The present state of the food market emphasizes the need to reappraise the analysis of the market for meat. Consumer demand for meat is analyzed in terms of a complex mixture of acceptable levels of leanness, tenderness and flavour and of price and income influences. This analysis is a confusing mixture of incomplete economists' and marketeers' models.

As with many disciplines, it is in agriculture and food that we see their first application. Economics is a good example of this. The now conventional models of demand have found wide application and provide a sound foundation for an analysis of the general level and trends in the meat market. Thus, the MLC is able to regularly produce an analysis and forecast for the level of demand for beef, lamb, pigmeat and poultry as commodities and by major subdivision of those commodities (MLC, 1981). This paper does not seek to repeat those results other than to note their revelation of a substantially stable overall consumption level, with steady gains by poultrymeat at the expense of carcass meats, particularly lamb.

Anyone called upon to describe change has to decide how far to go back in history, because recent developments are usually part of a much longer-term trend. For this audience, I am sure I do not need to go back as far as the drove roads or to the Shambles around the big livestock market called Smithfield. But many of us can remember the structure of our meat industry when it was built around a distribution system for imported meat, particularly to the consumers in the major conurbations, with home-produced meat being concentrated into rural areas and some of the higherclass shops in the towns.

In considering markets for meat, it is important to distinguish between what a market may want and what it can have. The objectives and operation of national and international policies and legislation are frequently at variance with those of the marketplace. Policies have been designed either to modify market signals or to offset some of their effects, principally on production, but also on consumption and trade. They usually place constraints on availability and/or radically alter price signals to producers. In a recent report (OECD, 1982), it was observed that

‘Government intervention in domestic and international meat markets is increasing. All major beef importing countries now control beef imports in some way or another. The introduction of the EEC Sheepmeat Regime could in the future have a major impact on the pattern of sheepmeat trade flows. The importation of meat by many of the newly developed markets is controlled by state trading institutions.’

There has always been a love, hate, ignore relationship between poultry and other meats. If one is sensitive, it is possible to detect it in many ways — the majority of farmers' attitudes to feather, the emphasis shown in research and scientific agencies, Government bodies and even CAP where the impression is given that modern poultry production is somehow not agriculture unless it is that anachronism — “Free Range”.

Earlier papers have set the background to the meat market in terms of consumer demand and retailing structure. My role is to assess how these factors will influence the processing and production industry in setting up and achieving its objectives. This will include defining more exactly, for pigmeat, what the needs of the industry are and what changes are likely over the next few years.

The supply and demand situation in the UK can be identified (Table 2.2.1) with the import figures for boneless beef converted to bone-in equivalent and the export figures taking into account the changes in intervention stocks as well as stocks of imported beef in cold stores. It should be noted that the fall in imports from other EEC Countries reflected the weakness of the UK market in relation to the rest of Europe and similarly our exports to other EEC Countries, much of which is cow beef, again reflected the weakness of the UK market.

The country is fortunate to possess a National sheep flock of 34 million head — not far short of the people population and a lot less trouble. Upon this flock there depend numerous farmers, advisers, abattoir operators, retailers and all of their associated staffs. All such groups, whilst having personal objectives, are part of one process to bring a product of acceptable quality to the consumer.

I consider it necessary to state this clearly because, as we all protect and fight for our sectional interests within one industry, we do well to remind ourselves of the paramount importance of satisfying our final customer. We are no longer providing meat to feed the hungry public prepared to accept standards the industry decides it will impose. We are providing lamb which must compete in fatness, eating quality and price terms, alongside innumerable alternative fresh meats, fast food and convenience products.

To produce for market needs, the pig producer requires a clear view of the market. But in the pig industry, sophisticated as it may be, this is not always the case. Producers have often been reluctant to accept the restraints upon production that the meat trade requires if product quality is to be maintained. Conversely, the trade has sometimes been slow to allow producers to profit from the benefits of new techniques and streamlined production practices. These sorts of problems will remain with the industry while it continues to be based upon adversarial trading at each interface of the production chain. The benefits of integration between breeder, producer, feed compounder, slaughterer and meat trader are self-evident and essential to the future of the industry. The producer needs better communication lines with his market. If that communication is to generate information which is useful, both parties, not one party, must benefit. An environment of opportunistic trading between the various parties within the industry, and an adversarial view where each believes it is exploited at the hand of the other, is counter-productive.

There are signs that major buyers are beginning to specify their beef requirements in terms of slaughter date and age, slaughter weight, carcass fatness and carcass conformation. This should give new impetus to the adoption by producers of planned production systems.

There is increasing interest in specifications which ensure good eating quality and this may have implications for producers, in the way they produce and marjcet their cattle.

Producers need to be convinced that the specifications are realistic and that pricing makes it worth producing to the specification.

Any possible strategy for future lamb production in the UK should be based on as thorough a knowledge as possible of the likely trends in market supplies and consumer tastes. These can be grouped into negative and positive points.

Lamb consumption in the UK has declined steadily during the last 10 years and is forecast to do so during the next 10 years (Table 3.3. la). The trends in consumption for lamb look more pessimistic than those for beef and pork (Table 3.3.1b). This is because of a relatively high price for lamb but also to ‘underlying factors’ associated, especially among younger housewives, with a feeling that the meat is inconvenient and generally less attractive (MLC, 1982b). The small size of cuts and high levels of fat and bone are thought to be major factors in this disaffection. There is also little use of lamb in the catering and manufacturing sectors.

It gives me great pleasure and a good deal of satisfaction to be opening the batting for the producers’ team. It really is an extremely rare occurrence under present circumstances to have a pig farmer at the top of the producer tree. Anyway, I'll endeavour to cope with this unaccustomed elevation as best as I can.

The land that I farm is situated on the edge of the Yorkshire Wolds near Driffield. It is all Grade 2 arable land. I was extremely fortunate in that my grandfather was the farmer and that my mother was his only child. This meant that, as his eldest grandson, I had the ideal opportunity to enter farming. This I did on leaving Agricultural College in 1970. At that stage we farmed 445 acres. This was later increased to 870 acres in 1974 when we purchased a neighbouring farm. The two farms are only about 3 miles apart by road and are farmed as one unit. The crops grown are ware potatoes, winter cereals, oilseed rape and grass leys. The grass leys are grazed by a breeding sheep flock of 400 ewes and a pedigree herd of Limousin Cattle.

Matching production to the markets for meat makes the assumption that individual producers can have an influence on market forces. This may well apply nowadays to some of the very large scale poultry production units but, individually, beef producers can have little if any influence on the marketing scene. Although there are farmers who produce several hundred fat cattle a year, the bulk of the beef produced comes from fairly small scale producers. Much of beef production is on a fairly haphazard basis with little or no recording or budgeting.

Nevertheless, small scale producers and feeders who move in and out of the market can exploit local or short-term, favourable, market fluctuations and, with skilful buying and selling, make good profits on a quick turnover. Larger scale producers who have pre-planned fully integrated production systems cannot react as quickly to any great extent to short-term marketing opportunities. I regard marketing as only one of the many variable factors to be taken into account when planning a beef enterprise within a whole farming system, in which it is likely to be one of a number of enterprises which have to be kept in balance.

You will, I hope, understand that this paper is set in the context of a commercial farm — and, moreover, a farm where fixed costs are high. Every enterprise must justify its existence financially and we have no room for a sentimental approach to things we merely like doing. This is as true of our flock of 1000 ewes as it is of our cereals, oilseed rape and sugar beet. The overriding emphasis has to be on profitability, both on that part of the flock devoted to the production of slaughter lambs as well as to the production of shearling rams for sale from our purebred Meatlinc flock.

The theme of this paper is therefore dominated by cash.

Pig carcasses have become progressively leaner over the last 10 years, a necessary trend to satisfy consumer requirements for lean meat. However, this trend has not always been welcomed by the meat trade. For instance, the headline “No to Further Fat Reduction” appeared in the Meat Trades Journal of September 2, 1982. Concern has been expressed over lack of eating quality in very lean pork and certain aspects of lean carcasses as follows:

— soft, floppy backfat

— carcasses do not set after chilling, making cutting or slicing difficult

— separation occurs between backfat layers, between backfat and muscle and between intermuscular fat and muscle.

Over the past 10 years, the basic structure of grade schedules for pigs has changed relatively little. Although it has been adjusted to accommodate reductions in mean fat thickness, the framework of weight ranges and stepped fat thickness maxima remains. Several factors indicate that more fundamental changes are likely in the future: (1) automatic probes, capable of measuring muscle depth, have been developed; (2) concern over the variable quality of meat from very lean pigs has led to growing interest in quality grading using muscle pH or light reflectance, for example, as indicators of drip loss; and (3) the use of meat-type sires is leading to more variation in the carcass characteristics of the pig population.

The launch of the British Charter Quality Bacon Scheme, by the British Bacon Marketing Group (BBMG) in May 1982, represented a major initiative on behalf of the bacon industry, and an opportunity for British producers, curers, wholesalers and retailers to increase both the total bacon market and their share of it. In particular, the Scheme differs from other quality assurance schemes in two main areas.

(1) A commitment to the Scheme by over 40 UK curers, responsible for 90% of British bacon produced; and

(2) An independent inspection service for both plant and product, carried out by staff of the Meat and Livestock Commission.

Concern is being expressed about the marketing of over-lean carcasses, especially from young boars. Experiments at Terrington have tested the effects of various management practices, feeding regimes and slaughter weights on the performance and backfat thickness of young boars reared for meat production.

Pigs were kept in groups of mixed castrates and gilts, mixed boars and gilts, gilts only and boars only. Start of test was about 35 kg live weight and three different slaughter weights were selected to represent the main carcass types: cutters — 81 kg, baconers — 93 kg and heavies — 110 kg live weight. Backfat thickness increased with age, weight at slaughter and total feed consumption. Feed consumed by boars was 140 kg for cutters, 181 kg for baconers and 250 kg for heavies. P1, + P3 (mm) of boars was 23.7, 25.9 and 32.6 for the three slaughter weights, respectively.

Future improvements in British lamb sales depend on increasing the lean to fat ratio in cuts and joints offered for sale, since numerous surveys have shown an aversion to fat on the part of consumers. This ratio can be changed by manipulating breed and live weight at slaughter, since breeds of large mature size slaughtered at light weights are considerably leaner than those of small mature size slaughtered at heavy weights. However, there are other aspects of carcass value than overall lean and fat content. These include factors such as the proportions of individual joints and their composition. This study was carried out to examine carcass composition and carcass quality changes between 12 and 24 kg cold carcass weight (CCW) in 317 castrated males and 238 females from six pure breeds.

Improving the efficiency of lean meat production is a major objective of producers. With cattle and, particularly, pigs, this has resulted in an increase in the use of entire male animals but not apparently so in the sheep sector, despite similar advantages. Ram lambs have traditionally been castrated for ease of management, particularly when they are ‘stored’ during winter. However, in early maturing breeds which can be finished off grass, considerable advantages may be gained from leaving ram lambs intact.

In a trial which examined growth, composition and the eating quality of meat in 15 rams and 15 ewes of the Dorset Down breed (noted for early maturity), there were clear advantages in favour of the rams. In particular, ram lambs grew 28g/day faster on average than ewes, taking 2 weeks less to achieve 35 kg live weight. At the mean carcass weight of 16.8 kg, rams contained more lean (42 g) and bone (20 g) per kg carcass weight but less subcutaneous fat (33 g), intermuscular fat (28 g) and KKCF (kidney knob and channel fat) (13 g).

Higher returns under the Sheepmeat Regime have given producers confidence, yet they are apprehensive of future support policy. Producers feel that the present high level of support may not continue after transition and that returns from the market will become more important. However, information on market opportunities, market specification and price, is often prevented from reaching producers because of the nature of the marketing system. For example, producers are told to produce ‘what the market wants’, yet they generally find that the buyers they sell to, the wholesalers/slaughterers, are unwilling to pay sufficient for such a product.