Beef and Lamb Matters

Image of red meat back in balance

2012-03-07T14:26:00.000Z

The red meat industry has, for a number ofyears, had to put up with a lot of criticism, often unfairly. While, as in mostsectors, there are areas where we can do better or improve performance andefficiency, we are an easy target for many with an agenda or who are simplyill-informed. This can be criticism on environmental performance, the health valueof red meat in the diet or its animal welfare issues.

This can be galling in the trade press butcan be even more frustrating in the consumer arena when the whole picture isnot fully painted. The person on the street may just take what they have readat face value as they have no intrinsic knowledge of the subject, unlikesomeone reading an article in trade media, and this may change their behaviour.This is an area that EBLEX, inconjunction with our BPEX colleagues in the pig sector, and other relatedorganisations like HCC in Wales and QMS in Scotland, are all working toaddress.

Too often unbalanced articles or commentsappear in the media. We have concentrated resources and expertise over the last12 months in ensuring commentators and influencers are better informed on thebenefits of red meat. And this work is now demonstrating real returns.Analysing coverage over the 18 months since the meat and health campaign waslaunched, predominantly negative media have been turned to more positive itemsin print and broadcast.

Previously, an audit of press coverageshowed five negatives to every one positive story on red meat in England. Now.We are looking at 5.5 positive to every 3.5 negative.

The work to achieve this has includedspeaking to more than 90 key opinion forming journalists and scientists,supporting the Meat Advisory Panel – a panel of experts keen on promoting themore positive aspects of red meat – compilation of a seriesof factsheets on common issues like red meat and obesity, red meat andheart disease, and red meat and cancer, setting out the real facts on theseissues, and revamping the meatandhealth.comwebsite.

The simple fact is that red meat is a nutritious source of many vitaminsand minerals and can play an important part in a healthy diet. There will alwaysbe those with an agenda who simply want to put people off eating meat for whateverreason, but at least we are seeing more balanced reporting of the facts ratherthan skewed view with claims simply being taken at face value.

Update on Schmallenberg virus

2012-02-29T16:04:00.000Z

Schmallenberg virus, which the latest DEFRAfigures show has affected 83 holdings in 14 English counties (as of 27February) as well as a number of our European neighbours, has gainedsignificant coverage in the mainstream media in recent days.

It will take some time to see the trueimpact of the spread of this disease, but it is good to see the public take aninterest in this virus which is clearly having an effect on livestockproduction business and profitability in affected areas.

It is, however, very important thatconsumers get the message loud and clear that Schmallenberg has no impact onhuman health as it is not transmissible to humans through either meat or dairyproducts. This was confirmed in a EuropeanCommission statement ratified by member states last month, and reiteratedthis week by the FoodStandards Agency. Unfortunately this aspect is something which many newssources have failed to highlight.

Sheep farms are so far bearing the bruntof the virus, accounting for 78 of the confirmed cases (the remaining five arecattle). Anecdotal evidence suggests that in affected flocks mortality ratesamong new born lambs range from 5% to 20%.

It is too early in the lambing season todetermine whether the virus will have a significant effect on supply, howeverwe are obviously monitoring this emerging issue with concern. We cannotunderestimate the impact of Schmallenberg on the farmers whose animals areaffected, but all that can be done is being done and the industry is better preparedthan ever to cope with the impact of a disease outbreak.

More information and guidance regardingthe Schmallenberg virus can be found on the DEFRAwebsite.

Over the next few days we will beproducing a dedicated section on the EBLEXwebsite where sheep and beef farmers will find links to all the latestinformation.

Farmers get social at NFU 2012

2012-02-23T14:15:00.000Z

The NFUConference came to town this week, with over 1,000 farmers and key industrystakeholders from around the country descending on the ICC in Birmingham for the first time.

Anyone who has attended the conferencewill know that it is a great advertisement for agriculture: a well-run and professionalevent with some heavyweight speakers which puts farming on a par with any othermajor UKindustry.

Although the amount of tweed and corduroyon display may have done little to change people’s preconceptions aboutfarmers, the way that organisers and delegates embraced new and social media certainlydid.

Those who weren’t able to be at the eventcould watch all of the main conference sessions from the comfort of theirarmchair through the live streaming on the NFU website, accompanied by livelycommentary on Twitter on all aspects of the conference from the finer points ofEuropean Commission Agriculture Commissioner Dacian Cioloş’s presentation onthe CAP to the pattern of Agriculture Minister Jim Paice’s socks (stripeyapparently).

The fact that on the first day of theconference #NFU12 was trending at number two in the UK on Twitter, meaning itwas the second most talked about subject on Twitter after Pancake Day, istestament to how the agricultural community has engaged with social media, andthe buzz that the industry can create when everyone is focussed on the samething.

Economist Sean Rickard caused somecontroversy in the conference’s final question and answer session when he calledfor farmers to stand up and speak for one of the most vital industries in thecountry, but the point he was making was a valid one: If we don’t sell ourindustry, then why should anyone do it for us?

Events such as the NFU conference and thecampaigns talked about in last week’s blog - Thesteak bouquet and the value of great PR – all play their part in shapingpublic opinion of our industry. We need to use all the tools at our disposal toconvince consumers that UKagriculture is worthy of their support and, most importantly, their investment.

The steak bouquet and the value of great PR

2012-02-15T16:24:00.000Z

The story ofthe Valentine'sDay steak bouquet really captured the public imagination this week, with themeaty gift creating a buzz on Twitter and Facebook, as well as gaining coveragein the media.

Created by Tewkesbury-basedQuality Standard butcher Anthony Bowness as an alternative to the traditional dozenred roses, the beef bouquet even gets a mention in the Daily Telegraph. The tastytreat has divided the population, with reactions ranging from ‘awesome’ to ‘ewww’,but at least it got people talking.

This may be abit of fun, but the importance of great public relations stories like this tothe meat industry should not be overlooked. The tough economic climate means wemust do what we can to ensure that people continue the meat-eating habit. Addedto that, there are plenty of groups out there who would rather we didn’t eatmeat, for reasons related to climate change, animal welfare, health or manyothers.

There are plentyof groups and individuals out there who are already doing a great job of promotingthe industry. Yorkshire-based butcher JohnPenny and Sons recently launched the ‘Meat Crusade’, communicating to consumersthe benefits of shopping at their local butcher.

Anotherexample is Ladies in Beef, acountry-wide network of female beef farmers formed to drive awareness of the qualityand versatility of British beef. Their annual event, the Great British Beef Week,gives the industry the opportunity to make a concerted push to promote Britishbeef consumption.

And we shouldn't forget Meat Trade Journal's National Butchers Week, which givesthe butchery sector a fantastic platform to promote their trade to consumers. Thereare plenty of others out there of course – unfortunately we can’t mention youall!

PR is nolonger exclusively the domain of expensive agencies. Social networking sites suchas Twitter and Facebook mean that the tools to communicate with the public areaccessible to everyone. And, most importantly, at zero cost.

This industry isfull of people who believe passionately in what they do and have fantasticknowledge and skills that they should be proud of. Hopefully initiatives likethese will give consumers a much better understanding of where their meat comesfrom and give them plenty of good reasons to choose quality, farm assured beefand lamb.

Livestock production and the curse of the zombie statistics

2012-02-08T14:06:00.000Z

It is unfortunate that in recent years, the livestock production sector has been a scapegoat for climate change. The furore really reached fever pitch just before the climate change summit in Copenhagen in December 2009 when we seemed beset on all sides by those suggesting cutting livestock numbers was the key to solving the ills of greenhouse gases. “Stop eating meat and save the planet” became the mantra. This was not helped by The Times (mis) quoting Lord Stern of Brentford, author of the 2006 Stern Review on tackling global warming, as saying: “Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. A vegetarian diet is better.”

The fact that he challenged them on the accuracy of the reporting of that comment (the original story was on p1 – his letter saying he was misquoted was printed two days later on p41) is irrelevant because people today still quote that initial story at and it will still come to light if a journalist or researcher is using an internet search to find back ground on livestock and climate change. The story keeps coming back to haunt us, despite being discredited.

A phrase has been coined for this type of story – or more often facts and figures – “zombie statistics”. We seem to suffer from them more than most in the beef and sheep sector so we thought we would use this blog to set straight two of the most belligerent ones in the hope of providing some sort of balance to future debate.

“The livestock sector is … responsible for 18 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalents. This is a higher share than transport.” This came from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) 2006 report Livestock’s Long Shadow.

This figure – and the comparison to transport – is still regularly regurgitated by those for whom it serves a purpose, despite serious flaws in the methodology. According to a report by Dr Frank Mitloehner, renowned expert on agricultural air quality and animal-environmental interactions, the lifecycle emissions associated with livestock (a cradle-to-grave examination of the industry that takes into account everything from the fertiliser used in growing feed to the methane burps of cattle) and the direct emissions of the transportation industry as calculated by the IPCC (the burning of fossil fuels as independent from everything else, including extracting the oil from the ground, manufacturing the cars, etc.) were two very different studies. They are therefore not comparable.

This point was conceded by the FAO when the agency’s livestock policy officer, Pierre Gerber, told the BBC. “We factored in everything for meat emissions, and we didn’t do the same thing with transport.” The report is flawed. A revised report is expected this year and early indications are that the livestock figure will be well under 10 per cent. In the interim, an EU study concluded that livestock contributions were around 9.1 per cent of all emissions.

You only need to look at the story last weekend in the Independent on Sunday which again looked at this issue in isolation and compared livestock production unfavourably with transport’s GHG output to see that this myth continues to live on after death. It is still used on the Meat Free Mondays website, one of many single issue pressure groups encouraging people to eat less meat.

Another high profile stat is that it takes 100,000 litres of water to produce 1kg of beef. Other studies suggest different figures, but all are quite staggering. When figures are quoted relating to the UK, then

figures should be used throughout. EBLEX’s own research, which informed the Testing the Water report, the second chapter in our ongoing environmental roadmap work, showed it takes just 67 litres of “blue” water to produce 1kg of beef. Blue water is water taken from a piped source, effectively taken from the water supply that could have been used for something else. It is therefore misleading to cite such zombie stats as the 10,000-litre figure when discussing meat production in the UK.

So beware the figures from beyond the grave and please do what you can to set straight those who continue to breathe life into dead stats.

Mapping the industry’s environmental impact

2012-02-02T15:42:00.000Z

When the beef and sheep environmentalroadmap project was launched in 2008, its aim was to deliver a betterunderstanding of the environmental challenges facing the industry and todevelop messages on practical ways to reduce the carbon footprint of the sector.

Nearly four years into the work – andmake no mistake this is an ongoing project – we have just launched the thirdchapter of our roadmap, Downto Earth. Together with the first two instalments, Changein the Air and Testingthe Water, the roadmaps should be viewed as a single cohesive document, examininga broad range of issues connected to the overall carbon hoofprint of the Englishbeef and lamb sector and giving us a far better understanding of the problemsand how we can address them.

This includes not only the directcontribution of emissions from livestock but covers energy and water use,economic returns, landscape and biodiversity value and waste in the supplychain.

We have a target of reducing emissions by11% by 2020. The research we have completed and the target efficiency levels wehave included in the roadmap work are steering the industry towards this. Thereis no quick fix though, and the very lifecycle and nature of the animals weraise means change cannot happenovernight.

The information in the first two chaptersof the roadmap has become a widely-quoted, authoritative source on the carbonfootprint of the beef and lamb production sector, not just in England but inthe wider UK, Europe and even further afield.

However, if we truly want to reduce thecarbon footprint of the beef and lamb industry we must look beyond the farmgate and examine each element of the supply chain, from farm to fork. For thisreason, Down to Earth includes contributions from the retailers which show notonly the diverse range of approaches to tackling the carbon footprint but alsoa willingness to improve and a desire to share good practice. Every link in thechain shares a common goal: a healthy, sustainable and profitable beef and lambindustry.

Climate change remains one of the biggestchallenges for our sector. As acknowledged in the GreenhouseGas Action Plan, sector roadmaps, such as this one and those produced byother AHDB divisions, are important vehicles for changing practices to improveproduction efficiency. We remain ascommitted as ever to research that highlights the key drivers to efficiency anddelivers practical measures that can help producers, processors and all othersin the beef and sheep meat supply chain reduce our environmental impact.

Dairy beef success story

2012-01-25T15:11:00.000Z

It was heartening to see BBC Countryfiletelling such a positive story about UK veal production in Sunday's programme. Vealhas in fact been enjoying something of a media renaissance in recent months.Barely a week goes by without the EBLEX press office getting a call from ajournalist wanting more information about veal sales trends and the potentialof the market.

It’s hard not to feel like a pessimisticnaysayer when explaining yet again that, despite certain encouraging signs, theveal market in this country remains very small with just 0.4% of GB householdsbuying veal in the last year, and total sales reaching 125 tonnes. (To put thisin perspective, the total market for beef and veal was 269,291 tonnes for thesame period.)

In the UK, the industry has come a longway since veal crates were banned in 1990, but, as the Countryfile voxpopsproved, many consumers remain unaware of these changes. While the power of aprogramme such as Countryfile (which regularly attracts six million viewers) ininfluencing the public should not be underestimated, it would require a massivesea change in popular opinion for veal to become a staple of British consumers’shopping baskets. It is therefore likely that, in this country at least, vealwill continue to be a niche market product.

There is, however, another option fordairy bull calves which has proved to be one of the industry’s true successstories, and which is all too often overlooked by the media. The majority ofdairy bull calves (over 75% in 2010 according to official estimates) arealready being reared for beef and in 2010 57% of the beef produced in the UK came fromthe dairy herd, a fact which would probably take most consumers by surprise.

Dairy bull calves are a necessary by-productof dairy production, and every farmer wants their animals to go on to live auseful life, therefore it’s not surprising that the industry has already comeup with a solution of its own to this sensitive problem.

The media should be applauded for tacklingthe subject of veal head on, but without putting it in the context of the dairybeef market there is a risk that the public could be misled.

Exports: to the Eurozone and beyond

2012-01-18T10:02:00.000Z

Beef and sheepproducers enjoyed some well-deserved good cheer in 2011, as livestock pricesreached unprecedented levels, partly as a result of strong export sales. Theindications are that the outlook for the industry is also positive and we canbe optimistic about this situation continuing throughout 2012 and beyond.

However, thesituation in the Eurozone continues to concern many in the industry, withFarmers Weekly (Challengesof a weaker Euro for UK agriculture, 13/01/12) stating that beef and lambproducers are having to ‘battle for business’ as a result of a weaker and morevolatile Euro.

It’s true thatwe cannot afford to ignore what is going on in the Eurozone economy – this isstill the main destination for our beef and lamb exports, therefore reducedconsumer demand in these countries would undoubtedly have a negative effect ontrade. The fact is that one in five of our lambs ends up on a French dinner plateand our closest neighbours are also our most important overseas customers.

Fluctuationsin the Euro exchange rate will undoubtedly affect the price we receive for ourproduct - but claims that a weak Euro could make our exports to the Eurozoneunsustainable are failing to take into account the bigger picture. Back inAugust, we published a blog post addressing this issue (Currencyfluctuations should not affect export confidence), and the points made inthis blog still stand.

Currently,exports to the Eurozone remain healthy. In addition, a large number of non-EUmarkets have opened up to UK beef and lamb since 2010, indeed inJanuary-October 2011 we saw a 74% increase in sheepmeat exports to non-EUdestinations, and a 67% increase in beef exports. Work continues to developfurther new non-EU markets, including priority countries such as Russia and China – although the lattercertainly is still likely to be a few years off.

Meat exportsare increasingly global in their nature and it is therefore important not tounderestimate the effect of worldwide supply and demand. With global suppliesremaining tight and demand increasing, it is very likely that demand for ourproduct will remain robust for the foreseeable future.

Starting 2012 on the front foot

2012-01-11T09:51:00.000Z

It’s been encouraging to see a positive start for the industry in 2012, not least with keynote speeches from Jim Paice and Caroline Spelman at the Oxford Farming Conference.

Citing the importance of the global food market, Mr Paice stressed the need to cultivate new markets for products where we are most competitive. With the country’s food and drink exports growing by 11 per cent to £16 billion last year, the role of exports is abundantly clear. For example, last year saw beef exports rise by 36 per cent and a dedicated push on exports of beef, lamb and fifth quarter products will continue throughout 2012, with further trade missions planned, as well as attendance at key events.

The Government’s Agri-food and Drink Exports Action Plan – also touched on by Mrs Spelman at the Oxford conference – will have an important role to play in this ongoing success, particularly in putting the building blocks in place to help companies succeed overseas. Central to this is the need to simplify the paperwork involved in exports. While it’s never a simple process, backing from the highest level will go a long way to helping us open new markets, notably in the BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia, India and China. As we’ve said before, it won’t happen overnight but the work put in now will undoubtedly pay dividends as the industry moves forwards.

Encouraging also to hear Mr Paice’s calls for the creation of a professional body for farming with AHDB the leading contender to take the role on in a technical and business capacity. It was a ringing endorsement of the organisation and its divisions like EBLEX, acknowledging both the work done on the ground with producers and behind the scenes in developing new trade opportunities. Long may that continue to ensure the industry’s interests and potential is realised.

Mr Paice’s speech can be viewed by clicking here.
Mrs Spelman’s speech can be viewed by clicking here.

Little festive respite from meat reduction calls

2012-01-04T15:42:00.002Z

It was theseason to be jolly, however for Professor Tim Lang, theholiday traditionally linked with over-indulgence provided the perfectopportunity to call for consumers to dramatically reduce their meatconsumption.

In an articlein theDaily Telegraph on 30 December, the professor of food policy at London’s City University is quoted assaying that meat consumption is “out of control” and suggesting “we should goback to ancient traditions whereby meat was considered a treat and eaten onlyon feast days, such as Christmas”.

Using theargument that eating too much meat can cause obesity, heart disease and type 2diabetes, Professor Lang advocates that we should “eat meat once a week andhave really good, grass-fed meat”.

The articlethen goes on to state that “producing meat is harmful for the environment asgrowing animals requires energy and water, and cows produce the greenhouse gasmethane”.

By the timethey reach this point in the article, it’s likely that most people involved inthe meat industry will have either given up reading or will be swearing attheir newspaper. This two-pronged attack using commonly held misconceptionsregarding obesity and climate change as reasons to cut down on meat consumptionhas become all too familiar to an industry which often feels like its beingused as a scapegoat.

It is verydisappointing that we continue to encounter these misconceptions despite evidence to the contrary, but what is even moredisappointing is the willingness of the media to trot out lines about thenegative effects of red meat without stopping to consider their accuracy.

The reality isthat lean red meat is extremely nutritious and can be consumed in moderation aspart of a healthy, balanced diet – for more information have a look at our redmeat and health factsheets. In terms of meat production and climate change,all food production has an environmental cost and making simplistic statementsabout a complex issue is entirely unhelpful. The facts about livestock andclimate change are summarised on ourwebsite.

At thebeginning of 2012, it would be good to believe that this could be the year whenthe industry hits back. EBLEX and other similar organisations can provide theammunition, but we can all play a part in correcting people’s negative preconceptions about meat. The meat and livestock sectors bring tremendousbenefits to this country, however these are all too often overlooked as aresult of over-simplistic headlines and media friendly soundbites.

Tidings of good fortune for English beef and sheep meat

2011-12-21T16:23:00.000Z

As 2011 comes to an end, it’svery encouraging to be able to look back on a year of vastly improved fortunesfor English livestock producers, with prices reaching unprecedented levels for bothsheep and cattle.

Robust domestic demandcombined with strong export sales resulted in the R4L steer price breakingthrough the 300p per kg barrier in early April. Ongoing tight supplies on theglobal market, together with the recent opening of 37 non-EU export markets,contributed to continued strong demand, and by early December the price reached346p per kg.

Overall cattle slaughteringshave been higher in 2011 than year earlier levels, however numbers have fallen backas the year has progressed, with the most recent figures showing that October throughputswere 6% lower on the year.

Strong demand for beef onthe export market resulted in UKbeef shipments increasing by 36% year on year in the January to October period.Although the EU remains the leading market for our beef, exports to non-EUcountries have increased by two thirds in the 10 month period.

Looking ahead to 2012,supplies of slaughter cattle are expected to remain tight. Firm demand on thecontinent as well as the growing number of new markets is expected to keepexport demand competitive. This combined with reduced volumes of imported freshand frozen beef throughout 2011 and in to 2012 means that the outlook for UK beefproduction in 2012 is promising.

A buoyant export market in2011 has also resulted in record prices for sheep producers, with the averageSQQ lamb price reaching 260p per kg at auction at its peak in mid-May. Newseason lambs grew well throughout the dry spring and large numbers of springlambs were encouraged on to the market in May and June by the prevailing highprices.

Slaughter statistics showlamb numbers in June were 10% higher than year earlier levels, applying somedownward pressure on the price in line with the seasonal trend. However, theSQQ remained ahead of year earlier levels throughout the summer and autumnmonths, averaging 192p per kg in November and firmed further in early December.

Strong demand has led togood growth on the EU and wider export markets in 2011, with overall sheep meatshipments increasing by 11% in the first 10 months of the year. This increaseis at a higher level than the uplift in production, meaning a larger proportionof UKsheep meat has been exported this year. In contrast, tight supplies on theglobal market have resulted in a 14% decline in imports for the same period,with shipments from New Zealand 17% lower than year earlier levels.

With some growth in thebreeding flock, higher ewe lamb retentions in 2011, a predicted slightreduction in the lambing rate and lower adult sheep cullings, overall sheepmeat production for 2012 is likely to be slightly lower than 2011 levels.

We can’t afford to ignorethe situation in the Eurozone which could, of course, have an effect on thefortunes of the beef and lamb sectors. The market is set to see greatervolatility which, as a rule, is not great for business. However, ongoing workin non-EU markets and the continued production of high quality beef and lambputs us in a stronger position than other countries in the international economicstorm. With global supplies remaining tight and demand increasing, it is verylikely that demand for our products will remain robust. So hopefully our beefand sheep producers can enjoy a little festive cheer!

Landscapes without Livestock? ‘Too many people miss the silver lining because they’re expecting gold’

2011-12-14T11:48:00.000Z

Let’s remove or reduce livestock from England’s countryside and we’ll save the planet! So there you have it. Simple. That’s that troublesome global environmental issue taken care of.

For some time the beef and sheep sector has been demonised by some pressure groups with calls to reduce meat eating to help the environment. The domino effect dictates that it would ultimately lead to a reduction in beef cattle and sheep numbers.

Ironically, at EBLEX’s recent annual conference, one delegate astutely pointed out that some of the very same people who knock the industry had moved to his neck of the woods because the landscape is so appealing. And the reason it’s so appealing? Wait for it. Exactly, the land is managed by the very livestock they deem so detrimental.

Now of course everyone is entitled to their opinion on the subject but the debate needs to be balanced. With this in mind an EBLEX has commissioned an independent report examining what could potentially happen to some of England’s most cherished landscapes if beef cattle and sheep were either removed or their numbers significantly reduced through a drop in demand.

'Landscapes without Livestock' has been produced by Land Use Consultants (LUC )with input from farmers, ecologists and landscape specialists and adds considered, expert evidence to the debate about the beef and lamb sector and its positive impact on the environment.

After identifying five distinctive environments in accordance with Natural England’s National Character Area descriptions and Defra’s agricultural survey, striking panoramic photographs were taken to illustrate the status quo. Photomontages at years 3, 10 and 30 have been produced to highlight the visual impacts of change at each location if livestock were no longer there, accompanied by narratives for each landscape to set out the ‘story’ of future change.

So, what has it unearthed? Well, it’s said that ‘simple solutions seldom are’ and this certainly appears to ring true with the argument that by simply removing or reducing livestock from England’s landscape, the environment will be all the better for it. In a nutshell ‘Landscapes without Livestock’ has revealed that simply cutting livestock numbers will have knock-on effects which will themselves have a negative environmental impact - lowland wet grassland to drained and intensively cropped arable land on Romney Marsh, and open grass and moorland to wild fire-threatened rank grassland and scrub on Dartmoor. The impact is clear to see.

All too often much is made of the negatives when discussing the beef and lamb sector and its impact on the environment at the expense of the many positives. It seems that when looking at the current numbers of livestock in the landscape, to coin a phrase, ‘too many people miss the silver lining because they’re expecting gold’.

The report can be viewed by clicking here.

Breaking the economic pain barrier in Olympics year and beyond

2011-12-07T13:02:00.001Z

Economic pain, more spending cuts, a one-in-three chance of recession in 2012. Yes, the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement wasn’t exactly the tonic to get us all in the festive mood. But before we all dive for cover from the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse galloping over the horizon, there are some potential positives for the beef and sheep sector.

The Government will be launching a food and drink action export plan next month. ‘So what?’ the cynics may say. Well, the real nuggets are that it will reportedly include development of a cross-Government strategy on removing animal health trade barriers in key markets such as China and Russia and introduce steps to reduce obstacles to UK food exports. Certainly a step in the right direction and one which underpins EBLEX’s ongoing commitment to developing export opportunities for UK beef and lamb. In addition, a summit will be held in March 2012 to boost innovation in small agri-food businesses.

Both Russia and China are huge potential markets. The importance of securing an export certificate to China cannot be overstated but the process is both lengthy and complex. BSE’s legacy continues to present a challenge but EBLEX has been working to develop market access, with a recent delegation to China and, even more more recently, participation in a meeting with five top vets from the Henan Provincial Animal Husbandry Bureau. At that event, questions were pointed towards China becoming more self sufficient in beef and independent from imports from Japan, the USA and Canada. This would, however, reportedly require production in China to more than double. If an export certificate for the UK could be secured, the opportunities speak for themselves.

As for Russia? Next week (December 15^th-17^th) will see unanimous political endorsement of Russia’s World Trade Organisation (WTO) accession at the 8^th WTO Ministerial Conference. Russia’s accession is especially important for the EU. It is the EU’s third largest trading partner after the USA and China, with an 8.6% share of EU trade in 2010. It is also believed that Russia’s entry in the WTO will have an estimated value for the European Union of €3,900million.

The EU is the second largest beef exporter to Russia but again the UK can’t benefit from it due to a continued BSE-related ban. As such, part of EBLEX’s ongoing export strategy to secure new market access to optimise returns for producers and processors in England, is to work to open the Russian market. As we’ve said before, resuming beef exports to Russia could be worth around £115m to the UK in the first three years and that’s based on a conservative 2% market share.

Inevitably the majority of post-Autumn Statement headlines have been all doom and gloom - understandably so for many. The food and drink action plan could however give us cause for optimism, not least by building on and support the hard work the beef and sheep meat sector has already been doing to help drive exports forward as we move into 2012.

To read more about EU trade relations with Russia click here.

Climate change debate remains close to home

2011-11-30T10:39:00.001Z

It appears there is already a cooling ofrelations between some of the countries at this year’s UN climate change summit in Durban, South Africa, which started this week. There issignificant disagreement on fairly fundamental principles, such as when talksshould start on a new global emissions agreement. Indiaand Brazil– both significant contributors in terms of emissions – are the latest countriesto say they do not want to start talks before 2015, while other countries,including the EU block and smaller, developing nations, would like to see adeal finalised by then.

Meanwhile, “rich”countries such as Japan, Russia and Canadaare refusing to commit to targets under the Kyoto Protocol – adopted at thesummit in Japanin December 1997 – which should have been met by next year. This was a set ofbinding targets calling for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions amountingto an average of five per cent against 1990 levels overthe five-year period 2008-2012.

The ultimate aim ofthe summit is to form an agreement that can constrain greenhouse gasemissions enough to keep the global average temperature rise below 2⁰C. Thiswill be no mean feat with so many countries involved with different opinionsand, of course, the whole science behind climate change being such a young one.

In the beef andsheep sector it is fair to say there is still a degree of scepticism aboutclimate change. This can lead some to dismiss it and continue with “business asusual”. However, this is not an option and we do need to address the challengeto reduce our emissions. The simple fact is that the Government believes in itand so has set targets via the Low Carbon Transition Plan, backed up by thetargets in the industry-led Greenhouse Gas Action Plan (GHGAP) that we muststrive to meet. If not, the reality is that legislation and regulation mayfollow to force farmers to make changes.

EBLEX has taken alead in this work. As well as being prominent in the GHGAP project, it hasalready published two reports under our environmental roadmap bannerbenchmarking where we are in terms of emissions and energy use, and exploringpractical ways that these figures can be reduced. You can find both of thesereports here.These practical measures for change are being delivered through our Better Returns Programme.

We are currentlyfinalising content for the third chapter of our roadmap for the beef and sheepmeat sector, which we expect to publish in January 2012. This will include thebiggest yet on-farm data set, which backs up figures from previous years,showing similar trends and ranges of emissions. It also picks out characteristicsof high and low carbon farms, allowing people to look at their own business andsee where they might be under-performing.

It also involvessections from the main multiple retailers examining how they are working withtheir beef and lamb supply chains to improve environmental efficiency, while afurther section looks at the issue of carbon sequestration – how land grazed bylivestock has a positive effect on emissions by sucking carbon out of theatmosphere and storing it.

In the run up tothe 2009 climate change summit in Copenhagen,it is fair to say that livestock farming was the scapegoat for climate change.It appeared everyone was suggesting that reducing meat consumption andtherefore livestock numbers, would bring the necessary emissions cuts in onefoul swoop. The reality is this would do nothing to improve efficiency, wouldadversely affect food security and any food producing enterprise which replacedit would have its own negative GHG affect. We would also lose the huge benefitsthat grazing livestock bring to the countryside, not just as a carbon sink butalso in terms of landscape value and making the most efficient use of land thatcould not realistically be used for anything else in terms of food production.

So we arewatching the debates in Durbanwith interest but should not lose sight of the measures already identified thatcan make an impact on our own carbon footprint.

Get the facts about livestock and climate change in our updated factsheet.

Taking machinery to task to oil the wheels of efficiency

2011-11-23T10:08:00.000Z

It’s been said that efficiency is to do better what is already being done, which is of course obvious to anyone in any industry looking to improve their margins.

And while we’re currently enjoying higher prices for beef cattle, it isn’t always translating into significantly greater returns for producers. Inefficient practices are often the root cause of the problem.

With that in mind EBLEX’s 2011 Business Pointers costs of production survey tells an important story, with fixed costs emerging as one of the key differentiators in improving financial margins for beef suckler herd producers.

Latest figures have highlighted a £250 per head difference in fixed costs between top third and bottom third lowland suckler herd producers in England, with £95 difference in variable costs. Similarly, for suckler herds in Less Favoured Ares (LFAs), there is a notable difference on fixed costs of £176 per head between the top third and the bottom third. Variable costs are also £93 per head higher for those in the bottom third.

The result? A significant difference in margins, with bottom third lowland suckler producers making a loss of £397 per head compared to a £4.60 positive margin for top third producers after cash costs – a modest positive margin but a positive margin nonetheless. It’s worth bearing in mind though that these costs relate to the 12 months to March 31^st, 2011 - before prices really strengthened. In LFAs, top third suckler herds are seeing returns £261 better than those in the bottom third.

If anything, the Business Pointers data has pinpointed the huge spread in terms of inputs which ultimately has a huge impact on the bottom line. Scratch beneath the statistical surface of fixed costs for lowland suckler herds and you soon discover power and machinery as the biggest villains of the piece. Less efficient producers are contributing £110.70 per head towards machinery upkeep and running costs, plus £78.29 in depreciation on machinery and fixings. For the top third the tale is altogether different with machinery upkeep and running costs coming in at £37.63. With less machinery, of course, comes less depreciation, at £27.36.

The upshot is the suggestion that some producers, at worst, may have too much machinery or, at best, more machinery than they need to effectively manage a beef herd. One potential solution could of course be looking into the possibility of reducing vehicle numbers. Interestingly, contract costs also appear significantly higher for the lower performers, suggesting again that they may have too much machinery. If contractors are doing more of the work, less machinery should be needed.

Labour costs, administration charges and contract fees are other contributing factors to fixed costs that could be reduced, as could variable costs like feed prices, vet bills and bedding. Too much machinery, however, certainly appears to be the key challenge. And with any challenges we face, quick and decisive action is almost always the best way to oil the wheels of improving efficiency.

To view the full Business Pointers report and to see a break down on individual enterprise types click here.

Healthy option to keep industry fit for future growth

2011-11-16T11:18:00.000Z

‘Future proofing’ is a phrase often lauded in business and industry to help ensure enduring success and profitability.

In this respect the beef and lamb sector is no different to any other enterprise but, unlike many other industries, the beef and lamb and other livestock sectors face the monumental challenge of keeping one step ahead of the potentially devastating effects of animal disease.

BSE and Foot-and-Mouth (FMD) crises live long in the memory, not least because of the emotional and financial devastation caused. And while the industry is going through somewhat of a purple patch, animal health should remain high on the agenda to help ensure everything stays rosy in the beef and lamb sector garden.

EBLEX sector director Nick Allen highlighted the issue at the recent annual conference, stressing the need for the livestock industry to think more carefully about animal health if it’s to continue to benefit from current high prices. Warning against complacency, he said disease had upset the markets in the past and that the industry needed to protect itself against future shocks, citing previous devastating effects of both bluetongue and FMD.

Of course disease has no respect for international boundaries. It’s encouraging to see then that the EU has just earmarked more than €203million to support programmes to eradicate, control and monitor animal diseases and zoonoses – infectious diseases that can be transmitted to humans from animals. The aim is to further strengthen the protection of human and animal health in 2012.

The decision was taken by the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health (SCoFCAH). Member states also unanimously endorsed Commission proposals to contribute €11.5million for the emergency measures and vaccination plans taken to combat some animal diseases over the last four years.

Overall 138 annual or multi-annual programmes have been selected for EU funding to tackle animal diseases that impact on human and animal health and trade. The lion’s share of earmarked funds - €65million - will finance bovine TB programmes in five member states.

The €11.5million in support of emergency measures will include €1.95million for bluetongue in Germany and around €4million for bluetongue emergency vaccination in the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Austria, Sweden, Italy and France.

The EU has also granted a financial contribution of €890,000 to support Bulgaria for measures such as surveillance, database, information campaigns, laboratories and disinfection in a bid to control the spread of FMD among wild animals in the south east of the country.

So it certainly appears that the wider industry is thinking along the same lines, making all the right noises to keep animal health high on the agenda and diseases at bay. As we’ve said though eyes can’t be taken off the ball. Yes, the industry is enjoying a resurgence which we all welcome but, to quote Thomas Edison ‘We shall have no better conditions in the future if we are satisfied with all those which we have at present’.

The principles of the EU strategy on animal diseases can be viewed by clicking here.

Exports to China - ‘A single day of sub-zero temperature is not enough to create three feet of ice’

2011-11-09T12:14:00.000Z

If nothing else, the Eurozone crisis has again brought into sharp focus China’s role as the world’s major financial player.

While Greece and Italy continue to dominate the headlines, commentators have again reiterated Asia’s destiny to become the global economic powerhouse, with China at its heart. And of course, with China’s own meteoric economic rise comes opportunity.

There’s simply no escaping the importance of China on the global economic stage. It’s the world’s second largest economy, with average growth rates of 10 per cent per annum over the last 30 years. In 2010, Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) surpassed $100 bn. It all makes for impressive reading – but how can the UK beef and lamb sector establish itself as a major supplier?

Undoubtedly the building blocks are already in place. China is the world’s second largest importer and, importantly in these troubled times for Europe, is the EU’s biggest trade partner.

Encouragingly, China is also is the largest producer and consumer of agricultural products. It had population of 1.34bn in 2010, yet the rural population is falling, from 74 per cent in 1990 to 54 per cent in 2009. Urbanisation is expected to reach 70 per cent by 2035. Meat consumption is also on the rise. In 1960, it stood at 3.8kg/capita, but had risen to 49.2 kg/capita by 2000, with beef at 4.8kg/capita and sheep meat 2.9kg/capita.

A growing gap between consumption and domestic supply with per capita meat consumption projections predicted to reach 92.6kg/capita by 2030 makes for tantalising reading for exporters. With UK beef and lamb exports up year-on-year since we were allowed to export again in 2006, surely the statistics suggest it’s simply a question of taking full advantage of supply and demand ratios?

Not quite. Market access is both a lengthy and complex process. The legacy of BSE continues to present a challenge and processing standards in the UK in relation to handling 5^th quarter also need to be addressed. EBLEX continues to work hard in paving the way to develop market access, but it’s not going to happen overnight. We are currently looking at a number of these issues to promote carcase utilisation and 5^th quarter markets, as well as services and support for exporters, and currently have a delegation in China looking at developing opportunities. The latest visit follows EBLEX’s presence earlier the year at the China International Meat Industry Exhibition (CIMIE) in Beijing, a platform for exhibitors to promote their brands and export markets.

So the work is underway and although there is still much to do, the potential long term rewards for UK beef and lamb producers could be immense. As the Chinese proverb says though, ‘A single day of sub-zero temperature is not enough to create three feet of ice’ – ‘Great things cannot be accomplished in a short period of time’.

Further information on China’s economic rise, the Eurozone crisis and what it means for East and West can be read by clicking here.

EBLEX conference 2011 – from Big Bang to secure future

2011-11-03T11:32:00.000Z

EBLEX’s annual conference has become a major date in the calendar for producers, processors, agricultural journalists, trade associations and EBLEX staff to mix and discuss issues affecting all aspects of the industry, and this year’s event didn’t disappoint.

Around 170 delegates attended this week’s event at Kenilworth’s Chesford Grange Hotel which provided the platform for lively presentations, debate and culminated with calls for an industry action plan to tackle future challenges from EBLEX chairman John Cross.

Undoubtedly one of the highlights with the audience was the entertaining and enlightening presentation on red meat and health from guest speaker and Meat Advisory Panel member (and former EBLEX board member) Prof Robert Pickard.

Bringing the house down with a series of one-liners, including “You will never see a cave painting of a vegetarian”, he made a number of serious, valid and well-measured points about the nutritional value of red meat. We’re all aware of the ongoing challenges driven by industry detractors surrounding the image of the industry. Somewhat surprisingly starting with the Big Bang, Prof Pickard commented on red meat’s crucial role in a balanced diet, its positive contribution to the environment and the fact that climate change isn’t a new phenomenon.

Delegates heard about the outlook and global prospects for the beef and lamb from EBLEX sector director Nick Allen and head of trade development Peter Hardwick, while marketing activity in France was outlined by Rémi Fourrier, EBLEX export manager for that country. Nick added that Halal needs to come off the "too difficult" list. He said it is important to the industry, EBLEX is taking it seriously and other people in the industry need to as well.

Unsurprisingly, ongoing domestic economic uncertainty and Eurozone difficulties prompted concern, which was touched on by John Cross in his closing comments. Importantly he stressed that businesses in the red meat industry that survived these volatile times would be those who were fastest and most willing to adapt to change and invest in a global market vision, although significant disease outbreak remained a major Achilles heel for the sector.

His closing rallying call left the conference in no doubt what would play a major role in the sector’s future success. He called for an accurate, high-speed data-base for sheep and beef sectors, capturing assurance status to put the industry on an equal - or better – footing than competitors. As he rightly said “No one else is going to grant us a secure future”.

EBLEX’s press release on the annual conference can be viewed by clicking here.

All the conference presentations are available on the EBLEX website and can be viewed by clicking here.

Meat sector escapes fickle finger of blame on obesity? Fat chance

2011-10-26T13:20:00.000+01:00

Obesity has again hit the headlines recently with calls to tackle the issue, not least among the nation’s children. Earlier this month at the Conservative Party Conference, David Cameron called for drastic action to be taken on obesity to prevent soaring health costs and falling life expectancy. Talk of the sensitively-dubbed ‘fat tax’ emerged, following Denmark’s example where a surcharge has been imposed on foods with more than 2.3 per cent saturated fat.

Reportedly, by 2050 more than half of the population is predicted to be obese. The Department of Health’s new obesity strategy has talked about creating the right environment for individuals to make healthier choices. Figures set out in the strategy suggest that the average adult consumes 10 per cent more calories than they should. Food and drink manufacturers have been called on to cut five billion calories from the nation’s daily diet as part of plans to reduce obesity levels in England.

Certainly a serious issue worthy of debate at the highest level so it is unfortunate that certain regular industry detractors seized on it to extol the virtues of cutting down on meat intake as one way of managing weight. It’s disappointing to see yet again that meat consumption appears to have been singled out in some quarters as the pantomime villain. ‘Oh no it isn’t!’, ‘Oh yes it is!’ I’m afraid. What are the facts though?

Yes, obesity in England has more than doubled in last 25 years and by 2050 is predicted to affect 60 per cent of adult men, 50 per cent of adult women and 25 per cent of children, but the exact causes are not clearly understood. It’s now accepted that there are a combination of nutritional and non-nutritional factors that control food intake – eat better and exercise regularly, in short – and red meat can play an import role in better diets. Red meat is a major source of protein, providing about 27-35 g/100g of cooked beef or lamb. Protein may lengthen the time it takes for people to want to eat again, compared with carbohydrate and fat. Increasing protein intake from 15 per cent to 30 per cent of energy has been shown to decrease calorie intake.

Evidence also suggests that in dietary practice, it may now be beneficial to replace refined carbohydrates with protein sources that are low in saturated fat, such as lean red meat. It has suggested that incorporating additional lean red meat into a calorie-reduced moderate fat may improve the feeling of fullness that persists after eating. This would suppress further energy intake until hunger returns. Some cuts of lean red meat and red meat dishes have a low energy density, which have been found to contribute to greater weight loss without creating a sensation of food deprivation.

Obesity is a very real health problem for many people but attributing blame to one specific food group is, at best, misguided. Contrary to popular belief, lean red meat can play a positive role in weight loss and weight maintenance programmes. But of course the debate is not black and white and is unlikely to be over even after the fat lady has sung.

The Government’s full obesity strategy can be viewed by clicking here.

The Meat Advisory Panel’s factsheet on red meat and weight management can be viewed by clicking here.

Working hard to stimulate demand for beef and lamb

2011-10-19T15:17:00.000+01:00

Among the services EBLEX provides to beef and sheep levy payers is marketing – working (often behind the scenes) to stimulate demand for quality beef and lamb. In the consumer arena, this includes our work with Red Tractor Beef and Lamb, www.simplybeefandlamb.co.uk, our meat and health, and meat and education programmes, and MeatMatters. Complementing this is our trade side marketing work with the major supermarkets, Quality Standard Mark, independent butchers, promoting new cuts from alternative butchery techniques, and supporting the foodservice sector.

It is essential we work hard on the domestic front as this is where the bulk of beef and sheep meat produced in England is sold – and with the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) inflation in the UK rising to 5.2% from 4.5% the month before, consumers are increasingly looking to where they can make food efficiencies. Beef demand certainly remains robust, with latest Kantar Worldpanel figures showing beef sales by volume up 1 per cent for the 12 weeks to October 2 and 0.2 per cent on a year earlier, but we cannot assume this will remain the case simply because people like eating it.

Therefore, the launch of the EBLEX-backed 5by25 initiative, supported by celebrity chef James Martin and a host of national organisations, was rather timely this week, bringing into sharp focus the need to help young people develop skills to create basic dishes with raw ingredients, like beef and lamb. Research commissioned by EBLEX showed that almost 60 per cent of those aged 18 to 25 cannot make a staple dish like spaghetti Bolognese. Only 6 per cent of those questioned knew how to make the three test dishes of spaghetti Bolognese, curry and Yorkshire pudding. Clearly a programme was needed to highlight the frightening shortage of cooking skills for the next generation to ensure healthy, cost effective dishes can be prepared at home from the raw ingredients.

It prompted the development of 5by25, which calls for young people to be given the support to master at least five simple recipe dishes by the age of 25 – the time by which most have left home – with a wealth of information on basic recipes on the website www.5by25.com

At a London launch this week, it had backing across the board, including the Prince’s Trust and National Union of Students, from the assembled 100 guests. The one possible exception was Further Education and Skills Minister John Hayes who discussed his doubts on the need for such a project at the event with a clearly passionate James Martin. Mr Martin went on to extol the virtues of the initiative through a series of radio and television interviews over two days, again demonstrating his support for our industry, which saw him step up to front the annual EBLEX Young Chef Challenge back in 2006, challenging children to come up with dishes featuring beef or lamb mince.

The real benefits of the project will be long term, as we (hopefully) see more people buying the basics, including beef and lamb, to create healthy dishes for themselves and for their families. The proof of the pudding, as they say, will be in the eating.

Sound bites and spats – everyone’s farming’s new best friend

2011-10-12T15:00:00.000+01:00

The perennial autumn exodus from Westminster for party conference season has come to an end with politicians issuing their respective rallying cries to the troops.

Traditional seaside town venues may have been eclipsed by big city locations, but the conference season has nonetheless heralded its usual mix of gossip, spats and witty put-downs.

Against a backdrop of a ‘dangerous new phase’ for the global economy, it came as no surprise to hear the prevailing saga of

Britain

’s long hard road to economic recovery dominate. But what of the agricultural sector? With the imminent publication of CAP reform proposals, the ongoing debate over tackling bovine TB, food security and sustainability, there was surely plenty to discuss. And everyone it seems is farming’s new best friend.

In the blue corner, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Caroline Spelman. And in the red corner, Mary Creagh, Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Having faced a tirade of criticism from Ms Creagh, Mrs Spelman came out fighting, listing her department’s achievements – how producers had been helped by improvements to the Rural Payments Agency, tackling bovine TB and improved labelling regimes. The Conservatives were described as the Government on the side of farmers, before delegates heard the pledge to find ways of unlocking the potential of the rural economy. On CAP reform, Mrs Spelman also pledged to get a good deal for farmers, consumers, taxpayers and the environment.

A week earlier, Ms Creagh championed Labour as the party of jobs and growth, standing up for fairness in the countryside and strong rural communities. The Labour conference fringe also cited the need to grow and produce more. Delegates heard that any plan for growth must have a plan for food. They were told how the Labour Party policy review would seek a proper food strategy for each region with a focus on cattle farms in the west and north of England, as well as those in Wales and Scotland.

In Manchester, the Government faced calls to negotiate a CAP better geared to competitive farming with a policy framework to put farmers in England on level competitive terms with farmers elsewhere in the EU. The issue was also raised at the Liberal Democrat conference where we heard how the party and the NFU pledged to work together to secure a fairer CAP for UK farmers, even after the two organisations clashed on the badger cull proposals. Bovine TB and the proposed badger cull again featured at the Labour fringe. Positive and negative aspects of intensive livestock farming also came under the spotlight.

Undoubtedly, all worthy and important issues for the industry and it’s encouraging to see them debated in such a high-profile arena with all parties laying claim to having the industry’s best interests at heart – not exactly a bolt from the blue, or indeed the red or the yellow. Whether the rhetoric translates into more substantial action will remain to be seen.

The cost of new fresh meat labelling rules

2011-10-05T10:14:00.000+01:00

We all like toknow what we’re getting for our money and fresh meat is no exception, reflectedby the adoption of new EU country of origin labelling (COOL) rules.

The EuropeanParliament has adopted extending mandatory country of origin labelling to freshsheep meat in its ‘Food Information to Consumers’ report. The aim is to improvethe existing labelling rules and provide greater clarity to consumers.

This has beenin the pipeline for a long time and origin labelling has been one of the mostdebated issues of the proposal, not least because of the difficulty in findinga consensus between the European Parliament and the Council on extending COOLto basic foodstuffs.

Generally, thenew rules will maintain the current approach that country of origin or place ofprovenance labelling on food is voluntary, unless its absence could misleadconsumers. However, the standout feature for our industry is that originlabelling becomes mandatory for fresh meat from sheep, an indication thatconsumer concerns about the safety of meat remain. Once the legislation ispublished in the EU Official Journal at the end of November, the new rules formeat origin labelling are to be introduced within two years.

So what will itall mean? This approach has existed in the beef industry for some time as partof the fallout of the BSE crisis and the latest decision will mean that originlabelling will become compulsory for all kinds of meat. The belief is that by indicating the origin of food, consumersare better informed and can make decisions based on that, although many suspectthat price will remain the first and decisive criteria when buying food. At asimplistic level the industry in the UK quite likes the idea, butunfortunately there’s no such thing as a free lunch. The down side of thislegislation is that it will impose requirements of traceability to provide thatlevel of assurance – inevitably, that will mean there’s a cost involved.

Thegovernment has welcomed the move, saying: "Shoppers will now be absolutely surethat if meat claims to be British, it will be British - reared to the highstandards they'd expect."

Yet while the ideathat there will be clear origin labelling on food is to be welcomed, what remainsto be seen are the detailed rules which could include the need for fulltraceability. Unquestionably, the legislation will clearly improve the levelsof transparency but as mentioned earlier, in practice there will be a cost involved.What remains to be seen is who will pay for it.

The value of the French market

2011-09-29T11:11:00.000+01:00

Opening up newand often far-flung markets for UKbeef and lamb is a key element of the EBLEX strategy, but we should not underestimatethe significance of more established export markets closer to home.

France representsthe single most important export market for our lamb, with around one in everyfive lambs born in the UKending up on a French plate. In 2010, Francewas the destination for 60% (57,400 tonnes) of all UK sheep meat exports.

In terms ofbeef exports, the quantities are far more modest, however significant inroadshave been made since the 2007 foot and mouth disease outbreak severely erodedFrench trust in our product. In 2010, beef exports increased by 26% to 10,000tonnes, indicating a strong recovery in this trade. It is also important tonote that in terms of quality beef, France is one of our main markets.

The success offarm assured beef and lamb on the French market is due in no small part to thework of the AHDB France office, based not far from Parisin Fontainebleau.Our colleagues in Francehave worked hard to create a positive image of the product and build fruitful relationshipswith the French supply chain.

Developingbrands has been a key aspect of our strategy in France, with the establishment of theAgneau St George(St George lamb) brand, which has helped differentiate the product andcommunicate messages to consumers about the taste and tenderness of farm assuredlamb. The brand has a growing presence in the major French multiples, supportedby in-store promotional activity, and has proved so successful that is has nowbeen extended to include beef (Boeuf St George).

Running inparallel to the development of Agneau St George, the Agneau Presto (quick lamb)campaign, which is a joint venture involving EBLEX and our UK, French and Irish counterparts, was launchedin early 2008 in order to reverse a 10-year trend of falling lamb consumptionin France.The campaign targets younger consumers by promoting quick, simple lamb recipes,with the aim of transforming lamb from an occasional treat into something whichis consumed more regularly.

The specifictrust issue around beef exports has required a very different approach, in theform of the establishment of the Rosbifs Club.This exclusive group of key opinion leaders from the French food industry,including butchers, chefs and food writers, come together every six months, onone side of the channel or the other, to see the supply chain in action, and,of course, to taste the product. The result is a group of very influentialadvocates of quality beef.

As we aim tomeet our objective of maintaining lamb exports at a third of production andincreasing beef exports to 20% of production by the end of 2012, it is impossibleto overstate the importance of these activities in such a key export market.

Will the beef industry benefit from thaw in Russian trade relations?

2011-09-21T09:52:00.000+01:00

At first glance, It had all the ingredients of a John Le Carré novel, not least theKGB’s apparent attempt to recruit a young future British Prime Minister intoits ranks. Yet while the David Cameron’s visit to Moscowlast week certainly made for sensational headlines, it could also have farreaching implications for the beef industry.

For anyone involved in the beef sector, the major steps taken tore-establish trade links can’t have escaped attention. The long-standingRussian ban on British beef is a subject that EBLEX, together with Defra, hasbeen working hard to address for some time.

Russia is one of the largest global importers of beef, buying more than600,000 tonnes each year, historically much of it coming from Braziland other South American countries. However, supplies from Brazilhave tightened in the last couple of months after Russiadelisted some 85 plants.

These substantial imports into Russiahave largely been driven by a long-term downward trend in domestic production.Total cattle inventories are expected to shrink to 16 million head this year,down four per cent, on top of a three per cent decline in 2010. The accelerateddecline has been caused by increased feed costs, exacerbated by a 25 per centdecline in feed availability at the start of 2011, compared with 2010.

These two elements point us to the same conclusion – the potential forbeef exports to Russiais enormous. The question is: “How does the UKcapitalise on it?” As mentioned earlier, Braziland other South American countries dominate exports to Russia,but the increase in exports from the EU has been nothing short of meteoric.They increased by more than 350% in 2010, compared to 2009, making it thesecond largest beef exporter to Russia.Coupled with fading fortunes for Brazil,that could mean that in 2011/12, the EU fills an even larger share of theRussian order. Good news indeed – the only (substantial) fly in the ointmentbeing the fact that at present the UKcan’t benefit from this increased trade due to a continued BSE-related ban.Ironically, there are several member states within the EU which have traderelationships with Russiadespite having higher instances of BSE than us. If beef exports were to resume,our estimates suggest the market could be worth around £115m to the UKin the first three years. That’s based on a conservative two per cent marketshare.

The opening of the Russian market is part of EBLEX’s ongoing exportstrategy to secure new market access to optimise returns for producers andprocessors in England,particularly useful for those cuts for which there is low or no demanddomestically. To this end, through the Export Certification Partnership withDefra, we have placed Russiaas a top priority in terms of market access and the lifting of importrestrictions. As well as high level contact at a technical level, EBLEX alsoasked for the matter to be raised at ministerial level. The fact that this wason the agenda during Mr Cameron’s visit shows the importance everyone is nowattaching to this issue. By putting the issue on the political map, we hope theprofile of the discussions will be permanently raised, driving us ultimatelytowards the goal of opening the Russian market, something which could beachieved in a relatively short period of time if the political winds arefavourable.

The truth about statistics

2011-09-14T11:54:00.000+01:00

A recentepisode of the BBC science programme Bang Goes the Theory includeda feature which appeared to be, at first glance, yet another of theincreasingly frequent media attacks on red meat consumption because of allegedhealth risks.

One of thepresenters was handing out bacon sandwiches on a market stall, accompanied by asign reading ‘bacon increases risk ofbowel cancer by 20%’.

He then produceda second plate of bacon sandwiches and another sign which read ‘bacon increases the risk of bowel cancerfrom 5% to 6%’.

As he tried togive away the sandwiches to passers by, the vast majority opted to take themfrom the second plate, afraid of their massively increased risk of bowel cancerif they picked one from the first plate.

Of course, ashe eventually pointed out, the bacon sandwiches on both plates were exactly thesame, as was the increased risk of bowel cancer associated with eating them. Bothsigns gave the same message, but expressing it in a different way completelychanged the public perception.

Whether the bowelcancer statistic is correct is a completely separate debate which we havealready addressed in thefacts about red meat and health, however the programme is a greatillustration of how statistics can be used to influence public opinion.

For the meat industry,which is often targeted by single issue groups who use statistics as ammunitionto make people question their meat eating habit, TV programmes like this whichhelp make the public more statistically-savvy can be no bad thing.

EU puts bovine EID in the spotlight

2011-09-07T13:01:00.000+01:00

Notificationsof animal births, deaths and movements have long been the subject of criticismfrom farmers for a number of reasons.

Largely drivenby concerns over labour and equipment costs linked to the administrative burdeninvolved in registering notifications in the EU, the criticism isunderstandable. Currently, all notifications must be manually registered and arethen inputted into the national computerised database.

However, labourand equipment are not the only concerns, with criticism also being fuelled bythe potential implications for cross-compliance payments, which may lead toreductions of the Single Direct Payment and other Common Agriculture Policy(CAP) schemes.

The issue hasclearly struck a chord across Europe, and theEuropean Commission has published a proposal on bovineelectronic identification (EID) which could pave the way for theintroduction of a voluntary bovine EID system. The proposal would also allowmember states to introduce mandatory bovine EID at national level.

Generally theview in the industry seems to be that, with proper consultation and properthought being given to the practicalities, bovine EID would be a positive step.Undoubtedly, it would present less of a technical challenge than sheep EID. Boththe cost and the practicality in the cattle sector make it a more attractive proposition,essentially because there are fewer movements and more valuable animals tostand the cost of the EID tags and reading equipment. EID in the sheep sector is fraught withdifficulties, but in the cattle sector the challenge would be moreproportionate to the benefits.

There islittle doubt that the industry would prefer a voluntary system, as there isstill the issue of cost-effectiveness, meaning that for some EID in cattlewould not stack up financially. However, with EID on farms becoming more commonplace especially for those with sheep interests, there is less anxiety aboutthe introduction of bovine EID.

We would hopeand expect the UKto take the view that it would not like to push a mandatory scheme. In the beefsector, there are already a number of producers voluntarily looking at EID toimprove their management. The number of farmers investing in the hardware andsoftware to make the most of EID within their sheep enterprise is increasing. Ifproducers are already using it for sheep, the opportunity to reduce the administrationinvolved in cattle movements is a major incentive to consider using it on thecattle side. Ultimately, it comes down to management benefits. If producers canrecord more and better information, and use the information to increase theefficiency of the production process, that will drive the use of bovine EIDforwards.

Mounting pressure prompts PAPs rethink

2011-08-31T10:09:00.001+01:00

Strict rules on the use of processed animal proteins (PAPs) introducedin 2001 to combat Transmissable Spongiform Encephalopathy (TSE) could soon bereviewed.

With growing pressure on the European Commission from the agriculturesector to consider a possible reintroduction of PAPs in animal feed, MEPs havethrown their support behind the proposals.

Of course the devastating effects of TSE and BSE are still hauntinglyvivid for all in the industry. This led to the 2001 introduction of EU controlmeasures to combat the spread of BSE. These measures included a ban on thefeeding of processed animal proteins to animals kept, fattened or bred for theproduction of food. Effectively, don’t feed animal protein to other animals toprevent any spread of the disease.

Efforts to combat TSE by the EU have been successful, but the EU proteindeficit and constant increase in feed prices have prompted increasing calls fora review of the rules. MEPs have clearly been listening and their decision haslargely been welcomed, with some claiming it to be a useful step in unwindingTSE regulations.

The Commission’s TSERoadmap 2 strategy paper has set out proposals which would allow pig andpoultry protein to be used in animal feed. It would allow pigs to be fedpoultry protein and poultry to be fed pig protein. Importantly though, bans onprotein from cattle and sheep in animal feed and on protein being fed toanimals of the same species would remain in force.

Understandably, the issue remains sensitive and highly emotive bothwithin the industry and among consumers. If a decision is made to reintroducepig and poultry protein in animal feed it is unlikely to come into force untilthe latter part of 2012. In July the European Parliament adopted anon-legislative resolution supporting the gradual lift of the ban on feedinganimal protein to non-ruminants, provided further safeguards are put in place.These safeguards include stipulating that the processed animal proteins mustcome from species not linked to TSE and may be fed only to non-herbivores. Ithas also stressed that only PAPs fit for human consumption should be used.

Consumer confidence will no doubt be key to the success of anyamendments to the current legislation and potential future developments. Itremains of paramount importance that exceptional animal and public healthstandards must be maintained to help ensure that all of the hard work carriedout to combat TSE is not undone. As such, caution will be the watchword withregards to any changes to the status quo.

Reducing meat consumption will not address environmental challenges

2011-08-24T10:29:00.002+01:00

Thanks to single issue pressure groups like Paul McCartney’s Meat Free Monday, consumers are increasingly being led to believe that they should cut back their carnivorous habits in order to ‘save the planet’.

Livestock production does have a significant ‘carbon hoofprint’, as it has done for centuries, emitting 5% of the UK’s carbon emissions, largely methane and other gases expelled as a result of the natural digestive process. Taking that figure at face value, living on a diet of vegetables and cereals, which account for 2% of UK emissions, would seem like a simple way to reduce emissions. But it’s just not as simple as the pressure groups would have us believe.

If consumption of meat reduced, there would be a fall in livestock numbers which would lead to a net reduction in emissions from the sector. However, reducing consumption would not make livestock production more efficient. The carbon footprint of the beef produced would be the same. Surely the real drive should be to increase efficiency to physically reduce emissions from each animal? If not, then we could vastly decrease global emissions simply by reducing the number of vehicles on the road rather than pursuing the current strategy of investing in greener engine technology.

People would still need to eat if meat consumption was reduced, so there would have to be a corresponding rise in production of other foodstuffs which would have its own negative environmental impact – devaluing the gain achieved by lower meat production.

Simply digging up areas currently grazed by cattle and sheep to plant them with more crops to maintain food security for the country is not feasible. Much of the countryside currently grazed by ruminants, in particular the hills, moors and less favoured areas, is not suitable for food production. And in the areas where you can cultivate the land, on top of the negative effect that increased production would have, digging up grassland would release vast amounts of carbon which had been captured from the atmosphere and stored in these natural carbon sinks, managed effectively by grazing animals.

Allied to this, and an issue frequently overlooked by many campaigners, is the vital role played by farmers and their stock in terms of countryside stewardship. Grasslands in general, and hill and upland environments in particular, fundamentally depend on beef and sheep production. If these areas were not maintained by grazing animals, valuable wildlife habitats would be lost, and the quintessentially English landscape of rolling green pastures would no longer exist. Some areas would need to be actively managed in an alternative manner which again would have its own carbon cost.

The livestock industry is investing heavily in research and development to cut emissions (the two EBLEX roadmaps are a good example of this), and figures show that significant progress has already been made, with 5% fewer prime animals being required to produce each tonne of meat in 2008 than in 1998. Rather than cutting meat consumption therefore, ensuring instead that consumers are encouraged to buy high quality, farm-assured beef and lamb is the best way to help 'save the planet' through decreased emissions from meat production.

Find out more about livestock and climate change in our previous blog, Putting the record straight on climate change .

Currency fluctuations should not affect export confidence

2011-08-17T10:01:00.000+01:00

Exports of beef and lamb from England are doing exceptionally well. Latest figures show beef is 42% up on last year (year to date - HMRC) while lamb has risen slightly by 5.6% (year to date - HMRC). By the end of 2012, EBLEX has committed to pushing beef exports to 20% of total production. From a standing start in May 2006 when we were allowed back into the export market, this is a significant achievement and a testament to the quality of the beef and lamb produced. Beef from the UK is again a major player on the world market, while our lamb is being exported to an increasing number of overseas markets.

However, the fact that this is set against a background of tightening supply and the potential for slowing demand on the domestic front, has prompted some to ask if it is healthy to be putting such an emphasis on exports. This debate has been fuelled by the Eurozone crisis and perceived volatility in the currency market. The natural question this prompts is: what if exports collapse tomorrow because of a currency crash?

Inevitably, there are daily fluctuations in the currency market, specifically in Sterling against the Euro, but these remain relatively minor. Sterling has remained weak against its closest neighbour for the past year, with a general downward trend over the past 12 months, and has mirrored its movements against the US Dollar. And most farmers will understand that a weak Pound relative to the Euro means a higher Single Farm Payment.

Much of the meat on the global market is traded in Dollars and both Sterling and the Euro have remained relatively stable against it, gaining slightly in strength since the start of the year.

The reality is that all three appear to be competing to out do each other in a “which performs worst” contest. All three are in the same boat which means it is unlikely that any single currency will suddenly gain enough ground from one of the others to significantly alter the balance of currency valuations and thus significantly affect exports – although without the benefit of crystal ball, nothing can be ruled out absolutely.

We should take heart though that all forecasts point to a tightening of the global supply of meat while the population continues to grow, logically pointing to continued robust, if not increased, demand for quality beef and lamb around the world.

You can read EBLEX latest beef and lamb market outlook reports by clicking here.

Avoiding bluetongue complacency

2011-08-10T10:44:00.001+01:00

For over a month now, Great Britain has been officially free from bluetongue (BTV8). Heralded as a triumph of partnership working between the government, farmers and vets in eradicating a serious disease, there is little doubt it has marked a major milestone for the industry and one that EBLEX welcomes.

The devastating effects of bluetongue speak for themselves - reduced milk yields, abortions, deaths and reduced fertility. Yet while the eradication of bluetongue has been cause for industry celebration, understandable concerns remain about the potentially negative side effects of being bluetongue-free. Not least, the prevention of farmers vaccinating their animals against the disease.

Animals entering Great Britain from bluetongue zones will continue to meet rigorous import conditions, and testing of animals imported from high risk countries will also continue. Current legislation, however, prohibits vaccination within a bluetongue-free zone and farmers have been urged to avoid complacency and remain vigilant and alert for potential outbreaks. Further advice from Defra on the issue can be read here.

With the last case of bluetongue in Great Britain being reported in 2008, nobody involved in the industry wants to see a return to the situation we faced with the 2007 outbreak. The Bluetongue Directive prevents animals being vaccinated unless a bluetongue zone is in place. The debate about permitting vaccination in bluetongue-free zones rages on with the Government pressing the European Commission to use the vaccination more flexibly. In the interim, vigilance clearly remains key and EBLEX will continue to support all efforts to keep the disease at bay in England.

You can find out more about bluetongue in our Sheep Diseases Directory.

The facts about red meat and health

2011-08-03T14:36:00.001+01:00

It appears that red meat is fair game for everyone these days. Not content with livestock production being blamed disproportionately for climate change, as we mentioned in this blog last week, it seems that increasingly the media, pressure groups and some charities are habitually recommending a diet low in red meat to protect against certain cancers.

Lean red meat, correctly cooked, is a valuable source of protein containing a range of nutrients, particularly iron, and if eaten as part of a healthy, balanced diet it plays an important part in an individual’s nutrition.

It is unfortunate that this message is more often than not overshadowed by disappointing headlines. Cancer Research UK statistics published last week revealed a man’s risk of bowel cancer has doubled since the 1970s. The organisation’s advice to help reduce the chances of developing cancer includes a diet low in red and processed meat.

It is interesting to look at consumption figures for red meat for the corresponding period. Figures from AHDB Market Intelligence show a 10.5% fall in red meat consumption per capita between 1975 and 2008. That rises to 20% per capita if you look at the period between 1970 and 2010. This seems to contradict the advice that reducing red meat consumption helps reduce risk of bowel cancer. This, unfortunately, is a fact that headlines fail to reflect.

Hot on the heels of this report came another suggesting women’s cancers in Britain are higher than in other parts of Europe. Again, among other measures like reducing alcohol intake, it suggested limiting consumption of red meat to reduce risk. Again, those same statistics show that red meat consumption per capita has been falling for 40 years. How, then, will the single step of limiting red meat consumption for those who already eat a healthy balanced diet make an impact?

The reality is that cancers are complex and multiple factors can contribute to a rise in likelihood of developing certain types. Individuals may also be at a higher risk because of a combination of lifestyle choices, including a lack of exercise, smoking and drinking, rather than consumption of a single protein. There are also negative consequences for older people who may end up not eating enough red meat because they are often lacking in iron, vitamin B12, zinc and vitamin D, of which red meat is a rich source of.

It seems then that a more balanced approach to the way published health studies are reported could paint a more complete picture to inform the public about decisions on their diet.

You can find out more about the beneficial aspects of red meat by visiting the meat and health website.

Putting the record straight on climate change

2011-07-27T16:41:00.002+01:00

One of the biggest frustrations for those working in the livestock industry is the relentless attempts by the media and single issue groups to portray the sector as the villain of the piece when it comes to environmental matters.

Far too many people seem willing to accept without question simplistic arguments and global generalisations blaming livestock production as the main cause of climate change which bear little relation to our own production systems in the UK.

So what are the facts about the relationship between livestock production in the UK and climate change?

Agriculture as a whole is responsible for only 7% of the UK’s carbon emissions* due to the industry’s efficient production systems, with livestock production responsible for an estimated 5% of total emissions. This is significantly lower than the often-quoted global figure of 18%**, which has now been debunked by the very scientists who arrived at it. A recent EU report also concluded that the emissions from livestock were estimated to be responsible for only around 9.1 per cent of all emissions in the Union***.

Ruminant animals (such as cattle and sheep) make a significant contribution to the total emissions as methane, a greenhouse gas, is a necessary bi-product of rumen fermentation – as it always has been. When you consider that they turn something highly indigestible (grass) into a very nutritious human food (meat) this is not surprising.

In the UK, beef cattle and sheep graze the 60% of our farmland which is only suitable for growing grass. Without grazing ruminant animals we could not use this land to feed our growing population. Well-managed pasture acts as a carbon sink, capturing carbon which would otherwise be released into the atmosphere and further increase the level of greenhouse gases. Therefore, having ruminants to manage the countryside by grazing and maintain that carbon sink mitigates some of the gases that are produced as a result of rumination.

Although UK livestock production isn’t responsible for the level of environmental degradation that media reports would suggest, the industry must still strive to make the 11% emissions reduction required by the Government by 2020 as part of the UK Low Carbon Transition plan.

While this represents a huge challenge, the good news is that reducing emissions and improving efficiency go hand in hand. The two EBLEX roadmaps, Change In the Air and Testing the Water, provide a benchmark of where the industry is now and outline the steps we now need to take. Steady improvements in production efficiency have already taken place over recent years, with 5% fewer prime cattle and lambs required to produce each tonne of meat in 2008 than in 1998. By focussing efforts on the key areas of breeding, feeding and management, the required reduction is within our reach.

* The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan, DECC, 2009

** Livestock's Long Shadow, FAO, 2006

*** Evaluation of the livestock sector's contribution to the EU greenhouse gas emissions (GGELS), JRC, 2011

Badger cull decision marks major milestone in tackling bovine TB

2011-07-19T16:07:00.004+01:00

An announcement from Defra this week about the proposed badger cull may have been lacking the absolute decisive edge that many in the cattle industry had been hoping for but still prompted a collective sigh of relief that something was happening.

Secretary of State Caroline Spelman announced a final industry consultation on whether free shooting of badgers was an effective and humane way of controlling populations of the animals and, therefore, the reservoir of TB in the species that is so easily transferred to cattle. After this, a decision in the autumn is expected to give the green light for culls in two (as yet unnamed) pilot areas next year. If successful, that will lead to wider culling. You can read the full Defra statement on the issue here.

The cull is a complex, emotive issue. This most recent announcement has likely left some who are pro-cull wishing that a more decisive stance had been taken, perhaps not least farmers in the West Country where the emotional and financial effects have been felt the most (this graphic illustrates the issue well).

With estimates suggesting the cost of an average confirmed bovine TB (bTB) incident in cattle is £30,000, £10,000 of which hits the pockets of the farmer from losses of animals, farm costs of testing, and disruption to business through movement restrictions, the impact on the industry is clear. Of course, the wider financial implications are that it cost the taxpayer in England £63m in 2009/10.

The problem is not disappearing. Reports suggest a 6.3% increase in bTB from January to March this year, compared to 2010, and rises of up to 30% in some regions. TB levels in our wildlife population remain significant and reports have clearly spelt out that bTB will persist unless the badger issue is addressed.

While work continues on the research and development of vaccines for both badgers and cattle, until an efficient and cost-effective solution has been developed to stop the spread of the disease, EBLEX will continue to support the Secretary of State’s efforts to limit bTB’s impact on our industry.

What is unfortunate this week is the suggestion that the announcement was made cynically on the last day of Parliament and when the news agenda was focused squarely on the phone hacking investigation to minimise news coverage. After 15 years of debate, is the suggestion really that this was deliberate?