, it is remarkable that the SAC should be running a conference at this time entitled "Taking market opportunities." While whatever opportunities that remain in the market certainly need to be taken, it would have been much better if the SAC had used the opportunity of their annual conference to give a more objective assessment of how they see the state of the nation as far as their brief is concerned. But is their brief Scottish agriculture (as their full name implies), or is it now something quite different, such as anything that will facilitate a more positive financial balance for the SAC?

The UK government's real agenda is revealed by Tony Blair, who clearly wishes to use UK agriculture as a mere bargaining pawn for other ventures as he plays the global stage, seeking his place in history - aided by his friend, EC Commissioner for Trade Peter Mandelson who was previously sacked from Blair's cabinet for misdemeanour. Also, the environmental lobby, which is much favoured by the Westminster's Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) under the guidance of the much discredited Margaret Beckett, is supported with the illogical fervour of the ideological believer, as she ignores the checks and balances required by the practicalities of the real world. Likewise, the disproportionate support given by government (both north and south of the border) to what is referred to as the "environmental lobby" is manifestly unjust.

What was remarkable about this conference is that some of the key participants (with notable exceptions) are viewed by many as the main architects of the demise of Scottish farming. And here they were telling us how to "Take marketing opportunities".

When welcoming delegates to the conference, Ian Ivory remarked that the numbers were somewhat down on last year. As previously, rather few farmers were in attendance - perhaps even fewer than last year. Numbers were made up by SAC students and SAC staff. The reality is that most farms are so short of labour - through lack of availability and funds - that a full day in Edinburgh at a cost of £50 to be told how to take marketing opportunities would hardly be a winner.

The conference was told that the number of applications to study at SAC were up. No information was given as to what they wanted to study, but one suspects rather few in agriculture and rather many in "managing the environment" or "business management" or things to do with horses.

Ross Finnie, Minister for SEERAD

Figure 2:
Ross Finnie
Minister for SEERAD
delivering his speech at the SAC Outlook conference 2005
Photo ©Kimpton Graphics

But if that was not bad enough, we were treated to a strong defence of the supermarkets. As Mr Finnie stated, they occupy some 75% (or is it more?) of the domestic market in groceries (be it beef, lamb, dairy, vegetables, fruit, cereal products, etc, etc). In no other European country have the supermarkets managed to get such a stranglehold on the domestic market. Yet Mr Finnie made light of the difficulties that UK farmers have in trading fairly with UK supermarkets. While indeed there may be individual success stories where the development of a niche market may have been strikingly successful, the reality is that for the bulk of Scottish farming trying to compete against such a strong monopoly is not feasible - no matter what entrepreneurial skills, dedication and financial investment may be committed to the attempt. It is here that Mr Finnie's training as an accountant seems to get confused with the demands of his subsequent career as a politician.

In the words of NFUS President John Kinnaird:

"Around 80 per cent of the food and drink produced in this country is sold through the major supermarkets and the misuse of power must be addressed if we want to secure the future of Scotland's world famous food industry"
(Scottish Farming Leader, December 2005)

When challenged on the subject of supermarket monopolies, Mr Finnie's answer was less than satisfactory. It was typical of someone who is aware that there is no adequate answer that he could give withot compromising the government's stance, and so relies on ridicule by referring to extremes that no one is looking for.

To quote Mr Finnie:

"It was not his job to talk the industry down or to say that we have come to the end of the world. My point is that it is not for us to say 'oh these supermarkets, the world would be a better place without them'. That attitude just won't do - the supermarkets are key players and we need, as an industry, to look at the opportunities of working with them"

But, Mr Finnie, the opportunities to work with them have to depend on fair trading, not trading that is dependent on the supermarkets screwing down the farmers - in many instances forcing them to supply goods at a price below the cost of production. That is why farmers have been so disappointed at the ineptness of the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and the apparent reluctance to date of the Scottish Executive (or indeed Westminster) to take any significant part in trying to resolve the matter.

The dire situation in which Scottish dairy farmers find themselves has been well documented. It was clearly articulated by Jim Maclaren, Crieff, when he challenged the Minister at the Outlook Conference. If more hard evidence was needed, it came just two days later when Robert Balfour held his dispersal sale for the entire diary herd of 107 cows and 100 calves of Balbirnie Estate, Fife. This long established dairy herd was producing above average milk yields. Robotic milking equipment had recently been installed. This herd probably came within Mr Finnie's top 25% in its class. No matter, after much consideration the Balfour family concluded that this loss making enterprise could not continue (13).

Mr Finnie announced to the SAC conference that he had launched a consultation paper on the labelling of food served in restaurants indicating the country of origin. While this was welcome it is long overdue. He could have acted in this important regard within EU rules many months if not years ago. It is now a matter of Scotland trying to catch up with what France and Eire have already achieved.

Is Mr Finnie really committed to furthering the prosperity
rather than the decline of Scottish agriculture?

The Minister proclaimed that his belief and aim was that agriculture would remain as the cornerstone of Scotland's rural economy.

He said:

"I remain of the view that, as an industry, we must not be driven by CAP - we must have a strategy of our own. The CAP is only a means to any end. We, as an industry, must set our own agenda, towards the vision of a prosperous and economic industry"

Fine words, but his actions hardly bear them out, as witnessed by

his inappropriate defence of the misuse of the monopoly powers of supermarkets,

his inability to curb the increased bureaucracy that has come with CAP reform (rather than simplification),

his substantial delay in getting food labelling to be effective in restaurants in terms of country of origin,

his insistence that the problem with farmers is that most of them (not surprisingly by definition) are not in the top 25% of efficiency and yet Scottish farmer are among if not the most efficient in Europe.

SEERAD's Land Management Contract scheme - although proclaimed by Mr Finnie as a success - has in fact been a striking failure as far as encouraging farming to be a prosperous and economic industry. Rather SEERAD succumbed to the pressures of the environment lobby (e.g. Environment LINK) creating conditions on land management that are so restrictive as to be bizarre.

his recent decision to retain the much discredited Scottish Agricultural Wages Board (16). Minimum wage legislation has been in place for some years so that there is no need for agricultural workers to be given a 5% pay rise - well above any other sector. But the real damage is done by the expectation that such a rise generates across the whole range of employees working on farms.

his support for the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 and the Land Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003 did little to help farming - being in the former an instrument to allow essentially uncontrolled access by the public to all farm land day and night, and in the latter an instrument to ensure that little land was tenanted in the future.

his lack of opposition to the anti-fox hunting bill (now the Wildlife Protection Scotland Act) that was promoted by his erstwhile political colleague, Lord Watson who currently languishes in goal for wilful arson that endangered the life of others.

the punitive penalties carried on from year to year imposed by SEERAD on Scottish cattlemen when demonstrably an innocent mistake was made in claiming Beef Suckler Cow Premium in the early 2000's (17).

his failure to dissuade the Chancellor from increasing the tax on red diesel, resulting in serious increased costs to the farmer,

etc

The reality of the current situation in UK farming is expressed by hard-headed accountants Deloitte and Touche who are not prone to listen to the guile of the political hype machine. Thus, the same firm that conducted the audit on SAC, have claimed that the losses on food production by its farming clients averaged £23,000 on a typical 1000 acre unit last year (11). This was forecast to rise to £35,000 in the current year, with £41,000 predicted for 2007/8. Only income from diversified enterprises and from EU single farm support payments are providing profits and maintaining investment in the countryside.

Table 1:
Financial forecast over the next three years for an average
Deloitte client farming 1,000 acres
Reproduced by kind permission of Deloitte & Touche LLP (11)

The Deloitte and Touche report in its latest annual farm income survey had an interesting comment to make on trying to increase efficiency in dairying:

"against an average yield of 6000 litres-per-cow, raising the yield to 10,000 litres only works if the price is at 25p per litre. The more these people produced the more they lost"

The main message from the Deloitte and Touche survey is that

"fundamentalist farmers are 'flouting logic' by carrying on producing food at a loss."

The average farm in Scotland is substantially smaller than 1,000 acres, which may make it even more difficult for them to be economically viable an account of the economies of scale that can be achieved on larger farms.

The puzzle here is the contradiction that must arise when farmers are advised to be more efficient, and yet at the same time they are also advised to spread their energies by diversifying. But then the policies arising from SEERAD are full of illogical contradictions.

Douglas Bell: Interpretation of Land Management Contracts (LMCs)

Sadly, here again spin was rife.

But what was revealing were the figures given for the uptake by Scottish farmers for each of the 17 options on offer from SEERAD under the heading of Land Management Contracts (LMCs).

Although proclaimed by SEERAD as receiving "overwhelming industry support," in fact rather less than 50% of Scottish farmers took up any of them (18). Out of the 10,000 applications and a predicted spend of over £17million, some 7,500 opted for getting half of their quality assurance fees refunded (Figure 4). But the predicted spend by SEERAD on this item was very small at £0.85million, indicating the small sums involved per applicant - hardly surprising since the maximum limit was £150 per farm.

The next most popular item (with 3,949 applications) was agreeing to join an Animal Health and Welfare Plan (AHWP) that they probably already had as part of their existing quality assurance certification. Once again the predicted spend on this item by SEERAD was relatively small at £2.5million (14.7% of the total) so that amount available per farmer is small with an average of £137 per year over 5 years. Yet this minuscule contribution is proclaimed by the Minister as demonstrating SEERAD's serious interest in animal health and welfare. Yet if the truth be known the health of the Scottish herd falls far short of that in most other EU countries and in Scandinavia, on account of a lack over many years of co-ordinated health planning and/or its availability at an affordable cost.

Figure 4:
The uptake of Land Management Contracts.
Two of the 17 options had subcategories, providing a total of 19 options
To enlarge Click Here
This graph was provided by SAC based on SEERAD data

The largest predicted spend was in relation to access to farmland whereby SEERAD is attempting to put the responsibility for maintenance of paths etc (and therefore the matter of handling any complaints from the public) on to the farmer, following the implementation of its ideological but largely irrational Land Reform (Scotland) Act. While this may be satisfactory for seldom used tracks in remote areas, it would be a bad bargain for farms next urban communities. Yet this represents some £6.60million (39%) of the total of £17million of the projected spend. This hardly can be said to "improve farming" as claimed by SEERAD.

Contrary to the claims of SEERAD, the uptake on environmental issues was in general poor. The main reason is the over restrictive regulations attached to the projects that would compromise competent farming and be potentially detrimental to animal welfare. Who with a genuine interest in animal welfare would seek funding to graze cattle in areas managed for rushes, when that environment is known to promote liver fluke that has caused so much disease - especially in recent years - in cattle (19). Yet this attracted a predicted spend by the taxpayer of over £2million.

Unless a farmer wants to go into the business of growing weeds, who would be tempted to over-winter stubbles when, come the spring, no weedkillers are allowed? Who would welcome severe constraints as to how and when they can manage their farm ditches if the objective is to farm efficiently? Indeed, it is questionable whether the rules that accompany many of the LMCs are compatible with "good agricultural condition" in terms of common-sense farm management. The rules would appear to have been drawn up by as an "environment" lobby group with little or no practical (or indeed theoretical) knowledge of farming.

The number of applications to most of the other items on the menu list were minuscule, but included 12 for "biodiversity cropping on in-bye" using an antiquated binder and making stooks, reminiscent of the 1940s (20).

The bulk of the LMC funding is to be spent in relation to the Scottish Executive's poorly drafted Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, which provides virtually uncontrolled public access to all farmland day and night. As mentioned above, a pitiful amount is to be spent on trying to control cattle diseases such as Johnes, BVD and IBR that are widespread in the Scottish herd and are among the worst in Europe.

The main purpose farmers had in applying to this scheme was to try and get back some of the funds that had been deducted from the Single Farm Payment through the device of "modulation."

In summary, SEERAD's claim that

"the scheme promotes initiatives such as participation in quality assurance schemes, animal health and welfare programmes and the environmentally sensitive management of habitats"

is hollow. It matches the hype with which the scheme was initially launched (21).

As clearly articulated by Sir Brian Follet and his Royal Society committee, high standards of animal health and welfare are dependent on a prosperous farming industry (22). For all the hype, LMCs of the style put forward by SEERAD are not going to help achieve it.

Whether the environmental benefits that may be gained through LMCs represent value for money is questionable. As Kirsty Macleod has pointed out (15): -

"Who takes the flak when 'farming for the environment' schemes fail to deliver?"

However, Douglas Bell in his presentation to the conference was careful not to imply any criticism of SEERAD. As a member of the commercial division of SAC, his job was to make money for SAC out of advising farmers (and other forms of "land manager") what was available, and how best to apply. We did not hear a single word that the LMCs scheme might be poorly constructed, or that in some areas - such as livestock health and welfare - it could be significantly damaging to competent farming.

Roger Crofts:

Roger Crofts, a geographer by training, spent 17 years at the Scottish Office advising on the policy and the administration of development in rural Scotland. In his last posting at the Scottish Office he established a rural co-ordination unit within the Department. He prepared policies and legislative proposals for the natural heritage and for the establishment of the quango, Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) of which he became chief executive. It is understood that he has had no formal training in agriculture, but claims an understanding of the subject "by talking to farmers." But as with other professions, just talking to those in a profession seldom provides an adequate basis for professional competence in the subject, or indeed a sufficiently comprehensive or - even rational - understanding of it. Yet there can be little doubt that Roger Crofts has had a substantial, if misguided, influence on the nature of farming in Scotland.

In November 2002 he lost his appeal to the Employment Tribunal (Scotland) against his dismissal from SNH (23), and in the same year was appointed to the Board of the Scottish Agricultural College (SAC) (24). He is an honorary professor of geography at the University of Aberdeen.

He was a strong proponent of what was effectively uncontrolled public access to farmland at any time of day or night, going far beyond what any other country had thought wise to do. This website has previously commented about the nature of the methods used by SNH to promote these policies and how they were implemented after "consultation" (25, 26, 27)

At the present conference he somewhat remarkably commented on the absence of delegates from the environment lobby. He also noted their apparent lack of celebration in relation to what had been achieved supposedly on their behalf. Indeed, he went so far as to say that the environment lobby should be supporting farming. That is an interesting change of heart, probably based on the realisation that, with farming going out of business, the current shortage of people with skills to work on the land is going to get worse (28). Or was it because he now wears a different hat? After all, the training of a civil servant is to implement the policy of the bosses.

I believe that he was the only speaker throughout the whole conference who suggested that organically produced food had health advantages - something that to date, to my knowledge, has never been established, and is not recognised to be the case by the Food Standards Agency. His comment amounts to just more hype from the "environment" lobby, epitomised by Scottish Environment LINK which includes the Scottish Soil Association and some 30 other organisations that get - just for starters - 29% of their running costs guaranteed paid for each year by the taxpayer through the Scottish Executive via SNH (29). This happy group of taxpayer-funded organisations includes the RSPB, Friends of the Earth, WWF Scotland, the Ramblers Association and Plantlife Scotland, as well as associate members such as the Bat Conservation Trust. Roger Crofts is a board member of Plantlife International.

Andy Robertson

Andy Robertson was also previously a senior civil servant of many years standing at SEERAD. He is currently the Chief Executive Officer for NFU Scotland. But was he too simply following the mantra of this conference: talk up farming, don't talk it down and forget reality?

Figure 5:
Andy Robertson,
Chief Executive of NFUS
Photo ©Kimpton Graphics

NFUS only represents some 50% of the some 20,000 farmers in Scotland. If the NFUS wants more members their CEO would be wise to be a bit more forthcoming with regard to articulating the genuine worries Scotland's farmers have as to the economic viability of their farming businesses following CAP reform (30, 31). They have even greater worries about Prime Minister Tony Blair's ambitions on the world stage and his attempt to use UK agriculture as a political pawn. While economists argue that agriculture contributes little to the UK's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) such an argument ignores the importance of food security. History has demonstrated that it can be unwise for an island such as the Great Britain not to be self-sufficient in food. The world is a dangerous place with terrorism high on the agenda. Britain could be particularly vulnerable if it is dependent on other countries for both food and energy. But that is the way things are heading at the moment.

It is true that Scotland is well ahead of England in terms of the control of bovine TB. But there is a very long way to go until the health of the average Scottish herd is really up to the standard it should be. Some of the Scandinavian countries, such as Finland and Norway are well ahead of Scotland in terms of the control of diseases in their livestock. They achieved this largely through their government's support.

Andy Robertson is keen on saying that the various authorities involved should work together. While this is clearly true, nevertheless when sufficient progress is not being achieved it is to be hoped that the NFUS could be a little more assertive in getting across the views of their members. Having said that, one can appreciate the difficulties they must have when farming matters are discussed. At such an event there are likely to be some nine stakeholders of one kind or another, against one with actual farming experience and who carries the financial responsibility for running a farm business.

Tim Greet, when president of the British Veterinary Association, described the situation well in relation to veterinary matters (32):

"The current Government fashion for stakeholder meetings provides single interest groups with an ideal platform to influence Government thinking: we must be aware of the potential of this lobby to distort the facts"

He also stressed that:

"viable veterinary services depend upon viable farming enterprises"

The formation of Government policy on farming in Scotland may be likened to driving a car with Ross Finnie in the driving seat, but with a coach load of back-seat drivers very few of whom really know much about how a car is driven or its mechanical limitations. Nevertheless, a group of them get together in a talking-shop and agree among themselves that it would be nice to go to such and such and do such and such, ignoring the fact that the car was not in any shape to achieve their ambitions through lack of fuel and maintenance - or even a decent map.

The task of the NFUS is to try and get its voice heard above the cacophony of ideological drivel. These days that depends largely on public image. On this front, in the eyes of some of its members - and potential members - the NFUS could do better.

David Green

Market opportunities for crofters are in tourism, provision of local food and the development of small industries through diversification. That sounds fine, but I do not recall being told about the endless bureaucratic obstacles and other difficulties that are put in the way of such ventures being successful. True, he did refer to the high cost of fuel which make transport costs particularly burdensome.

Figure 6:
David Green,
Chairman, Crofters Commission
Photo ©Kimpton Graphics

The fact that food may be produced locally is splendid in terms of limiting food miles and giving local colour to the available cuisine, but production locally does not necessarily mean high quality. If such market opportunities are to be effectively utilised, then something will have to be done about the distinct sparsity of veterinary services in remote communities (33). Otherwise claims about the high standards of animal health cannot be substantiated.

Perhaps some assessment of the performance of VisitScotland (that replaced the discredited Tourist Board) would also have been helpful.

But, as with the SAC and the NFUS, there seemed to be a reluctance on the part of the Crofter Commission to have a true debate with the Minister or to criticise SEERAD. There seemed to be an air of resigned acceptance reminiscent of a third world country. May be much good work is being done behind the scenes, but - as with the NFUS - it is likely that any crofters who may have been present would like to have witnessed a presentation with a bit more verve and substance at such an important conference.

Professor David Hughes

Here was a Welsh emeritus professor of food marketing at Imperial College London talking about how here in Scotland we should be marketing the products of our farms. While the principles of marketing are probably much the same the world over, how they are applied has to depend on local knowledge as to what is available, and why restrictions on availability apply. Discussion with this eminent professor left me with the impression that he had little idea of the nature of much of Scottish farming as determined by such fundamentals as terrain and climate.

It is all very well to describe in hyperdynamic mode the £millions he has advised organisations to spend on marketing, but for all the hype it cut little ice. It is easy to advise if you can ignore the massive obstacles that governments and their agencies - be they based in Edinburgh, London or Brussels - put in the way. He need have no fear that Scottish farmers will exploit the export market in beef, for example, once the ban on exports (that has been in place of 10 years) is lifted. But just look how long it is taking the authorities to lift the ban when scientists across Europe have agreed there is no longer a need for it.

I think we have all known for a long time that many consumers buy on price (commodity market), and that there is a smaller but important market for high quality products for special occasions (quality market) and which carries a much better price differential. It should also be self-evident, particularly in relation to the quality market, that psychological factors are highly important to the enjoyment of eating. Central to this is the image as to where the food came from, etc.

He stressed that there was no place for Scottish farmers in the commodity market, as this will be dominated by cheap imports. Indeed he teased accountant Ian Ivory, SAC Chairman, for allegedly pursuing commodity beef production on the family farms that he manages at Strathmore. But maybe Mr Ivory is not so daft, realising that to try to satisfy the quality market is likely to involve much higher running costs, and much greater expertise than may be available in his situation. It would appear that accountant Ian Ivory with his involvement in farm management had reached a different decision for commercial reasons from that of erstwhile accountant Ross Finnie, whose experience of farming is confined to politics and the media spin so characteristic of that profession.

Interestingly, marketing professor, David Hughes did not regard Scotch Aberdeen Angus Beef as one of Scotland's icons. "You can get Aberdeen Angus beef anywhere," he said. Oh dear, oh dearie me! Did one really want to go to an SAC conference to listen to such twoddle.

Alistair Macphie

He is Chief Executive Officer of Macphie of Glenbervie, a highly successful food supply chain. But was it possible he was talking to the wrong conference? His talk would have fitted admirably with the conference entitled "Creation of Wealth" that the Royal Society of Edinburgh was holding the next day. If he has not already been awarded "Scot businessman of the year", then he should be.

Figure 8:
Alastair Macphie,
CEO Macphie of Glenbervie
Photo ©Kimpton Graphics

However, in the context of this conference, his company's main operation is to source basic food items from anywhere in the world, process them and supply high quality goods mainly to the catering trade. Virtually none of the raw materials involved came from Scotland. His factory could have been placed somewhere in Scotland's central belt - such as Cumbernauld, Paisley or Shotts.

In comparison to the multimillion pound turnover based on non-Scottish raw materials, a small and separate company under his direction markets pedigree Aberdeen Angus beef from the Glenbervie farm. It carries some 200 head of Aberdeen Angus cattle. The meat is sold through a butcher in Montrose and through Stoddart's in Ayrshire (34). It looked as though the comparatively tiny component of the Macphie empire - the Aberdeen Angus beef - might be viewed as a promotional project to give the impression that Macphie food products might come from Scotland, while the vast majority do not. It is with great regret that a previous commercial venture under the Glenbervie name to market quality Aberdeen Angus beef, involving the co-operation of many Aberdeen Angus farmers throughout Scotland, collapsed and has not been rejuvenated. On the positive side, Alastair Macphie's successful business provides many good jobs in a rural setting.

What Scottish farming really needs is a way of adding value to the goods that Scotland itself produces. That way, those looking after the land may be able to share in the prosperity so created. Without that prosperity in farming, high standards of animal health and welfare and high standards of environmental care will not be achievable.

Andrew Booth

Now at last, here was the genuine article. There was no hype here - just good livestock farming worked by members of a family that relate well to each other across the generations, and who have within them a combination of skills and drive that makes an ideal recipe for business success in the beef industry (35).

Figure 9:
Andrew Booth,
Director of The Store Company
Photo ©Kimpton Graphics

Under the trade name, "The Store" the concept of a farm shop has been extended so that the shop is open from Monday to Saturday in a permanent site in Stockbridge, Edinburgh. There is a lot of city money within walking distance of the attractively laid-out premises, situated close to the West End of this prosperous city, but where the extortionate rates imposed on businesses by the City Council are less draconian. Its only serious disadvantage is the lack of any car parking in the vicinity, thanks to the Council's chaotic city planning.

Here genuine quality is served with a civility and knowledge that has long disappeared from supermarkets. Only Aberdeen Angus beef, born and bred in Scotland, is served. The minimum requirement is for 75% Aberdeen Angus genetics, in contract to the 50% that passes as Aberdeen Angus in many another outlet. The cattle are fed on the Booth farms prior to finishing, thereby achieving the optimum eating quality of the final product. Detailed attention is paid to how the carcass is hung and for how long. The result is an eating quality that is miles beyond what the public have become accustomed to in the supermarkets. Clearly, the well-off city residents are more than happy to pay the higher prices necessarily incurred. They are more than happy to feel that they are supporting a genuine Scottish farming enterprise producing quality and not just propaganda. They are keen to have an image of a defined Scottish farm, and to have the confidence and trust that comes from talking direct with those involved in managing the enterprise.

The Booth business developed when subsidies such as the suckler cow premium etc were in full swing. Clearly, with the virtually complete withdrawal of production subsidies - and the rapidly progressive reduction in the Single Farm Payment (based on historical production) - his business is going to come under increasing financial pressure. But if any Scottish livestock farming business is going to survive, surely this one should.

What is also so refreshing about Andrew Booth's approach is his attitude towards the breeding of his Aberdeen Angus cattle in the first place. In selecting bulls forbreeding, he ignores the MLC/Signet EBV grading system that is based on producing as much quantity as possible and which bears no relation to the eating quality of the final product. The MLC/Signet intransigence on the subject has been a serious problem in the eyes of many for a very long time, and led to the Aberdeen Angus Cattle Society (and now many other breeds) adopting the Australian BREEDPLAN system (36). In this context it is encouraging that training courses are underway in Scotland for scanning for muscle marbling, a feature well recognised in the USA and Australia as an indicator for eating quality, but so often denied by the government sponsored powers that be in the UK.

While in this reviewer's opinion "The Store" retails the best beef in town, such success in a niche market will not answer the problems that currently face Scottish farming. Hopefully, what Andrew Booth has achieved in Stockbridge, Edinburgh can also be achieved with the export of genuine Aberdeen Angus heifer meat to the upmarket restaurants of Italy. But whoever is doing the exporting, will they keep to the rigorous standards adopted by Andrew Booth and his family team? The fear is that they will not. Instead, the interests of getting in quantity and maintaining a continuous supply may prevail. That would be a big mistake. What is required is to convince selected outlets for the export market of the genuine quality of the article by doing an Andrew Booth on them. It is just not good enough to have a man in a kilt proclaiming that Scotch is best - you have to produce the product that proves it.

What Andrew Booth's main problem is going to be is how to expand without loosing that excellent control that he and his family members presently have. Here he will come across the ills of excessive bureaucracy - such as employment law as it affects small companies. In trying to recruit additional staff he may also have difficulty in getting the skills in the first place, or even the motivation to work or an ambition to acquire such skills. At the rate things are going in rural Scotland, he may have to look to the agencies for the employment of workers from other EU member states such Poland or Estonia.

Conclusion

This conference has been covered here in some depth - possibly as a reaction to the superficial nature of much of the content of the conference itself.

In this article the attempt has been made to put reality into the over optimistic picture that the conference organisers would have us believe.

The situation demonstrated by this SAC Outlook Conference is deeply worrying. While Scottish farming descends into further crisis, the government minister for the relevant department talks it up. He was aided in this - for the most part - by the speakers who were selected to take part in the conference.

Very little was said by any speaker throughout the whole day that related to any concern they might have regarding the general direction that our political masters are taking Scottish farming.

Indeed, the situation is reminiscent of the remark made by a leading Scottish businessman commenting on the continuing decline of the Scottish economy and its management

"We are trying to be like what Estonia use to be, just as Estonians are managing not to be like Estonia"

Thus, an inappropriate government policy on agriculture prevails with excessive emphasis on the detail pertaining to the "environment" and "conservation" but to the neglect of basic principles, supported by an organisation such as the SAC which is itself heavily dependent on funding from the Scottish Executive.

The conference consisted of a mixutre of politics, commerce and supposedly independent science - all mixed in to make a largely unacceptable stew of political propaganda. Anyone who might be criticial of the government's message would not be asked as a speaker, lest the hand that feeds the SAC (and so much else) got bitten.

Somehow one expects the Scottish Agricultural College (or SAC as it now prefers to call itself) to do better. It will need to be seen to be able to stand up to fallacies in government thinking if it is going to regain the reputation it once had for independent thought and for providing independent advice and comment. To achieve this the SAC would do well to concentrate its resources on its core function, namely agriculture.

©www.land-care.org.uk

References

1. Irvine, James (2003). Shake up at Scottish Agricultural College: what is the present standing of Scottish agriculture?
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 17 Mar 03, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to View

2. http://www.sac.ac.uk

3. Irvine, James (2003). The arrogance of academics pontificating about rural affairs: are they letting us down?
ECRR conference "Scotland's landscape - a fixed asset?" Battleby, Perth, 8th May 2003.
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 14 May 03, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to View

4. Robertson, Liz (2004). SNH and the Isle of Arran. A case study presented at the PEOPLE TOO conference " Who governs rural Scotland?" Perth 29th October 2004.
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 19 Nov 04, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to View

5. Irvine, James (2004). Concerns about the validity of statements on the condition of SSSIs in Scotland made by members of Environment LINK. A review and comments on a case study presented by Kirsty Macleod at PEOPLE TOO conference, Perth
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 17 Nov 04, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to View

6. Irvine, James (2005). Comment on the Roger Wheater/Alex Hogg session: "Enhancing our environment: holistic management or single species priorities?".
Scottish Countryside Alliance Conference "Getting the balance right - rural Scotland 2005."
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 27 Apr 05, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to View

7. Haskins, Paul (2005). The welfare of grazing livestock and the designation of Environmental Sensitive Area (ESA).
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 05 Sep 05, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to View

8. Irvine, James (2005). The unhealthy relationship between the Scottish Executive, the Soil Association, the Scottish Agricultural College, the lobby group Environment LINK and the media needs to be addressed.
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 21 Jun 05, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to View

9. Irvine, James (2004). Is the Macauley Land Use Research Institute (MLURI) going to tell us what kind of livestock we should have on our farms?
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 12 Sep 04, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to View

10. Irvine, James (2004). Review: SAC Outlook Conference: "Benefiting from change," Murrayfield, Edinburgh, 16th November 2005.
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 23 Jan 05, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to V|iew

11. Deloitte & Touche LLP (2005). Farmers predicted to produce food at a loss.
News release, 04 Nov 2005. Click Here to View (pdf)

12. Irvine, James (2003). SAC land economist gets it badly wrong.
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 01 Apr 03, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to View

13. Reported in Scottish Farmer and Dundee Courier Newspaper

14. Forster, Robert (2005). Advice from the National Beef Association'
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 11 Dec 05, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to View

15. Macleod, Kirsty (2005). Who takes the flack when "farming for the environment" schemes fail to deliver?
See ENVIRONMENT Homepage, filed 30 Nov 05, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to View

16. SEERAD (2005). The future of the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2005/11/07131202

17. Scottish Farming Leader (2005).

18. SEERAD (2005). Land management contracts menus scheme. News release 25/08/2005
http://www. scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2005/25151946 Click Here to View (pdf)

19. Irvine, James (2005). Land Management Contracts analysed: items 8 & 9 - Moorland grazing and rush pasture.
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 14 Mar 05, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to View

20. Irvine, James (2005). Land Management Contracts analysed: item 10 - biodiversity cropping on in-bye. Surely the stupidest of them all.
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 14 Mar 05, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to View

21. Editorial (2005). Land Management Contracts -a joke if they were not so sad.
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 28 Feb 05, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to View

22. Follet, Brian (2002). Royal Society inquiry into infectious diseases of livestock.
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk

23. Editorial (2003). Professor Roger Crofts loses appeal against dismissal from chief executive post SNH
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 13 Feb 03, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to View

24. Editorial (2002). Scottish Agricultural College - what is going on?
See SCIENCE Homepage, filed 13 October 2002, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to View

25. Editorial (2003). Scottish Natural Heritage's policy on access: is it being missold in relation to enclosed farmland next urban communities? A report on the press conference held by SNH at the Royal Highland Show, Ingliston, Edinburgh, June 2000.
See LAND REFORM Homepage, filed 07 Jan 03, www.land-care.org.ukClick Here to View

26. Editorial (2003). Re-drafted SNH Scottish Outdoor Access Code pays little heid to consultation responses.
See SCOTTISH OUTDOOR ACCESS CODE Homepage, filed 02 Dec 03, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to View

27. Irvine, James (2003). Does SNH conduct itself as an honest broker or as a political manipulator?
See SCOTTISH OUTDOOR ACCESS CODE Homepage, filed 25 Oct 03, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to View

28. Editorial (2005). Some conservationists wake up to the fact that "environmental" agendas may not be good for conservation.
See ENVIRONMENT Homepage, filed 13 Jul 05, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to View

29. http://www.scotlink.org

30. Clover, Charles (2005). Farmers' strike? It's a rotten business.
Article reproduced from the Daily Telegraph, 3rd November 2005.
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 06 Nov 05, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to View

31. Riddoch, Lesley (2005). The parable of the last sheep.
Article reproduced from Sunday Herald 6th November 2005
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 10 Nov 05, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to View

32. British Veterinary Association (2004). BVA congress 2004: address by president Tim Greet.
See ANIMAL HEALTH - GENERAL Homepage, filed 14 Oct 04, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to view

33. Irvine, James (2003). Veterinary services to the cattle and sheep sectors. SAC Workshop 2nd June, Norton House,Ingliston, Edinburgh
See ANIMAL HEALTH - GENERAL Homepage, filed 13 Jun 03, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to View

34. http://www.macphie.com

35. http://eatscotland.visitscotland.com/whos_who/profiles/308890/andrewbooth/

36. Irvine, James (2004). Aberdeen Angus cattle breeding: Perth bull sales, October 2004.
See SCIENCE Homepage, filed 27 Oct 04, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to View