Image via Flickr

A Decade of Currency Rates and Inflation may reflect financial catastrophes, strong economic growth or deep, dark recession. Currency rates and inflation are always changing, and their instability usually reflect the much bigger economic picture. Understand them to unlock their secrets, and stay one step ahead of financial changes that could lead to big gains or big losses.

Currency Rates and Inflation

Inflation helps to determine currency rates — how much money is worth. It can get pretty confusing — isn’t one dollar worth one dollar? However, because of the gold standard, money always has a worth that isn’t necessarily the same as the number printed in the corners. Every bit of money that is printed or minted in the United States, for example, is actually a representation of how much gold the US has (or owes to other countries). Money that’s currently in circulation, which means it’s in the hands of people and businesses as well as the government, is theoretically attached to gold also.

Inflation determines how much that one dollar bill is worth. When inflation is high, the dollar is worth less. When it’s low, obviously the value of the dollar is higher. A slow, steady rate of inflation is optimal for governments. Because money is traded back and forth between countries, it’s important that each has its own currency rate. But each is also subject to inflation, both globally and on a more local scale. That’s why the exchange rate from U.S. to foreign money is always different. A year ago, ten American dollars was a certain amount in Euros. Today, you wouldn’t get the same number of Euros for that same ten bucks. A decade of currency rates and inflation, both globally and nationally, will show both dramatic and steady changes over the years.

Business Industry

The business industry helps control the flow of a huge chunk of the global economy. Whether it’s the business of agriculture, manufacturing, distribution or transportation, almost everyone has a stake in some aspect of business. The truck driver who delivers products, the sales clerk who convinces consumers to buy them, the factory worker who helps make them in the first place — all of them are part of different business industries that help drive money into many different hands.

Inflation affects businesses too. When it costs more money to get loans for new projects, businesses have to charge more for their products, or perhaps cut back on employee bonuses. The employees have less money to spend, and as a result less money gets back to the business. With less money, the business has less to make or sell and distribute future products. When the economy fails, businesses may start to fail as well. A decade of currency rates and inflation show that the business industry is definitely linked to the overall picture in a big way.

Thanks to email faxing, the entire fax sending process has been simplified.

Image via Flickr

Email Faxing: A Time-saver

Without a doubt, scanning a picture or document and then sending it via standard fax machine appeals to few people in the Internet age. The whole process just seems so 1980s, doesn’t it? Email provides instant sending and receiving gratification and an uncomplicated means for delivering prompt answers to questions.

However, a business that tries to abandon faxing completely is undoubtedly going to meet some unhappy customers. There are simply too many documents in hard copy form that require sharing to abandon the practice altogether. Email faxing with Metrofax allows users to transfer documents in a fax legible manner.

What Makes Email Faxing Different

Having emails that function as faxes is a process made easy through online faxing. You don’t have to learn a new fax process, as the transfer is essentially the same as sending an email. No printing, no scanning; instead, your iPhone or computer can send the same type of fax as the bulky machine that before took up an entire corner in the print room.

Business contacts can be gathered from other areas of your phone, such as Microsoft Outlook, further expediting the fax sending process.

Image via Flickr

What about the cover pages we all grew so familiar with as we sent and received faxes? You have access to a number of templates when email faxing, and all contact information for your recipient, such as name and fax number, can instantly be imported to the cover page of your fax document. Further instructions can then be added by the sender in the subject and body of the outgoing fax.

How Does It Work

Working in a similar way to email, your fax is routed from your business using an SMTP connecter that will send the fax to a service instead of an email server. Custom rules make sure that the fax will go to the right recipient and straight to their fax machine or mobile device. The conversion from email to fax is all done automatically over the server using the same DNS system as would be used for email. You will be alerted that your fax has been received with an option to save that confirmation should you need proof of delivery at a later date.

Compare this to a traditional fax where anyone who happens by the fax machine could just take the fax or throw it in the trash! Indeed, email faxing provides increased security along with a simple method for sending faxes.

An RSPCA advertisement urging consumers to “make a difference” by choosing meat, eggs and dairy products bearing the Freedom Food label was misleading because it implied farms in the scheme kept animals free from distress, pain, injury and disease, according to complainants to the Advertising Standards Authority.

But the complaint was dismissed by the authority who said the advertisement made it clear that the purpose of Freedom Food was to improve animal welfare on farms above normal legislative standards.
“It did not imply animals in the scheme were always free from fear, distress, pain, injury or disease, hunger, thirst or discomfort, and was unlikely to mislead,” said the authority.

The RSPCA told the ASA the Freedom Food scheme was intended to encourage the farming industry to abandon poor animal welfare practices. They claimed the scheme was effective because it encouraged consumers to buy products that supported higher standards of animal welfare on farms.

The five freedoms listed in the advertisement were devised by the Farm Animal Welfare Council.
But they were not absolute freedoms because that was almost impossible to achieve.

An animal had to experience hunger or thirst to feel the need to eat and drink and, similarly, it was impossible to keep every animal absolutely free from pain, injury or disease because even in the most ideal circumstances an animal could still suffer accidental injury or disease.

They explained that human beings who caught a cold did not necessarily have a poor quality of life but the quality of care they received indicated whether their needs were being met.

The RSPCA commented on reports provided by some of the complainants which related to three investigations carried out by an animal welfare pressure group which claimed some of the advertisers’ member companies were not adhering to the five freedoms.

RSPCA said that in one case their member had already involved veterinarians to rectify the problem, in another the advertisers deemed the evidence was insufficient to support the allegations and in another the member was suspended from the scheme after an RSPCA investigation.

One of the complainants sent the authority a list showing instances of suspensions and warnings the RSPCA had given to Freedom Food members for not complying with the standards.
The authority considered this showed the RSPCA acted against members who did not adhere to the standards.

Verdict: The RSPCA Freedom Food welfare standards exceed UK and EU legislation. The five freedoms are an ideal that the advertisers strive towards and on which they act to ensure they are achieved

How to make pigs pay

By Digby Scott

Pig producers and processors are throwing away a small fortune every year because they can’t bring themselves to trust each other. In fact pigs are probably worth up to 25 per cent more than they are currently earning – enough to reverse the decline of the UK pig industry.

But even though the stakes are high, producers look upon tighter contracts as a threat, and processors are also showing a marked reluctance to change, according to a new study.

“The British pig industry continues to lag behind the rest of the world’s markets in not maximising the value of its pig carcasses,” says Tony Suckling, general manager of Porcofram Marketing.

“Most sophisticated pigmeat markets recognise the benefits of carcass yield and distribution of meat within the carcass. But we don’t do this in the UK despite the fact that British genetics are recognised throughout the world. We still sell our pigs on weight and backfat probe measurements.

“As a result, the carcasses are not earning as much as they could for all those involved in their production, processing and marketing.”

One producer who is working closely with a processor to produce a “designer” pig, is John Godfrey of R. J. and A. E. Godfrey in North Lincolnshire.

“The industry is contracting to such an extent that the only way of going forward is in partnership with processors,” he maintains “Like it or not, we’re going to have to start trusting them.”

He recognises that persuading producers and processors to work together will be no easy task: many producers think abattoirs are only interested in paying the lowest price they can get away with, whilst processors point to the way the number of loads they receive drops whenever the spot market is a few pence more attractive.

John Godfrey, who has worked with meat manufacturer George Adams to form Linc Porc, urges both producers and processors not to be afraid of joining forces.

“We can improve income for both the producer and the processor by producing a premium quality product,” he says.

A recent study funded by MAFF and Porcofram Marketing to assess whether the true additive value of UK pig carcasses is being recognised and rewarded shows UK pig producers don’t consider carcass yield – in particularly lean meat yield – to be a worthy objective.

“Payment systems for lean meat are used throughout the rest of the world, identifying the additional value of high-yielding carcasses. It seems inappropriate that the UK industry has so few contracts with this objective,” says Robin Yates, Porcofram contract analyst, who led to MAFF/Porcofram study.

“This may be because currently, carcass measurement in the UK under-utilises the technology available for assessing total lean meat percentage, total carcass yield and distribution of lean within the carcass.”

The study encompassed information analysis, producer and processor surveys, visits to European markets and a series of activities including a seminar which together allowed Yates and his team to look at all stages in production and processing and the communications between the stages.

A number of the country’s leading processors and meat buyers were involved (representing over 50 per cent of the market), along with several large scale producers (supplying over 15 per cent of UK pigs).

The original objective had been to identify a method of carcass assessment and from that to develop a payment system which reflected the true quality of the carcass, additional to the weight and probe measurements which currently made up the major part of payment systems in the UK.

“It soon became apparent that this approach to carcass differentiation was not in line with current quality improvement initiatives of the UK processor,” says Tony Suckling.

“Indeed, there was a significant reluctance among many, as identified in the processor survey, to consider making any major changes to their current modus operandi.

“At the same time our industry has been passing through one of its most traumatic periods for several decades and the marketplace is now a pan European or even a world arena. This clearly means that there is a need for change and a greater embracing of all available technology and information if the UK industry is to be competitive in such a global marketplace.”

The project started with a thorough investigation of all available information from several countries on carcass measurement, carcass yield and meat quality.

These key issues were developed throughout the project in the belief that a greater understanding of them needed to be communicated to many within the industry.

It should also encourage a greater level of inter-party discussion rather than the current position where many decisions were imposed on the industry due to lack of pro-activity in the supply chain, says Tony Suckling.

“It was recognised by the organisers that there was also a need to address a number of related areas which could contribute to enhancing the value of the carcass throughout the food chain including: product branding, quality assurance – especially covering health issues – management best practices, enhanced traceability and market intelligence.”

According to Robin Yates, contractual developments which are more specific in terms of production methods, or product quality, are seen as a threat by a proportion of producers.

“However, the opportunity to invest in secure long-term projects should not be ignored. Meat quality issues are perceived by many producers to be the next major area to tackle but there is little information available in the UK about how best to address quality issues and that which has been produced is generally ignored or not acted upon.

“In particular, the catering trade has criticised the meat quality of UK pork. This, together with pricing issues, continues to make the UK commodity less attractive than imported produce. Initiatives are needed to address this potentially huge home market,” he says.

How to overcome mutual distrust

As the UK pig industry continues to restructure there is an expectation that the number of producers who enter collaborative ventures with processors (and retailers) will increase.

John Godfrey believes an essential ingredient of any agreement should be a commitment by the processor to accept all of a participating producer’s finished pigs produced (coupled with a corresponding undertaking by the producer).

Linc Porc – which is in the process of signing up “producer-pioneers” – aims to produce a consistent carcase specifically designed using PIC genetics to help George Adams maximise returns.

Producers need have no fear about their ability to produce to tight specifications, says John Godfrey.

He argues that car manufacturers such as Mercedes turn out a consistent, high quality product, and British pig producers should be able to do the same. Admittedly it may be easier for indoor producers, he admits.

Linc Pork goes further than most collaborative ventures by embracing all aspects of management, including genetics, feed, management practices and production environment.

The aim is for producer-pioneers to work together to consistently meet George Adams’ top grade requirements and so increase income by well over £1 a pig.

Illegal meat floods into UK

By Digby Scott

Baggage oozing blood and stuffed with maggot-infested monkey, deer, tortoise and anteater meat is arriving regularly at Heathrow airport.

UK officials are doing little or nothing to stem the flood of illegal meat because of lack of resources and because they fear being branded racist. Agriculture minister Nick Brown received a full dossier of recent incidents four weeks ago.

The Ministry of Agriculture and HM Customs are bound by recent European law to inspect meat products before they are allowed in the country. But most of the meat — which is destined for ethnic restaurants — is passing through unchecked.

The situation is so bad that recently baggage handlers at Heathrow refused to handle suitcases because of the smell of rotting meat and the blood oozing from them. Last month hand luggage from Ghana covered in blood and maggots was detained for incineration but then disappeared.

Clive Lawrence, whose company Ciel Logistics offer a consultancy service to Heathrow, has warned Nick Brown that the problem of illegally imported meats and fish into the UK is `much larger than the authorities have admitted to’.

He says the current rules are weak and in any case enforcement is not being carried out because the authorities are frightened of losing any subsequent court case. Whilst Customs have admitted there is a serious problem they say they have to concentrate on searching for drugs.

A spot inspection on one flight from Nigeria resulted in 600kgs of illegal food being detained. A few days later another flight was checked and 2,500kgs was detained from passenger luggage. Two days later another 190kgs was found.

An inspection of luggage from a Ghana flight in September resulted in passengers bursting out of the terminal building and arguing with Customs officers and MAFF representatives. Police had to be called to bring the situation under control.

To ban or not to ban?

The government’s proposed ban on the use of swill feeding has sparked off a heated debate in the pig industry. There are many respected producers — for example NPA board member Jim Dewhirst — who believe swill feeding is an anachronism and must be stopped as soon as possible.

Others maintain that consigning food to landfill rather than recycling it is environmentally unsound and government, and producers, should therefore be concentrating on ways of making swill feeding safe.

The National Pig Association’s public stance has been that whilst it will support any sensible move to reduce disease risk, no permanent decision should be taken on swill feeding until the science has been thoroughly researched.

The NPA is particularly keen to avoid swill feeding becoming the scapegoat for government’s inability to protect its citizens from invasion by diseased food.

Most producers, including swill feeders themselves, fear that government are not interested in innovative answers to the swill feeding problem — such as composting or pretreatment in municipal plants — and that therefore a blanket ban is inevitable.

In fact a ban is already effectively in place following a recent behind-the-scenes decision by BPEX to bar swill-fed pigmeat from carrying the Quality Standard Mark. This means swill-fed pigmeat will no longer be acceptable to reputable retailers. The BPEX decision has further ramifications in that it will ensure Assured British Pigs also grasp the nettle and introduce a similar ban.

Among those calling for a close look at the whole issue of swill feeding are the Pig Veterinary Society who say if it is to be allowed to continue, then the way it is licensed and policed should be reviewed urgently.

And at a meeting of the European Commission’s standing veterinary committee last month, several member states asked the commission to consider an EU ban on swill feeding. The UK feed industry also seeks a ban. `It taints the whole industry, and we’re fed up with it,’ a spokeswoman for UKASTA told New Scientist.

West country producer Robert Lasseter (who isn’t a swill feeder) is keen that this welter of opinion should not blind government to the advantages of feeding catering waste.

`Waste fed pigs are ecologically sound. It is no mistake that China’s household waste is recycled through the house pig. This is a much cheaper and environmentally sound practise than the alternatives such as landfill,’ he says in his response to MAFF’s consultation paper.

`As the planet runs out of time, it is exactly these environmental measures that will save us from self-destruction.’

Like many producers Robert Lasseter is keen for it to be clearly understood that government neglect caused the current foot and mouth outbreak, not swill feeding of pigs. `Lack of government control of imported meat is the cause of this outbreak, and the swine fever crisis eight months earlier. Swill feeding was not involved with the swine fever outbreak.

`Government should be addressing the issue of controlling imported meat with as much urgency as the disease itself,’ he says. `I observe that port officials at Southampton have not yet been contacted to increase surveillance of imports. To stop further exotic diseases being imported government needs to impose stricter food and livestock import controls of the type imposed by Australia and New Zealand.

`Until this is done we are likely to get yet another disease that will threaten our livestock and tourism industries perhaps before foot and mouth is even brought under control.’

Again like other producers he has highlighted an area of swill feeding that does need changing urgently. `It should be illegal to deliver untreated swill to a farm feeding swill without treatment facilities. If this were the law then this outbreak would never have happened.’

MAFF have acknowledged the arguments in favour and against allowing the practice of swill feeding are `quite finely balanced’. They stress that if the statutory conditions are complied with — heating at 100 degrees centigrade for one hour — it does not present a risk of transmitting foot and mouth disease and other similar pathogens.

`Nor will banning swill feeding necessarily prevent the risk of illegal feeding of swill and catering waste to pigs, for example, possibly by owners of small numbers of pigs,’ say MAFF.

`However, the government has concluded that the potential risk of swill feeding introducing disease to livestock farms where swill is not used – and to the wider community – is now greater than the benefits to the relatively small number of premises that continue to adopt this practice. That is why an early ban is proposed.’

Producers and others in the pig industry who wish to see a copy of MAFF’s consultation paper with a view to making a submission should visit the MAFF website at or write to Catherine Lamb, at Room 406, MAFF, 1A Page Street, London SW1P 4PQ.

In their consultation paper MAFF say around 82,000 pigs in Britain, about 1.4% of the total, were fed swill last year. About 74 premises are approved for processing swill, and 93 are licensed for feeding it to pigs or poultry.

They point out that because swill fed to pigs may contain porcine material it represents one of the few remaining examples permitted of intra species recycling. `In theory it would be possible to ban intra species recycling and allow some swill feeding to continue, e.g. by allowing processed beef and sheepmeat material to be included in swill fed to pigs. But this would be impossible to enforce.’

On the other hand, say MAFF, swill is a useful inexpensive material when used, for example, for feeding cull sows prior to slaughter. More generally, farmers feeding swill would lose the benefit of their investment in the necessary equipment if a ban were introduced.

Landfill is the most likely alternative option for disposing of catering waste if swill feeding is banned. `However, the landfill option is becoming more difficult and the national waste disposal strategy envisages a reduction in its use.’

Many producers who currently urge caution over a ban on swill feeding are worried that a ban could embrace a number of useful co-products.

In their consultation paper MAFF acknowledge this is an important issue. `A decision would be needed on whether or not to include within the ban the feeding of catering waste not containing (or in contact with) animal products other than milk, eggs, rennet, gelatin or melted fat as an ingredient.

`Such waste does not, at the present, require licensing under the Animal By-Products Order 1999. Continuing to allow catering waste not containing, or in contact with, animal products to be fed to farmed animals would make it more difficult for state vets and local authority inspectors to detect meat containing catering waste or swill on farm.’

MAFF are keen to have responses from the pig industry to the following questions:

• Should swill feeding of catering waste containing animal products be banned?
• If yes, should fish and poultry animal by-products fed as swill on-farm be included in the ban?
• Should non-meat catering waste be included in the ban?
• If non-meat waste is included in a ban, should there be a total ban on the feeding of any catering waste (including vegetable waste) or should the ban be restricted to catering waste?

Deadline for submissions: 10 April 2001.

Foot and mouth signs

• The above sign from March issue of Pig World is now available for you to put on your perimeter gates — thanks to an initiative by NPA producer group member Mick Proctor.
• The rigid, rainproof signs are 24ins x 16ins and cost £2 each.
• The same sign is also available as an 8ft by 3ft banner, with bungee fasteners at each corner. These banners — which are ideal for fields next to major roads, the railings outside Parliament etc — cost £50.

Desperate farmers queue to enter animals in welfare scheme

Everyone was shocked by the deluge of animals entered into the welfare slaughter scheme… everyone that is except pig producers who had been warning for weeks that life in controlled areas was becoming impossible for farmers and animals alike.

As Pig World went to press the Intervention Board was overwhelmed by calls from farmers wanting to put animals into the foot and mouth welfare disposal scheme.

From the moment the Intervention Board opened its 30 phone lines its switchboard was jammed.And within a few days over a million animals had been offered, prompting the Board to admit `We can’t cope’.

Desperate pig producers were asked to be patient as the board attempted to remove bottlenecks, most serious of which was a lack of rendering capability. However, significant movement was expected in a few days after the board contacted three companies which between them operate 20 landfill sites across the country.

Currently some 20 abattoirs are contracted for the welfare scheme and these have capacity for 260,000 sheep, 25,000 cattle and 62,000 pigs a week. (In contrast, rendering is limited to one site with a capacity of 1700 tonnes a week.)

The welfare disposal scheme will be a lifesaver for desperate pig producers who cannot move their animals. Rates of purchase negotiated by NFU and NPA are considered to be reasonable — certainly a considerable improvement on the government’s offer during swine fever — but not as good as some sheep producers are getting.

The scheme offers up to £70 for pigs, with a separate £75 band for cull sows. NPA hopes to persuade MAFF to include boars in the cull sow scheme. It also hopes to arrange enhanced rates for breeding stock, which is more expensive to produce. Government originally estimated the welfare scheme would cost £150m-£200m. They now acknowledge the figure will be higher.

Meanwhile compensation for animals in the compulsory slaughter scheme for infected animals continues to mount. Over £22m has already been paid out. According to Nick Brown, money is no object in dealing with the crisis. Nevertheless, the level of take-up of the welfare scheme has shocked officials.

The scheme aims to relieve the animal welfare problems faced by some farmers as a result of movement restrictions by providing an outlet for animals which cannot be moved and are therefore suffering.

Under the scheme welfare problems created on farms in infected and control zones can be offered to the Intervention Board who will arrange for their slaughter and disposal. The Intervention Board bears the costs of collection through to disposal.

In order to receive payments under the scheme producers have to register with the Intervention Board. (If you are not currently registered you should ring 0118 9531430 for details.)

In order to be eligible animals must be:

• Owned by or in the possession of an eligible farmer. If the animal is not owned by an eligible farmer you will be required to state that you have the authority of the owner to transfer ownership to the Intervention Board.
• Fit for the journey to the abattoir _ in compliance with the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997.
• At risk of poor welfare as a result of movement controls.

Producers must have considered, and implemented where practicable, all other reasonable means of alleviating welfare problems — for example by providing temporary accommodation.

They must also be able to show they have a genuine animal welfare problem that cannot be resolved by management action on the farm, and for which prompt removal of the animals to slaughter is the only solution.

The Intervention Board’s advice is that producers should work on the basis that the scheme aims to alleviate both actual and potential animal welfare problems, and that removal of animals from a farm will take place no more than once in a four-week period.

Once an application has been validated, the Intervention Board will arrange for a MAFF local veterinary inspector to visit the farm within 72 hours (or sooner if the welfare problem is an urgent one).

The vet will inspect the animals to be moved to confirm a welfare problem (or potential problem) exists, and also check for signs of foot and mouth. He or she will also confirm that the animals are fit to travel. Heavily pregnant animals, or those that are new-born would not be accepted.

At all points in the scheme, the need for thorough cleansing and disinfection, using an approved disinfectant, is essential. The vet’s instructions make clear the need for thorough self cleansing and disinfection before coming on to farm premises; equally, before leaving the vet will destroy or disinfect any equipment used.

Provided the animals are free from disease and fit for their intended journey, the vet will issue a licence authorising the movement of the animals to an abattoir. On the day of movement the animals will be loaded under official supervision.

Aerial spraying

Foot and mouth buffer zones could be created by aerial spraying of disinfectant. The technique was used in the Philippines in the mid-90s to damp down foot and mouth on rubbish tips and other areas which could not easily be treated from the ground.

Asked about the possibilities, Antec’s Mark Blackwell said, `One would have to recognise the volumes would need to be quite large.’ However, he said, given recent events regarding burial sites, landfills and the use of military `maybe this isn’t so far fetched after all’.

Antec are already recommending that livestock producers fog with Vircon, siting examples in other countries where such a technique has been successful at combating foot and mouth.

Can vets afford to work for MAFF?

By Sam Walton

A Doncaster pig producer rang me up, I guess pretty near the end of his tether. He has survived the bad times even though he lost £74,000 in six months on top of a de-pop, re-pop.

His wife is a vet with her own practice. She has been offered £160 a day for a week, to help in the crisis. If she accepts, she cannot then treat or visit any animals in her own practice for a further week and it costs more than £160 per day to get in a locum to cover for her.

Incidentally, last night his wife visited the local Co-op to buy some premium ham. It had increased in price from 99p per 100gms to £1.87 per 100 gms, equivalent to £18.50 a kilo.

He had been offered 86p a kilo for his pigs that week. He wonders what our industry is doing wrong.

Meanwhile he watches the current movement arrangements in some bemusement. His local haulage man had moved some store pigs the previous day with a MAFF man supervising his washing and disinfecting of the lorry, an ADAS man, sitting in his cab for the journey, another MAFF man to supervise his washing etc at the other end.

The same haulier today is to move some calves, a journey totalling six miles each way. MAFF are sending a man from Bedale to Hull to see him wash his lorry, another ADAS chap to ride in the cab and another MAFF man will supervise the cleansing routine when the journey is completed.

Like others at the moment, he does wonder how he is going to survive after going through the bad period and now with prices back down to the mid eighties.

The Strak Report

By Dr John Strak

This month’s Strak report will focus on how the foot and mouth epidemic will affect Britain’s pig producers. It’s an important question and the pig industry needs to reflect on it.

I will present my own reflections here and unfortunately not everything I have to say will give you reasons to be cheerful. But there are several issues that I hope will make you thoughtful. In all of this I must stress that the UK market for pigmeat will be seriously out of balance for the rest of this year so early predictions as to what might happen are subject to a stronger than usual health warning.

First, let’s be clear that the direct impact of FMD on pig numbers has been minimal. As I write this in the third week of March, little more than 1% of the animals slaughtered because of FMD are pigs and it’s evident that the biosecurity measures taken by the UK pig sector have, by and large, been successful at preventing the disease spreading through the pig industry.

That’s a positive note to start with. However, the market impact of the UK losing its FMD-free status is not so positive. In fact, everyone I have spoken to is clear that it is rather negative and very confusing.

There is an immediate impact on the prices paid for pigs through the loss of export markets for key parts of the carcass (shoulders, flanks and the cheaper cuts) and from the complete shutdown in international trade in cull sows.

The “normal” export volume of pigmeat from the UK is of the order of 170-200,000 tonnes per year – or nearly 20% of the total pigmeat produced – so it’s a major market disturbance to lose this. There have also been higher costs arising from feeding stock that would normally have left units and from the increased hassle involved in complying with the licensed movement to slaughter scheme.

The down ward pressure on prices from lost markets and the increased feeding costs on the farm generate the double whammy that many farmers will recognise and that their bank managers will have nightmares about.

However, these negative effects may be countered by some positive ones. The Dutch, Irish and French FMD outbreaks have caused their exports of pigmeat to be curtailed and this loss of potential imports will tend to support the UK’s domestic pig price.

However, this effect is complicated by various trade bans on EU-produced pigmeat (North America, Japan, etc) and, in the short term, there will be more than 700,000 tonnes of pigmeat normally exported from the EU that are looking for a home inside the EU (that’s not including the Dutch and French output).

This last point implies serious dislocation of the global pigmeat trade with upward price pressure on meat that can enter the world market and more price volatility everywhere (I think I’ve made this point about increasing price volatility before!). Furthermore, if Dutch, French and Irish pigmeat is stored until a later date there will be a corresponding negative price pressure on the trade at some point in the future (more volatility again).

My guess is that the positive pressures will balance the negative ones in the short term providing that the UK pigmeat supply chain continues to operate throughout the UK’s FMD epidemic and that there is some serious lateral thinking about what to do with all those shoulders and flanks.

(Full report in April Pig World).

The sacrificial slaughter of an industry on the altar of cheap food
by NPA board member Richard Longthorp (March 17, 2001)

Currently, with all the daily problems that need to be wrestled with, we are, at best, imminently at risk of allowing, by default, the Government and minority interest groups to win the first battle in the war of spin and subterfuge – and at worst they may already have secured a significant stranglehold in the war.

Much of the crucial work on lobbying regarding welfare, movements etc. needs to be and indeed is being carried on determinedly and unabated; and whilst it is essential that a debate does take place on the future of swill feeding, licensing of farms, sustainability of agriculture etc., that is for the future.

But the most important and fundamental issue at stake in the current FMD outbreak is not that a swill feeder at Heddon on the Wall might, and only might, have been responsible for allowing the FMD virus into the animal chain.

The issue is just how that virus was allowed into the country in the first place. If we allow Government and various minority interest groups to divert attention from that single issue then not only are we going to have a tough next 6 months but we are going to pass by a once in a lifetime opportunity to right a wrong that has blighted our industry for several years now and pass by the chance of a more sustainable future.

The UK Government today stand accused of a gross dereliction of duty with untold potential consequences for UK agriculture and the nation as whole – consequences which could have been significantly worse had the disease had implications for human health.

This dereliction of duty has now been compounded by either a lack of a will or a lack of a resource to take firm action by culling at the earliest opportunity all suspect cases deemed to be a significant risk and then disposing of those carcases by whatever means as quickly and safely as possible. The lessons of CSF, whilst admittedly not having been forgotten by the CVO and his team, have apparently been ignored by the Minister, The Prime Minister and the Chancellor.

This initial dereliction of duty followed by the subsequent delay in effective control measures has led directly to the heart wrenching and soul destroying but now necessary mass slaughter currently being executed. A slaughter which is ripping the very heart and draining the lifeblood out of rural Britain like no other event before it.

The evidence is clear –

1. FMD, as with CSF before, was almost certainly introduced into the UK illegally. Who is responsible for ensuring the integrity of our border controls?
2. IF, Heddon on the Wall, was the index case and MAFF and Trading Standards were aware of shortcomings in the operation, why the *!*! didn’t MAFF and Trading Standards do something about it before we reached this stage?
3. The Government has, by its current drastic actions, on the recommendation of the CVO, acknowledged that FMD can be and probably will be spread very easily. In which case why the *!*! did it not have better controls in place from the outset?
4. The Minister conveniently bleats on about making decisions based on the professional advice of poor old Jim Scudamore. It would be interesting to know if the CVO had given advice on border controls he would have been listened to? Who knows, perhaps somewhere lurking in MAFF offices, or by now in the bottom of a shredder, lurks a memo indicating that such advice was indeed given? It was certainly given in pretty unequivocal terms by the pig industry over the past 3 years. Or do we have a “Pinball Wizzard PM” – “Deaf, Dumb and Blind Kid – sure plays a mean pig war?”
5. The UK has the benefit of being an island. Mainland Europe has tens of thousands of miles of border to control and some of those eastern and south eastern borders are very close to FMD infected countries. Yet despite this significantly greater risk, they have by and large remained free of FMD. The US has kept FMD out of their country for 80 years again despite a high risk on its southern border. How the *!*! do we end up with the problem? And following on so soon after CSF?
6. Confirmed cases of FMD have had to wait an undue period of time for slaughter; slaughtered animals have not been disposed of soon enough; and highly suspect cases of FMD have not been slaughtered out soon enough.
7. CSF was last year’s problem. FMD is this year’s problem. What is next year’s problem going to be Mr Brown? A sprinkling of Aujesky’s or a touch of the old Nipah virus perhaps? Or could it be a an odd snort of Ebola virus imported on monkey meat? Yer pays yer money yer takes yer choice.

The Solution

It is often the case that highlighting the problem is the easy bit but that the solution is always more problematical. But in this case the solution per se is a piece of !!**. The authorities responsible for border controls should be given whatever resource they need to ensure that we never endure such a crisis as this again; that the country’s agricultural industry, its economy and the health of its citizens are never again threatened by the Government’s refusal to fund effective controls, to ensure their effective implementation or their laissez faire attitude to Free Trade. The finance for such resources should come from those people and organisations who profit out of imports – the importers themselves. No doubt the Government will bleat on about Free Trade restrictions etc. but other countries manage it without recourse, why can’t we?

The Remedy

In the “real world” where a business or individual has been shown to be in dereliction of say its environmental, health and safety or employment responsibilities, they are normally forced to “remedy” the situation and, in many cases pay compensation, (indeed in the case of the environment on the basis of “the polluter pays” principle). It would, therefore, seem eminently reasonable that those who have suffered as a result of this Government’s gross dereliction of responsibility should be similarly and adequately compensated.

The Action Required

The prosecution of this solution and remedy and the exposure of the evidence is the responsibility of every man jack of the UK Pig Industry. At every opportunity:

• Raise it with the media – no matter what the question, answer that and then move on rapidly to highlight the “big issue”
• Raise it with MP’s, Ministers whoever
• Raise it with anybody who is prepared or, as the case may be, not prepared to listen – taxi drivers, shop assistants, milkmen, doctors, accountants.
• The country has a right to know the truth.

This may not sound as exciting as a vigil or an RDC shutdown but it can be effective and, who knows, with many minds concentrated on the issue there is every chance that high profile opportunities can be created by those many and “creative” minds out there that comprise the UK Pig Industry. The pig industry has nothing to be apologetic or ashamed of. We are an unsubsidised industry and we want to remain that way. But we don’t want to and shouldn’t have to be forced out of business by the incompetence of others.

All commercial pigs in
East Anglia were released from swine fever restrictions last night (15/12/00),
with a reduction of the infected area on the Norfolk/Suffolk border.

Suffolk
infected area now cleared

Movement restrictions
are being lifted this afternoon (14/12/00) on the remaining swine fever infected
area in Suffolk. However, infected premises and premises where pigs were slaughtered
as dangerous contacts are still subject to controls. The pig keepers in the
area are being contacted by MAFF. The infected area that crosses the Norfolk/Suffolk
border remains in place, but an early announcement is anticipated.

Swine
fever top-up fund might be fast tracked

By Digby Scott

There is a possibility
– albeit a slim one – that the setting up of the industry’s top-up fund can
be fast-tracked. Outgoing NPA chairman John Godfrey says it may be possible
to have the fund in place by February, but he warns producers this is not definite
and for the time being the target date of April must remain.

The initiative to attempt
a fast-tracking was proposed by agriculture minister Nick Brown yesterday (December
5) but the minister stressed it was subject to legal approval.

The current timetable
for the top-up fund involves a statutory MLC consultation procedure which is
now in progress and will be completed by the end of January, at which time,
if the response is positive, a statutory instrument will be laid before Parliament,
with a view to implementing the fund on April 1, 2001.

But if lawyers agree to
the minister’s fast-track idea, it may be possible to lay a provisional statutory
instrument before Parliament in advance of the outcome of the consultation
period. This would mean the fund could be introduced within days of the ending
of the consultation period on January 23.

Fast tracking is critical
to producers in East Anglia because it is proving impossible to get a bridging
loan until the fund is legally in place.

The minister stressed
at his meeting with NPA yesterday that legal and parliamentary constraints
on prejudging the MLC’s statutory consultation process prevent his department
providing a bridging loan.

The top-up fund is an
integral part of the Pig Industry Development Scheme (PIDS). Being introduced
under the 1967 Agriculture Act, the aim of the scheme, as far as the pig industry
is concerned, is to top up government payments for pig farmers who have had
healthy animals trapped in swine fever areas.

If the fund gets the go-ahead,
it will swell compensation payments by up to £25, to give East Anglian
producers a maximum £75 a pig. A producer levy of 20p per pig is envisaged
to raise the necessary £4m.

It is likely the industry’s
Aujeszky Fund will lend £500,000 as an initial payment but the NPA’s
view is that further money will be required up front in order to start paying
East Anglian producers as soon as possible.

Bankers (Barclays and
HSBC), compounders (BOCM Pauls and ABN), MLC and East Anglian producer Malcolm
Easey joined NPA’s John Godfrey, Mike Sheldon and Stewart Houston at yesterday’s
meeting with the minister to discuss ways of priming the fund so top-up payments
can start as soon as possible.

It was agreed that in
view of the legal constraints on MAFF regarding a bridging loan it was essential
the fund be introduced at the earliest possible date so bankers could be approached
for a bridging loan.

If the minister’s fast-track
proposal proves achievable it will bring the process forward by two months.
Equally important it will overcome the possibility of legislation getting lost
in a Parliamentary timetable that’s getting increasingly log-jammed as the
general election approaches.

When all swine fever top-up
payments have been made, and any bridging loans repaid, it will be possible
for the fund management board to reduce the producer levy to nil.

Alternatively the 20p
levy could be maintained to ensure that in any future outbreak of swine fever
payments to producers could be made in weeks rather than months.

Prince
Charles extends helping hand to East Anglian pig farmers

HRH Prince Charles’ donation
to pig producers in East Anglia, many of whom have seen their businesses driven
to the brink of ruin by swine fever controls, has been warmly welcomed by the
National Pig Association. The
Association has been asked not to reveal the exact sum involved.

Vice-chairman James Black,
whose own family business has been affected, said, “Few people outside
farming can appreciate what a traumatic time this has been for individuals
striving to cope with the misery of increasing debt and long, lonely days in
miserable conditions for man and beast alike.”

The Prince’s gift will
be channelled through the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution to the
Addington Fund, a short term charity set up to help pig producers who have
been caught up in swine fever controls.

The fund, which was launched
earlier this year, was inspired by a man too sick to carry it forward himself.
It provides an essential financial safety net for pig producers who have run
out of money to feed their pigs.

Jean Turnbull, who runs the NPA’s swine fever help-line from Burston, near
Diss, ensured the Prince was told about the suffering of pig farmers.

“Every day for nearly
four months I have taken calls from farmers with a frightening level of fear
and distress in their voices. Many of them feel they have failed their families
and their livestock. This gesture by the Prince will be like a comforting arm
to them and this in itself – the knowledge that someone cares – is almost as
important as the money.

“Every penny will
be well spent in the cause of helping the survival of decent hard working families,
most of whom haven’t had swine fever on their farms but who have had the misfortune
to be caught up in the swine fever controls, which have prohibited them moving
their pigs.”

More
farms released today

27/11/00. A further 92
premises on the Suffolk coast were declared free from classical swine fever
restrictions today. A new smaller infected area was put in place covering a
3km radius around the remaining infected premises on the Suffolk coast.

This new area replaced
the original Suffolk coast infected area releasing approximately 46,850 pigs
from about 50 premises from movement restrictions. There are no pigs on the
holdings remaining under movement restrictions.

This action follows the
removal of the central Norfolk infected area over the weekend. Part of the
central Norfolk infected area covering zones SF/200010 and SF/200011 was removed
on Friday 24 November. As a result an estimated 122 premises holding approximately
66,000 pigs were released from movement restrictions.

The remaining infected
area in central Norfolk covering zone SF/200015 was removed on Sunday 26 November
and a further estimated 84 premises holding approximately 50,000 pigs had movement
restrictions lifted.

A programme of veterinary
work on the remaining infected areas continues with a view to lifting them
as soon as possible.

East
Anglia producers one step nearer their £75 a pig

The pig industry’s swine
fever top-up fund – official title “Pig Industry Development Scheme”,
or PIDS – is now out for consultation, minister of agriculture Nick
Brown announced at Smithfield Show today.

If there’s been widespread
approval by producers when the consultation period ends on January 23, legislation
will be introduced under the 1967 Agriculture Act.

The aim of the scheme,
as far as producers are concerned, is to top up inadequate government payments
for pig farmers who have had healthy animals trapped in swine fever areas.

If it gets the go-ahead,
it will swell compensation payments by up to £25, to give East Anglian
producers a maximum £75 a pig.

East Anglians remain clear
that given the 20 per cent higher costs of looking after pigs under swine fever
restrictions this sum is insufficient and in a fair world government would
pay market price compensation.

However, the prevailing
view appears to be that PIDS does offer some kind of a future to businesses
which have been hammered by swine fever controls since early August.

The pig industry will
need to raise £3m-£4m if the scheme is to meet its swine fever
commitments. A levy of 20p per pig is envisaged.

To save East Anglian producers
having to wait longer than necessary for their top-up money, the National Pig
Association has asked agriculture minister Nick Brown for a bridging loan but
to date he has not been receptive to the idea.

Whilst the NPA will continue
to press the minister, it may, in the end, have to speak to the banks about
a bridging loan.

To date the banks have
adopted a sensitive stance in the swine fever areas and informal feedback suggests
they would be prepared to help with a bridging loan once the fund is in place
and levy income is guaranteed.

Although Scottish pig
producers have indicated opposition to PIDS, many English pig farmers have
voiced support. However there is considerable concern and confusion over the
apparent open-ended nature of PIDS.

The wording of MLC’s 26
November press release will have done little to allay these fears.

The release refers to
the “first” use of the fund being for swine fever top-up payments.
Whilst this wording has clearly been used in order to demonstrate the fund’s
legality under EU law it will ring alarm bells with producers, who hoped the
fund would be a one-off exercise for the current outbreak of swine fever only.

However assurances relayed
to the industry, that the minister had made a pledge to this effect, have turned
out to have been over optimistic.

The minister has now made
it clear that PIDS cannot legally be restricted to a single issue.

However, he has promised
that in the future the scheme will not be expected to do more than equivalent
schemes to be set up in other UK livestock sectors.

There are a number of
doubts concerning PIDS: Why isn’t the government covering the whole cost? Why
can’t the scheme be voluntary? Does it set a dangerous precedent? Can we shut
it down once the swine fever issue has been dealt with?

NPA producer group members
have acknowledged that PIDS is premature, in that it precedes a government
working party’s deliberations into the whole question of disease risk in the
UK livestock sector.

However, they point out,
the need to get funds into East Anglia was urgent, and this was the only realistic
route available.

For his part, minister
of agriculture Nick Brown has stressed that the pig industry will not be penalised
for introducing a fund before the working party reports (probably in March).

If the industry wishes,
he says, PIDS can in due course be modified to bring it into line with whatever
the working party determines.

Meanwhile outgoing NPA
chief executive Mike Sheldon has dealt in detail with producer doubts in an
NPA question-and-answer document.

He points out that PIDS
represents a considerable achievement by NPA.

“This is the first
time the government has made any payment at all to producers caught up in movement
restrictions.

“No payments were
made during the last outbreak of CSF in 1986. No payments were made to poultry
producers during the 1997 outbreak of Newcastle Disease.”

Set against this, he says,
are the payments made to Dutch pig producers during the 1997/8 outbreak of
CSF in Netherlands. “However, EU rules have changed since 1998, making
a repetition of the Dutch scheme impossible.”

NPA, working with the
NFU, succeeded in negotiating, first, the government’s agreement to the principle
of making a payment, and then a substantial improvement in the proposed payments,
but only on condition that all producers, affected and unaffected, make a contribution
to the cost.

The prospect of persuading
government to cover 100% of the cost was nil, according to Mike Sheldon. “The
risk of holding out for a higher government contribution was that we would
lose and the total payment would remain unacceptably low.”

By agreeing to an industry-funded
top-up, NPA persuaded Nick Brown to increase government payments under the
scheme to a maximum £50/head and this sum is now being received by producers.

Producers have asked why
the levy couldn’t be voluntary, or at least be set up along the lines of the
Aujeszky fund.

The NPA’s response to
this is that a voluntary levy would have attracted free-riding, thereby increasing
the burden on those who were willing to take part, whilst an Aujeszky-type
levy would have required primary legislation which would not have been enacted
before the general election because of constraints on parliamentary time.

The advantage of the current
scheme – a statutory levy collected by MLC – is that it complies with EU state
aid regulations and a mechanism already exists under the 1967 Agriculture Act,
so only secondary legislation is required,

There is one disadvantage
though, namely that the scheme cannot be restricted to the current outbreak
of swine fever. “Legal advice from all quarters was quite clear,”
according to Mike Sheldon. “A scheme with a narrow scope would fail to
satisfy legal requirements. Therefore, although the chosen option seems to
be the most complicated, it is, in fact the most direct route to meeting our
short-term objectives.”

He disputes any suggestion
that by introducing its own scheme the industry has let the government off
the hook.

“Legally, the government
is not on a hook. The law, precedent, and trends throughout the EU, all confirm
that the case for forcing government to pick up the bill for the costs of movement
restrictions is less than compelling.

“Morally, the government
has obligations. It has gone some way to meeting those obligations this time,
but is signalling that this would not necessarily be repeated.”

On the question of whether
the scheme will affect UK’s competitiveness, NPA points to the fact that many
major European pig industries, including the Dutch, are going down a similar
route to us.

“Prompted by warnings
from their governments that state funds to resolve disease control issues will
be limited in the future, they are exploring how to identify and cover disease
risks,” says Mike Sheldon.

NPA hopes surplus funds
collected under the Aujeszky levy can be made available to PIDS; however there
are legal hurdles to overcome before this can be achieved.

A major concern of producers
is reference in the MLC’s consultation document to a levy ceiling of £1.
Why such a high figure when the stated aim is to collect only 20p?

According to Mike Sheldon
there is no reason to believe that a levy of more than 20p will ever be required.
“However, we didn’t foresee this outbreak of swine fever, and so we cannot
foresee the next problem.

“Further, the level
of levy will be set by the board, which will be made up of people appointed
by the industry. Therefore, it will be a matter for the industry to decide
how much it wishes to collect.

“The scheme is being
written with a view to giving the flexibility and scope to the board to deal
with unforeseen issues. The £1 maximum is written with that in mind.”

He adds that it would
be possible for the board to reduce the levy to nil as soon as the current
swine fever crisis is over. “But it is worth noting that if such a scheme
had been in existence today, even lying dormant, we could have started raising
a levy within six weeks of the outbreak of CSF, and could be paying out right
now. In the absence of such a scheme, we are faced with a delay of months.

More information is available
at

Restrictions
lifted from more units

(24/11/00) More good news.
Swine fever restrictions for area No. 10 have been lifted this evening, as
has the part of No. 11 which doesn’t overlap with No. 15.

Life
in England’s green and pleasant land
By Sam Walton

As Philip Greenacre
watched his pigs being slaughtered he thought things couldn’t get much worse.
He was wrong.

He bed and breakfasted
for BQP on his two units near Diss, so although the pigs didn’t have swine
fever, they had to be killed in case there had been contact with infected
animals.

He made a special pen,
where the animals could be taken to be humanely destroyed, a pen at a time.
This was working well until another slaughterer appeared with a .22 rifle,
and strode around banging away at pigs in their pens.

The dead pigs were loadened
up into lorries, which then began to leak. So they were unloaded. This
meant 1,500 pigs were left lying in his yard overnight, some having had
autopsies. He
is grateful for small mercies. Either all his pigs really were free of swine
fever, or the local foxes were off duty that night. The consequences of
a diseased carcase being dragged on to another farm don’t bear thinking
about.

Worse was to follow.

He wasn’t allowed to
use his combine, so he had to employ contractors and the corn had to be
sold off the combine and taken away. He
had a brand new baler standing in the yard and was not allowed to use that
either, so more expense with a contractor. Immediately after harvest he
wasn’t allowed to work his land or to spread manure or slurry.

He cleaned out his Gatehouse
unit first and all his machinery was thoroughly cleaned and moved there
under licence, to allow him to work the land. The
lagoon was full, waiting to be spread on stubbles. So to complete the washing
out, the Ministry ordered another lagoon to be built, but it leaked, so
another one was built, which after three days also leaked.

So he had to transport,
under licence, all the slurry from his Gatehouse unit to his Park Farm unit,
the tractor and tanker being washed and disinfected at the beginning and
end of each run. The
lagoon at Park farm was also full by now so it was decided to build another
one.

Having experienced two
lagoons leaking at Gatehouse, this time he insisted it was built below ground.
But then the heavy rains started – and the sides caved in.

With nowhere to put
the slurry, he faced a delay in washing out and a subsequent delay in the
lifting of restrictions. And
by this time his slurry pump had burned out, but he was not allowed to take
it for repair so he had to buy a new one.

Day to day life became
increasingly difficult. Each time the sugar beet lorry came for a load it
had to be washed and disinfected. He
doesn’t argue about the need for caution but as he goes through his disinfectant
bath (every time he leaves the yard to go to the house) he cannot help but
reflect that life would be easier without the accompanying mishaps and calamities.

As I left Philip, three
very large steel tanks were being delivered to his farm to hold slurry in
so that washing out could be completed.

Philip might be excused
for failing to find solace in the fact that lots of people have done quite
nicely out of his disaster.

The hauliers were paid
(including £45 an hour standing time). The
combine and baling contractors got extra business at harvest. The
vets and slaughterers were paid. But
what happens, he wonders, about the expense of contractors, the loss of
£10 per tonne on his corn for selling at harvest, the inconvenience
caused and the loss of income for three months?

Restrictions
lifted on 150 farms

(23/11/00). Movement
restrictions have been lifted on about 150 pig farms in East Anglia from
4.00 pm today. A
revised Infected Area has been declared around the last case of classical
swine fever confirmed on 3rd November (SF 2000/16). This reduces the previous
Infected Area on the Norfolk/Suffolk border and releases some 36,000 pigs
on about 150 farms from movement restrictions. These restrictions have been
in place since the middle of August. The
decision to lift the area was made following full veterinary investigation.
Subject to further work and satisfactory results the Infected Areas in North
Norfolk and on the Suffolk coast may be lifted soon.

New
pay formula agreed

Minister of Agriculture
Nick Brown has this morning (1/11/00) agreed the industry’s proposals for
helping producers in movement restricted areas in East Anglia. The new terms
will be backdated and this has been warmly welcomed by NPA chief executive
Mike Sheldon. “Those producers who have already put batches in, just missing
the threshold, will immediately receive an increased payment, so relieving
some of the pressure on their cashflow,” he said.

NPA
seeks bridging loan for industry self-help fund

The UK pig industry
redoubled its efforts today (1/11/00) to persuade minister of agriculture
Nick Brown to provide urgently needed cash for East Anglian farmers caught
up in the current swine fever crisis.

In a briefing to MPs
in advance of this morning’s Westminster Hall debate on swine fever in East
Anglia, the National Pig Association called for the minister to reverse
his earlier decision not to advance money to the industry’s self-help fund.

The minister announced
this morning that he has approved an industry plan that will pay pig producers
with healthy pigs trapped in swine fever no-movement zones up to £25 a pig
on top of the government’s own compensation scheme, to bring total compensation
nearer to market value.

Producers in East Anglia
have argued that unless they receive market value, or near market value,
their businesses will not be able to survive the disease controls put in
place by government.

NPA chief executive
Mike Sheldon says the pig industry has shown a remarkable willingness to
help itself in this time of adversity. “Despite
the fact that a perfectly reasonable case can be argued as to why MAFF should
pick up the tab for all the consequences of disease control measures they
have imposed, the industry has been willing to share the burden, both as
an expression of solidarity with fellow producers and as a practicable answer
to an emergency.”

In welcoming the minister’s
announcement today, the NPA says it still wants MAFF to agree a bridging
loan for the industry’s self-help fund. “Collection
of funds to pay for the industry contribution will take time, not least
because of the legal hurdles to be crossed before a levy can be put in place,”
says Mike Sheldon. “This
means that the industry contribution will not be available before spring
2000.”

The minister has previously
turned down a request for a bridging loan on the grounds that there was a risk
of the levy not being put in place. The NPA says it feels this is an unnecessarily
harsh response given that the exposure would be little more than £2m and the
risk no more than moderate.

But the complaint was dismissed by the authority who said the advertisement made it clear that the purpose of Freedom Food was to improve animal welfare on farms above normal legislative standards.
“It did not imply animals in the scheme were always free from fear, distress, pain, injury or disease, hunger, thirst or discomfort, and was unlikely to mislead,” said the authority.

The RSPCA told the ASA the Freedom Food scheme was intended to encourage the farming industry to abandon poor animal welfare practices. They claimed the scheme was effective because it encouraged consumers to buy products that supported higher standards of animal welfare on farms.

The five freedoms listed in the advertisement were devised by the Farm Animal Welfare Council.
But they were not absolute freedoms because that was almost impossible to achieve.

An animal had to experience hunger or thirst to feel the need to eat and drink and, similarly, it was impossible to keep every animal absolutely free from pain, injury or disease because even in the most ideal circumstances an animal could still suffer accidental injury or disease.

They explained that human beings who caught a cold did not necessarily have a poor quality of life but the quality of care they received indicated whether their needs were being met.

The RSPCA commented on reports provided by some of the complainants which related to three investigations carried out by an animal welfare pressure group which claimed some of the advertisers’ member companies were not adhering to the five freedoms.

RSPCA said that in one case their member had already involved veterinarians to rectify the problem, in another the advertisers deemed the evidence was insufficient to support the allegations and in another the member was suspended from the scheme after an RSPCA investigation.

One of the complainants sent the authority a list showing instances of suspensions and warnings the RSPCA had given to Freedom Food members for not complying with the standards.
The authority considered this showed the RSPCA acted against members who did not adhere to the standards.

Verdict: The RSPCA Freedom Food welfare standards exceed UK and EU legislation. The five freedoms are an ideal that the advertisers strive towards and on which they act to ensure they are achieved

How to make pigs pay

By Digby Scott

Pig producers and processors are throwing away a small fortune every year because they can’t bring themselves to trust each other. In fact pigs are probably worth up to 25 per cent more than they are currently earning – enough to reverse the decline of the UK pig industry.

But even though the stakes are high, producers look upon tighter contracts as a threat, and processors are also showing a marked reluctance to change, according to a new study.

“The British pig industry continues to lag behind the rest of the world’s markets in not maximising the value of its pig carcasses,” says Tony Suckling, general manager of Porcofram Marketing.

“Most sophisticated pigmeat markets recognise the benefits of carcass yield and distribution of meat within the carcass. But we don’t do this in the UK despite the fact that British genetics are recognised throughout the world. We still sell our pigs on weight and backfat probe measurements.

“As a result, the carcasses are not earning as much as they could for all those involved in their production, processing and marketing.”

One producer who is working closely with a processor to produce a “designer” pig, is John Godfrey of R. J. and A. E. Godfrey in North Lincolnshire.

“The industry is contracting to such an extent that the only way of going forward is in partnership with processors,” he maintains “Like it or not, we’re going to have to start trusting them.”

He recognises that persuading producers and processors to work together will be no easy task: many producers think abattoirs are only interested in paying the lowest price they can get away with, whilst processors point to the way the number of loads they receive drops whenever the spot market is a few pence more attractive.

John Godfrey, who has worked with meat manufacturer George Adams to form Linc Porc, urges both producers and processors not to be afraid of joining forces.

“We can improve income for both the producer and the processor by producing a premium quality product,” he says.

A recent study funded by MAFF and Porcofram Marketing to assess whether the true additive value of UK pig carcasses is being recognised and rewarded shows UK pig producers don’t consider carcass yield – in particularly lean meat yield – to be a worthy objective.

“Payment systems for lean meat are used throughout the rest of the world, identifying the additional value of high-yielding carcasses. It seems inappropriate that the UK industry has so few contracts with this objective,” says Robin Yates, Porcofram contract analyst, who led to MAFF/Porcofram study.

“This may be because currently, carcass measurement in the UK under-utilises the technology available for assessing total lean meat percentage, total carcass yield and distribution of lean within the carcass.”

The study encompassed information analysis, producer and processor surveys, visits to European markets and a series of activities including a seminar which together allowed Yates and his team to look at all stages in production and processing and the communications between the stages.

A number of the country’s leading processors and meat buyers were involved (representing over 50 per cent of the market), along with several large scale producers (supplying over 15 per cent of UK pigs).

The original objective had been to identify a method of carcass assessment and from that to develop a payment system which reflected the true quality of the carcass, additional to the weight and probe measurements which currently made up the major part of payment systems in the UK.

“It soon became apparent that this approach to carcass differentiation was not in line with current quality improvement initiatives of the UK processor,” says Tony Suckling.

“Indeed, there was a significant reluctance among many, as identified in the processor survey, to consider making any major changes to their current modus operandi.

“At the same time our industry has been passing through one of its most traumatic periods for several decades and the marketplace is now a pan European or even a world arena. This clearly means that there is a need for change and a greater embracing of all available technology and information if the UK industry is to be competitive in such a global marketplace.”

The project started with a thorough investigation of all available information from several countries on carcass measurement, carcass yield and meat quality.

These key issues were developed throughout the project in the belief that a greater understanding of them needed to be communicated to many within the industry.

It should also encourage a greater level of inter-party discussion rather than the current position where many decisions were imposed on the industry due to lack of pro-activity in the supply chain, says Tony Suckling.

“It was recognised by the organisers that there was also a need to address a number of related areas which could contribute to enhancing the value of the carcass throughout the food chain including: product branding, quality assurance – especially covering health issues – management best practices, enhanced traceability and market intelligence.”

According to Robin Yates, contractual developments which are more specific in terms of production methods, or product quality, are seen as a threat by a proportion of producers.

“However, the opportunity to invest in secure long-term projects should not be ignored. Meat quality issues are perceived by many producers to be the next major area to tackle but there is little information available in the UK about how best to address quality issues and that which has been produced is generally ignored or not acted upon.

“In particular, the catering trade has criticised the meat quality of UK pork. This, together with pricing issues, continues to make the UK commodity less attractive than imported produce. Initiatives are needed to address this potentially huge home market,” he says.

How to overcome mutual distrust

As the UK pig industry continues to restructure there is an expectation that the number of producers who enter collaborative ventures with processors (and retailers) will increase.

John Godfrey believes an essential ingredient of any agreement should be a commitment by the processor to accept all of a participating producer’s finished pigs produced (coupled with a corresponding undertaking by the producer).

Linc Porc – which is in the process of signing up “producer-pioneers” – aims to produce a consistent carcase specifically designed using PIC genetics to help George Adams maximise returns.

Producers need have no fear about their ability to produce to tight specifications, says John Godfrey.

He argues that car manufacturers such as Mercedes turn out a consistent, high quality product, and British pig producers should be able to do the same. Admittedly it may be easier for indoor producers, he admits.

Linc Pork goes further than most collaborative ventures by embracing all aspects of management, including genetics, feed, management practices and production environment.

The aim is for producer-pioneers to work together to consistently meet George Adams’ top grade requirements and so increase income by well over £1 a pig.

Illegal meat floods into UK

By Digby Scott

Baggage oozing blood and stuffed with maggot-infested monkey, deer, tortoise and anteater meat is arriving regularly at Heathrow airport.

UK officials are doing little or nothing to stem the flood of illegal meat because of lack of resources and because they fear being branded racist. Agriculture minister Nick Brown received a full dossier of recent incidents four weeks ago.

The Ministry of Agriculture and HM Customs are bound by recent European law to inspect meat products before they are allowed in the country. But most of the meat — which is destined for ethnic restaurants — is passing through unchecked.

The situation is so bad that recently baggage handlers at Heathrow refused to handle suitcases because of the smell of rotting meat and the blood oozing from them. Last month hand luggage from Ghana covered in blood and maggots was detained for incineration but then disappeared.

Clive Lawrence, whose company Ciel Logistics offer a consultancy service to Heathrow, has warned Nick Brown that the problem of illegally imported meats and fish into the UK is `much larger than the authorities have admitted to’.

He says the current rules are weak and in any case enforcement is not being carried out because the authorities are frightened of losing any subsequent court case. Whilst Customs have admitted there is a serious problem they say they have to concentrate on searching for drugs.

A spot inspection on one flight from Nigeria resulted in 600kgs of illegal food being detained. A few days later another flight was checked and 2,500kgs was detained from passenger luggage. Two days later another 190kgs was found.

An inspection of luggage from a Ghana flight in September resulted in passengers bursting out of the terminal building and arguing with Customs officers and MAFF representatives. Police had to be called to bring the situation under control.

To ban or not to ban?

The government’s proposed ban on the use of swill feeding has sparked off a heated debate in the pig industry. There are many respected producers — for example NPA board member Jim Dewhirst — who believe swill feeding is an anachronism and must be stopped as soon as possible.

Others maintain that consigning food to landfill rather than recycling it is environmentally unsound and government, and producers, should therefore be concentrating on ways of making swill feeding safe.

The National Pig Association’s public stance has been that whilst it will support any sensible move to reduce disease risk, no permanent decision should be taken on swill feeding until the science has been thoroughly researched.

The NPA is particularly keen to avoid swill feeding becoming the scapegoat for government’s inability to protect its citizens from invasion by diseased food.

Most producers, including swill feeders themselves, fear that government are not interested in innovative answers to the swill feeding problem — such as composting or pretreatment in municipal plants — and that therefore a blanket ban is inevitable.

In fact a ban is already effectively in place following a recent behind-the-scenes decision by BPEX to bar swill-fed pigmeat from carrying the Quality Standard Mark. This means swill-fed pigmeat will no longer be acceptable to reputable retailers. The BPEX decision has further ramifications in that it will ensure Assured British Pigs also grasp the nettle and introduce a similar ban.

Among those calling for a close look at the whole issue of swill feeding are the Pig Veterinary Society who say if it is to be allowed to continue, then the way it is licensed and policed should be reviewed urgently.

And at a meeting of the European Commission’s standing veterinary committee last month, several member states asked the commission to consider an EU ban on swill feeding. The UK feed industry also seeks a ban. `It taints the whole industry, and we’re fed up with it,’ a spokeswoman for UKASTA told New Scientist.

West country producer Robert Lasseter (who isn’t a swill feeder) is keen that this welter of opinion should not blind government to the advantages of feeding catering waste.

`Waste fed pigs are ecologically sound. It is no mistake that China’s household waste is recycled through the house pig. This is a much cheaper and environmentally sound practise than the alternatives such as landfill,’ he says in his response to MAFF’s consultation paper.

`As the planet runs out of time, it is exactly these environmental measures that will save us from self-destruction.’

Like many producers Robert Lasseter is keen for it to be clearly understood that government neglect caused the current foot and mouth outbreak, not swill feeding of pigs. `Lack of government control of imported meat is the cause of this outbreak, and the swine fever crisis eight months earlier. Swill feeding was not involved with the swine fever outbreak.

`Government should be addressing the issue of controlling imported meat with as much urgency as the disease itself,’ he says. `I observe that port officials at Southampton have not yet been contacted to increase surveillance of imports. To stop further exotic diseases being imported government needs to impose stricter food and livestock import controls of the type imposed by Australia and New Zealand.

`Until this is done we are likely to get yet another disease that will threaten our livestock and tourism industries perhaps before foot and mouth is even brought under control.’

Again like other producers he has highlighted an area of swill feeding that does need changing urgently. `It should be illegal to deliver untreated swill to a farm feeding swill without treatment facilities. If this were the law then this outbreak would never have happened.’

MAFF have acknowledged the arguments in favour and against allowing the practice of swill feeding are `quite finely balanced’. They stress that if the statutory conditions are complied with — heating at 100 degrees centigrade for one hour — it does not present a risk of transmitting foot and mouth disease and other similar pathogens.

`Nor will banning swill feeding necessarily prevent the risk of illegal feeding of swill and catering waste to pigs, for example, possibly by owners of small numbers of pigs,’ say MAFF.

`However, the government has concluded that the potential risk of swill feeding introducing disease to livestock farms where swill is not used – and to the wider community – is now greater than the benefits to the relatively small number of premises that continue to adopt this practice. That is why an early ban is proposed.’

Producers and others in the pig industry who wish to see a copy of MAFF’s consultation paper with a view to making a submission should visit the MAFF website at or write to Catherine Lamb, at Room 406, MAFF, 1A Page Street, London SW1P 4PQ.

In their consultation paper MAFF say around 82,000 pigs in Britain, about 1.4% of the total, were fed swill last year. About 74 premises are approved for processing swill, and 93 are licensed for feeding it to pigs or poultry.

They point out that because swill fed to pigs may contain porcine material it represents one of the few remaining examples permitted of intra species recycling. `In theory it would be possible to ban intra species recycling and allow some swill feeding to continue, e.g. by allowing processed beef and sheepmeat material to be included in swill fed to pigs. But this would be impossible to enforce.’

On the other hand, say MAFF, swill is a useful inexpensive material when used, for example, for feeding cull sows prior to slaughter. More generally, farmers feeding swill would lose the benefit of their investment in the necessary equipment if a ban were introduced.

Landfill is the most likely alternative option for disposing of catering waste if swill feeding is banned. `However, the landfill option is becoming more difficult and the national waste disposal strategy envisages a reduction in its use.’

Many producers who currently urge caution over a ban on swill feeding are worried that a ban could embrace a number of useful co-products.

In their consultation paper MAFF acknowledge this is an important issue. `A decision would be needed on whether or not to include within the ban the feeding of catering waste not containing (or in contact with) animal products other than milk, eggs, rennet, gelatin or melted fat as an ingredient.

`Such waste does not, at the present, require licensing under the Animal By-Products Order 1999. Continuing to allow catering waste not containing, or in contact with, animal products to be fed to farmed animals would make it more difficult for state vets and local authority inspectors to detect meat containing catering waste or swill on farm.’

MAFF are keen to have responses from the pig industry to the following questions:

• Should swill feeding of catering waste containing animal products be banned?
• If yes, should fish and poultry animal by-products fed as swill on-farm be included in the ban?
• Should non-meat catering waste be included in the ban?
• If non-meat waste is included in a ban, should there be a total ban on the feeding of any catering waste (including vegetable waste) or should the ban be restricted to catering waste?

Deadline for submissions: 10 April 2001.

Foot and mouth signs

• The above sign from March issue of Pig World is now available for you to put on your perimeter gates — thanks to an initiative by NPA producer group member Mick Proctor.
• The rigid, rainproof signs are 24ins x 16ins and cost £2 each.
• The same sign is also available as an 8ft by 3ft banner, with bungee fasteners at each corner. These banners — which are ideal for fields next to major roads, the railings outside Parliament etc — cost £50.

Desperate farmers queue to enter animals in welfare scheme

Everyone was shocked by the deluge of animals entered into the welfare slaughter scheme… everyone that is except pig producers who had been warning for weeks that life in controlled areas was becoming impossible for farmers and animals alike.

As Pig World went to press the Intervention Board was overwhelmed by calls from farmers wanting to put animals into the foot and mouth welfare disposal scheme.

From the moment the Intervention Board opened its 30 phone lines its switchboard was jammed.And within a few days over a million animals had been offered, prompting the Board to admit `We can’t cope’.

Desperate pig producers were asked to be patient as the board attempted to remove bottlenecks, most serious of which was a lack of rendering capability. However, significant movement was expected in a few days after the board contacted three companies which between them operate 20 landfill sites across the country.

Currently some 20 abattoirs are contracted for the welfare scheme and these have capacity for 260,000 sheep, 25,000 cattle and 62,000 pigs a week. (In contrast, rendering is limited to one site with a capacity of 1700 tonnes a week.)

The welfare disposal scheme will be a lifesaver for desperate pig producers who cannot move their animals. Rates of purchase negotiated by NFU and NPA are considered to be reasonable — certainly a considerable improvement on the government’s offer during swine fever — but not as good as some sheep producers are getting.

The scheme offers up to £70 for pigs, with a separate £75 band for cull sows. NPA hopes to persuade MAFF to include boars in the cull sow scheme. It also hopes to arrange enhanced rates for breeding stock, which is more expensive to produce. Government originally estimated the welfare scheme would cost £150m-£200m. They now acknowledge the figure will be higher.

Meanwhile compensation for animals in the compulsory slaughter scheme for infected animals continues to mount. Over £22m has already been paid out. According to Nick Brown, money is no object in dealing with the crisis. Nevertheless, the level of take-up of the welfare scheme has shocked officials.

The scheme aims to relieve the animal welfare problems faced by some farmers as a result of movement restrictions by providing an outlet for animals which cannot be moved and are therefore suffering.

Under the scheme welfare problems created on farms in infected and control zones can be offered to the Intervention Board who will arrange for their slaughter and disposal. The Intervention Board bears the costs of collection through to disposal.

In order to receive payments under the scheme producers have to register with the Intervention Board. (If you are not currently registered you should ring 0118 9531430 for details.)

In order to be eligible animals must be:

• Owned by or in the possession of an eligible farmer. If the animal is not owned by an eligible farmer you will be required to state that you have the authority of the owner to transfer ownership to the Intervention Board.
• Fit for the journey to the abattoir _ in compliance with the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997.
• At risk of poor welfare as a result of movement controls.

Producers must have considered, and implemented where practicable, all other reasonable means of alleviating welfare problems — for example by providing temporary accommodation.

They must also be able to show they have a genuine animal welfare problem that cannot be resolved by management action on the farm, and for which prompt removal of the animals to slaughter is the only solution.

The Intervention Board’s advice is that producers should work on the basis that the scheme aims to alleviate both actual and potential animal welfare problems, and that removal of animals from a farm will take place no more than once in a four-week period.

Once an application has been validated, the Intervention Board will arrange for a MAFF local veterinary inspector to visit the farm within 72 hours (or sooner if the welfare problem is an urgent one).

The vet will inspect the animals to be moved to confirm a welfare problem (or potential problem) exists, and also check for signs of foot and mouth. He or she will also confirm that the animals are fit to travel. Heavily pregnant animals, or those that are new-born would not be accepted.

At all points in the scheme, the need for thorough cleansing and disinfection, using an approved disinfectant, is essential. The vet’s instructions make clear the need for thorough self cleansing and disinfection before coming on to farm premises; equally, before leaving the vet will destroy or disinfect any equipment used.

Provided the animals are free from disease and fit for their intended journey, the vet will issue a licence authorising the movement of the animals to an abattoir. On the day of movement the animals will be loaded under official supervision.

Aerial spraying

Foot and mouth buffer zones could be created by aerial spraying of disinfectant. The technique was used in the Philippines in the mid-90s to damp down foot and mouth on rubbish tips and other areas which could not easily be treated from the ground.

Asked about the possibilities, Antec’s Mark Blackwell said, `One would have to recognise the volumes would need to be quite large.’ However, he said, given recent events regarding burial sites, landfills and the use of military `maybe this isn’t so far fetched after all’.

Antec are already recommending that livestock producers fog with Vircon, siting examples in other countries where such a technique has been successful at combating foot and mouth.

Can vets afford to work for MAFF?

By Sam Walton

A Doncaster pig producer rang me up, I guess pretty near the end of his tether. He has survived the bad times even though he lost £74,000 in six months on top of a de-pop, re-pop.

His wife is a vet with her own practice. She has been offered £160 a day for a week, to help in the crisis. If she accepts, she cannot then treat or visit any animals in her own practice for a further week and it costs more than £160 per day to get in a locum to cover for her.

Incidentally, last night his wife visited the local Co-op to buy some premium ham. It had increased in price from 99p per 100gms to £1.87 per 100 gms, equivalent to £18.50 a kilo.

He had been offered 86p a kilo for his pigs that week. He wonders what our industry is doing wrong.

Meanwhile he watches the current movement arrangements in some bemusement. His local haulage man had moved some store pigs the previous day with a MAFF man supervising his washing and disinfecting of the lorry, an ADAS man, sitting in his cab for the journey, another MAFF man to supervise his washing etc at the other end.

The same haulier today is to move some calves, a journey totalling six miles each way. MAFF are sending a man from Bedale to Hull to see him wash his lorry, another ADAS chap to ride in the cab and another MAFF man will supervise the cleansing routine when the journey is completed.

Like others at the moment, he does wonder how he is going to survive after going through the bad period and now with prices back down to the mid eighties.

The Strak Report

By Dr John Strak

This month’s Strak report will focus on how the foot and mouth epidemic will affect Britain’s pig producers. It’s an important question and the pig industry needs to reflect on it.

I will present my own reflections here and unfortunately not everything I have to say will give you reasons to be cheerful. But there are several issues that I hope will make you thoughtful. In all of this I must stress that the UK market for pigmeat will be seriously out of balance for the rest of this year so early predictions as to what might happen are subject to a stronger than usual health warning.

First, let’s be clear that the direct impact of FMD on pig numbers has been minimal. As I write this in the third week of March, little more than 1% of the animals slaughtered because of FMD are pigs and it’s evident that the biosecurity measures taken by the UK pig sector have, by and large, been successful at preventing the disease spreading through the pig industry.

That’s a positive note to start with. However, the market impact of the UK losing its FMD-free status is not so positive. In fact, everyone I have spoken to is clear that it is rather negative and very confusing.

There is an immediate impact on the prices paid for pigs through the loss of export markets for key parts of the carcass (shoulders, flanks and the cheaper cuts) and from the complete shutdown in international trade in cull sows.

The “normal” export volume of pigmeat from the UK is of the order of 170-200,000 tonnes per year – or nearly 20% of the total pigmeat produced – so it’s a major market disturbance to lose this. There have also been higher costs arising from feeding stock that would normally have left units and from the increased hassle involved in complying with the licensed movement to slaughter scheme.

The down ward pressure on prices from lost markets and the increased feeding costs on the farm generate the double whammy that many farmers will recognise and that their bank managers will have nightmares about.

However, these negative effects may be countered by some positive ones. The Dutch, Irish and French FMD outbreaks have caused their exports of pigmeat to be curtailed and this loss of potential imports will tend to support the UK’s domestic pig price.

However, this effect is complicated by various trade bans on EU-produced pigmeat (North America, Japan, etc) and, in the short term, there will be more than 700,000 tonnes of pigmeat normally exported from the EU that are looking for a home inside the EU (that’s not including the Dutch and French output).

This last point implies serious dislocation of the global pigmeat trade with upward price pressure on meat that can enter the world market and more price volatility everywhere (I think I’ve made this point about increasing price volatility before!). Furthermore, if Dutch, French and Irish pigmeat is stored until a later date there will be a corresponding negative price pressure on the trade at some point in the future (more volatility again).

My guess is that the positive pressures will balance the negative ones in the short term providing that the UK pigmeat supply chain continues to operate throughout the UK’s FMD epidemic and that there is some serious lateral thinking about what to do with all those shoulders and flanks.

(Full report in April Pig World).

The sacrificial slaughter of an industry on the altar of cheap food
by NPA board member Richard Longthorp (March 17, 2001)

Currently, with all the daily problems that need to be wrestled with, we are, at best, imminently at risk of allowing, by default, the Government and minority interest groups to win the first battle in the war of spin and subterfuge – and at worst they may already have secured a significant stranglehold in the war.

Much of the crucial work on lobbying regarding welfare, movements etc. needs to be and indeed is being carried on determinedly and unabated; and whilst it is essential that a debate does take place on the future of swill feeding, licensing of farms, sustainability of agriculture etc., that is for the future.

But the most important and fundamental issue at stake in the current FMD outbreak is not that a swill feeder at Heddon on the Wall might, and only might, have been responsible for allowing the FMD virus into the animal chain.

The issue is just how that virus was allowed into the country in the first place. If we allow Government and various minority interest groups to divert attention from that single issue then not only are we going to have a tough next 6 months but we are going to pass by a once in a lifetime opportunity to right a wrong that has blighted our industry for several years now and pass by the chance of a more sustainable future.

The UK Government today stand accused of a gross dereliction of duty with untold potential consequences for UK agriculture and the nation as whole – consequences which could have been significantly worse had the disease had implications for human health.

This dereliction of duty has now been compounded by either a lack of a will or a lack of a resource to take firm action by culling at the earliest opportunity all suspect cases deemed to be a significant risk and then disposing of those carcases by whatever means as quickly and safely as possible. The lessons of CSF, whilst admittedly not having been forgotten by the CVO and his team, have apparently been ignored by the Minister, The Prime Minister and the Chancellor.

This initial dereliction of duty followed by the subsequent delay in effective control measures has led directly to the heart wrenching and soul destroying but now necessary mass slaughter currently being executed. A slaughter which is ripping the very heart and draining the lifeblood out of rural Britain like no other event before it.

The evidence is clear –

1. FMD, as with CSF before, was almost certainly introduced into the UK illegally. Who is responsible for ensuring the integrity of our border controls?
2. IF, Heddon on the Wall, was the index case and MAFF and Trading Standards were aware of shortcomings in the operation, why the *!*! didn’t MAFF and Trading Standards do something about it before we reached this stage?
3. The Government has, by its current drastic actions, on the recommendation of the CVO, acknowledged that FMD can be and probably will be spread very easily. In which case why the *!*! did it not have better controls in place from the outset?
4. The Minister conveniently bleats on about making decisions based on the professional advice of poor old Jim Scudamore. It would be interesting to know if the CVO had given advice on border controls he would have been listened to? Who knows, perhaps somewhere lurking in MAFF offices, or by now in the bottom of a shredder, lurks a memo indicating that such advice was indeed given? It was certainly given in pretty unequivocal terms by the pig industry over the past 3 years. Or do we have a “Pinball Wizzard PM” – “Deaf, Dumb and Blind Kid – sure plays a mean pig war?”
5. The UK has the benefit of being an island. Mainland Europe has tens of thousands of miles of border to control and some of those eastern and south eastern borders are very close to FMD infected countries. Yet despite this significantly greater risk, they have by and large remained free of FMD. The US has kept FMD out of their country for 80 years again despite a high risk on its southern border. How the *!*! do we end up with the problem? And following on so soon after CSF?
6. Confirmed cases of FMD have had to wait an undue period of time for slaughter; slaughtered animals have not been disposed of soon enough; and highly suspect cases of FMD have not been slaughtered out soon enough.
7. CSF was last year’s problem. FMD is this year’s problem. What is next year’s problem going to be Mr Brown? A sprinkling of Aujesky’s or a touch of the old Nipah virus perhaps? Or could it be a an odd snort of Ebola virus imported on monkey meat? Yer pays yer money yer takes yer choice.

The Solution

It is often the case that highlighting the problem is the easy bit but that the solution is always more problematical. But in this case the solution per se is a piece of !!**. The authorities responsible for border controls should be given whatever resource they need to ensure that we never endure such a crisis as this again; that the country’s agricultural industry, its economy and the health of its citizens are never again threatened by the Government’s refusal to fund effective controls, to ensure their effective implementation or their laissez faire attitude to Free Trade. The finance for such resources should come from those people and organisations who profit out of imports – the importers themselves. No doubt the Government will bleat on about Free Trade restrictions etc. but other countries manage it without recourse, why can’t we?

The Remedy

In the “real world” where a business or individual has been shown to be in dereliction of say its environmental, health and safety or employment responsibilities, they are normally forced to “remedy” the situation and, in many cases pay compensation, (indeed in the case of the environment on the basis of “the polluter pays” principle). It would, therefore, seem eminently reasonable that those who have suffered as a result of this Government’s gross dereliction of responsibility should be similarly and adequately compensated.

The Action Required

The prosecution of this solution and remedy and the exposure of the evidence is the responsibility of every man jack of the UK Pig Industry. At every opportunity:

• Raise it with the media – no matter what the question, answer that and then move on rapidly to highlight the “big issue”
• Raise it with MP’s, Ministers whoever
• Raise it with anybody who is prepared or, as the case may be, not prepared to listen – taxi drivers, shop assistants, milkmen, doctors, accountants.
• The country has a right to know the truth.

This may not sound as exciting as a vigil or an RDC shutdown but it can be effective and, who knows, with many minds concentrated on the issue there is every chance that high profile opportunities can be created by those many and “creative” minds out there that comprise the UK Pig Industry. The pig industry has nothing to be apologetic or ashamed of. We are an unsubsidised industry and we want to remain that way. But we don’t want to and shouldn’t have to be forced out of business by the incompetence of others.

The good news is that farming businesses have plenty of resources available to them, and are highly capable of surviving in any economic climate. Luckily, families all over the globe are just beginning to see the importance of feeding their children wholesome, farm-to-table meals, which will eventually “trickle up” to the farm and animal owners and yield great dividends. In the meantime, take a look at our comprehensive list of savvy financial tricks to help any business owner save your hog business from shutting down.

Photo by Olav Rokne via Flickr

Slash Overhead Costs

If you’re a hog farm owner, one of the most important things you can do to keep your business running smoothly and lucratively is to keep all overhead costs down. Sure, farming and animal raising is can be tiring work, but that’s when you rely on friends and family members to keep you going. Those nieces and nephews will need summer work anyway, so put them to use for a fraction of what you’d pay strangers. They’ll love learning the family business, and you’ll get to bond with family, to boot. And in case you run into a cash shortage, look into an online service like www.totalbankruptcy.com to help you sort through your finances.

Splurge on Raw Materials

Buying the best raw materials will always yield the highest quality finished product. And when competition is so steep, standing above the competitors is imperative. You might be tempted to skimp and save in this area, but the best raw materials will keep customers coming back.

Invest in Smart Marketing

Spend a little on marketing and PR and target the customers you know will use your product of services. A little money spent on the right campaign might just be all you need to survive a tough economy.

Hopefully you learned few helpful tricks of the trade to keep your hog farm or other agricultural businesses afloat even during the toughest of financial and economic woes. As long as you’re providing a worthwhile product or service at a reasonable price, your business can really flourish. It’s important to remind consumers why your item is the best on the market, and revenue will soon follow. Keep these simple tips in mind going forward, and you’ll likely turn your future around within a few months.