Vol. 51, No 3 August 1998 International Journal of Dairy Technology

SDT Spring Symposium: Consumers vs producers. A matter of perception

PAULINE RUSSELL Chichester, Sussex PO20 7BL, UK

The Society’s Spring Symposium took on another dimension this year. It discussed a topic of considerable importance to the pro- cessing industry. It is one that, unless seri- ously considered, could give rise to expensive disaster.

The subject of the symposium was the image of milk. In the present environment, the dairy industry’s customer, the consumer, wants to think of milk as nice and friendly, good for you and coming from happy, healthy cows. Consumers like to feel that the milk they buy comes from a contented cow, happily wandering in lush meadows on a sunny day. But because so many urban dwellers are in complete ignorance of farming practices, such perceptions are sometimes at odds with everyday life on-farm. It is there- fore up to all sectors of the industry to make sure that milk’s image does not become tar- nished, convener and chairman of the sympo- sium Dr Tony O’Sullivan told the meeting. An example of public interest in finding out how their milk is produced was illustrated by a recent event in Scotland when 5000 people flocked to the Open Day arranged by a farmer milking 150 cows. He was celebrating the opening of his new farm buildings.

Farmers, processors, quality assurance experts and retailers were all represented among both speakers and audience at the Symposium held on 21 April 1998 at the Royal Institution in London. The title was: ‘Farm assurance in the dairy chain: an inde- pendent perspective’-and a first class meet- ing it proved to be-lively, amusing and with plenty of food for thought.

Consumer confidence ‘The customer has expectations and percep- tions. In many cases, their beliefs can be more important than reality’, Jane Perkins, Technical Manager, Dairy, for J Sainsbury plc, told the symposium. ‘We cannot afford to lose consumers’ trust’, she said. To merit their customers’ trust-and this major mul- tiple has over 10 million customers a week- Sainsbury is introducing its own Farm Assurance Scheme. Consumer confidence in milk has to be maintained in the long term and to achieve this, the ground rules put in place have to be comprehensive, transparent and enforceable, she explained. Several years were spent in consultation with many bodies

Report. 0 1998 Society of Dairy Technology

of opinion to develop the Scheme and a start was made to apply a technical policy to its larger milk suppliers in 1996. The store group confidently expects that it will be extended to cover all its fresh milk producers by the end of this year. After that, Sainsbury’s intention is to roll out the Scheme to include suppliers of all its dairy products and, eventually per- haps, to all imported dairy products as well.

The five freedoms There are farm assurance schemes already in existence. These and others on the point of being launched were outlined by speakers. Such schemes reinforce the five freedoms already spelt out to help farmers ensure that dairy cattle are well looked after. Key areas are: good stockmanship, well maintained sur- roundings and attention to detail by keeping records that are as comprehensive as possible. Records have to go well beyond the daily milk figures. They must detail areas like nutri- tion, traceable feeds, health and, of course, entries in the Medicine Book so that every delivery of milk made to the dairy is fully documented. For the top 10% of the coun- try’s farmers, this level of documentation, the standard of care and quality of surroundings will not impose too much difficulty. For the middle range of farmers, it will inevitably incur additional costs while for the farms on the lower end of the scale, the expense of cor- recting anything that is considered wrong by an assessor will be far too high for practical consideration in the present economic climate facing dairy farmers. To be a sensible course of action, the introduction of farm assurance schemes cannot be too demanding or they will force dairy farmers out of business, while on the other hand, they must have the neces- sary powers of enforcement. For the farmers failing to conform, the market for their milk will be at stake.

‘The difficulty was that there are not enough hours in the day for busy farmers to keep all the records they would like’, said Tim Brigstocke, Chief Executive of the Holstein Friesian Society. The fact that eight farmers have left farming every single day since 1950 is a gloomy reflection. In 1960, there were 3 mil- lion dairy cows in the UK, by the year 2000, this number will have fallen to 2 million.

His farmer members generally believed they were already producing milk with welfare

96

Vol. 51, No 3 August 1998 International Journal of Dairy Technology

friendly systems of production, he told the meeting. Records of breeding are important and in this case, over 50% of all cows were registered with the breed society. Pedigree registration goes back three generations and analysis of the records gives an unbiased breed assessment of the importance of genetic improvement. A team of 12 classifiers from the Society visits farms to evaluate genetic traits; all 2 year old heifers in a herd are inspected. However, in addition to milk yield, ease of calving, temperament etc, he thought that more attention should be paid to other factors. One was lameness, which is reaching unacceptable levels. Locomotion scores are to be linked to genetic traits. ‘There was a point to be made that genetic engineering can be used for the benefit of cows’, he suggested.

National Farm Assurance Scheme J Sainsbury’s scheme and those being run by Milk Marque, MD Foods and in Scotland by Scottish Milk, were described. So too was the National Farm Assurance Scheme presently being elaborated. The development of a single National Scheme will place the UK in the forefront of EU member states as far as on- farm animal care and the traceability of all milk produced is concerned, commented Dr O’Sullivan. To date, the Farm Animal Welfare Council has published its report and further consultation is ongoing to make sure that the national scheme is structured on a sound scientific base. Unigate’s head of Agricultural Affairs, Brian Pocock explained the National Scheme and what it would cover. The costs of any scheme, he said, will be met by the first purchaser of the milk and that body will appoint trained assessors to enforce the requirements. ADAS is already supplying assessors to monitor farms taking part in Sainsbury’s scheme.

Damage limitation After the scares of Salmonella in eggs, bovine spongiform encephalopathy and then the Escherichia coli epidemics, Brian Pocock warned that these are unlikely to be the last of the ‘nasties’ that could affect the milk indus- try. ‘These are issues that are not going to go away. We live in an imperfect world. We must

devise schemes that fit in with potential prob- lems’, he declared. Record keeping was important but it was even more important to have appropriate records. It would therefore be better to work out ways of managing potential disasters now, rather than wait to be told what to do, he continued, adding that the Food Safety Agency will certainly expect some system to be in operation. However, another serious signal came from a successful dairy farmer. William Kilpatrick told the meeting that if the demands placed on farm- ers were too high, it will speed up their depar- ture from dairying. If the present fall in milk prices continues, farmers will indeed be driven out in increasing numbers and, he warned, all too soon, there might not be enough milk produced to meet everyday needs.

He agreed that it would be better to have a single Farm Assurance Scheme that everyone can join and it must be one that does not offer a threat to the farmer. If schemes are made too demanding, farmers in need of upgrading will not be able to afford the nec- essary corrections-and certainly would not have the time to keep records in good order. He called for assessors with farming expe- rience so they can apply common sense to enforcing the rules, rather than driving farm- ers out of dairying.

Another speaker, Dr Jim Bruce, microbiol- ogist and senior lecturer at SAC, Auchincruive, discussed the importance of cleaning on both cow and equipment. He questioned whether too much onus was being placed on the farmer who worked a 365-day year to produce good quality milk. ‘Do we give him the right tools? he questioned, observing the number of push- fit joints in dairy parlour milking equipment, of jubilee clips not fully tightened or of split gas- kets in use. He also discussed the advantages and disadvantages of using wipes to clean the udder and teats prior to milking.

The success of the National Farm Assurance Scheme as a single standard will lie in the tact- ful introduction of practical and attainable solutions for the farmer while it will also send appropriate messages to the consumer. But it is up to every sector in the dairy industry to maintain the quality image of milk, members of the Society agreed.

97