Mobile abattoirs - viability and sustainability: report

Appendix 2: Stakeholder Engagement Data – Farmers, Crofters, and Smallholders

Engagement Results

Overview

Livestock owners, consisting of smallholders, crofters and farmers were engaged with to understand if there is a need and demand for an MSU service. The engagement with farmers took place using a number of different methodologies and the results of the structured surveys and additional notes from the qualitative interviews are provided below.

Results of Engagement with Farmers Through Structured Telephone Interviews

Overview and Profile of Farmers

18 farmers participated in the telephone interviews, farming across a range of livestock species, including beef cattle, dairy cattle, sheep, poultry (not included in the MSU scope of work) and pigs, including 2 registered organic farmers. The profile is shown in Table 19. The participants ranged in both holding size and location, covering a wide range of the country, including the central belt, the islands and highlands (see Table 20).

The farms with arable and temporary grass all grew food for the livestock and/or grazed the land. Beef and dairy cattle were generally inside during the winter and outside on temporary and permanent grassland during the spring, summer and autumn. Sheep were generally outside all year except for lambing time.

The following summarises how the 18 participating farmers finish their animals:

• 12 finished all or the majority of their livestock on the farm.
• 2 farmers based in Sutherland and Argyll finish up to 25% of their livestock with the rest sold as store at livestock markets.
• 4 farmers never use an abattoir for their livestock - based in Caithness, Inverness, Perth and Skye. They sell all livestock as store at livestock markets (see Figure 8 below).

Of the 12 farms finishing livestock, there were three farmers who sell some or all of their finished livestock to one or more slaughter sales or a dealer - 1 in Ayrshire and 2 in Dumfries & Galloway.

In terms of abattoir usage and distances involved:

• 11 farmers in total send livestock to abattoirs. Eight of these farmers use 2-4 abattoirs depending on a range of factors including:
  • Livestock type (not all abattoirs will process all livestock types)
  • Number of individuals, the limiting processing capacity of the closest abattoir,
  • Availability of private kill, and
  • Whether the abattoir is certified to process organic livestock.
• Livestock from the farms surveyed were transported up to 245 miles to an abattoir.

For some farmers a >200-mile journey to an abattoir may take over four hours due to road conditions, or the requirement to travel by road and ferry making the journey at least eight hours. The number of runs per year per farm ranged from 1-100, and number of animals transported 1-400, with this variation both according to livestock type, production system and herd size.

The abattoirs offering private kill used by the farmers interviewed were: Munro’s (Dingwall), Downfield (Fife), Border Meats (Lockerbie), Millers of Speyside (Grantown-on Spey), John Scott/Sandyford (Paisley), PR Duff (Wishaw), Mull Abattoir (Isle of Mull) and James Chapman (Shotts).

Other abattoirs used were: AK Stoddart’s (Ayr), Woodhead Bros (Turriff), Tulip/Quality Pork Scotland (Brechin), Scotbeef (Bridge of Allan), Highland Meat (Saltcoats), Kepak McIntosh Donald (Aberdeen) and Pickstock Telford (north-west of Birmingham).

The following section provides the detailed responses from farmers engaged with.

Detailed Interview Responses

Q1. Do you think mobile abattoirs have the potential to provide farmers with a value-added service, by providing private kill and traceable meat products?

Figure 10 provides the overview of responses. When asked whether MSUs could offer added value by providing private kill, 11 farmers felt that MSUs could in theory be of benefit, offered a range of considerations including:

• Beneficial for areas where the nearest abattoir is currently far away
• Facility to slaughter all livestock including pigs and poultry (more smallholders would consider poultry if there was somewhere to slaughter them)
• Organic certification required
• Beneficial for the production of local, traceable food
• Potential to access new market
• Reduction in livestock miles

7 farmers responded that they felt MSUs would not add value or were unsure about the value.

Q2. Would you be interested in using a mobile abattoir facility if it was coming to your farm, for your own sole use?

Questions 2-4 relate to potential MSU models, with the results summarised in Figure 11. Of the 18 farmers surveyed, 3 may do so, 7 were potentially interested (said yes) and 8 would not use an MSU coming to their farm.

Q3. Would you be interested in using a mobile abattoir facility if it was in your area e.g. at a local host farm?

Of the 18 responses, 9 farmers were interested in using an MSU in the local area (answered yes) and 5 farmers would not use an MSU (e.g. at a local host farm, using a docking station approach. This was a lower number than those who would not want an MSU on their own farm.

Of the other 4 responses, 1 of those does not currently finish cattle, but would be interested from a private kill perspective. The other 3 farmers, who do not finish cattle, were unlikely to change their production system as they felt conditions in their location were not well suited to finishing cattle, as compared to milder more arable areas where finishing food can be produced locally. Several farmers suggested a local market or industrial estate as a docking station whereas others felt there was no obvious location near them.

Q4. Would you be potentially interested in “hosting” a mobile abattoir at your farm, for others to also use?

Only 2 of the farmers said they would consider hosting an MSU on their holding, with 14 saying no and 2 were unsure. The main reason for the lack of interest was biosecurity risk of other animals being on their holding, with the greatest concern from the pig farmers, followed by cattle.

Q5. If the minimum threshold for an MSU was 10 cattle, or 25 sheep or 25 pigs, would that present an issue?

Five of the farmers would have sufficient livestock to satisfy the minimum threshold scenario (Figure 12). The other farmers were either unsure (3 farmers) or certain that they would have insufficient livestock (6 farmers) or would not use an MSU in any case.

Results of Engagement Through the On-Line Survey

A survey monkey questionnaire was developed and advertised through a range of individual contacts, including: the Scottish Crofting Association, Smallholdings Scotland, and Scotland the Brand. The project then subsequently featured in a number of online publications and was available for a 4-week period from August to September 2019. Examples of these articles are provided below:

• The Scottish Farmer, https://www.thescottishfarmer.co.uk/news/17881329.say-mobile-abattoirs/
• The Orkney News, https://theorkneynews.scot/2019/08/30/do-you-want-a-local-abattoir-service/
• Global Meat News, https://www.globalmeatnews.com/Article/2019/09/07/Scottish-mobile-abattoir-viability-investigated
• Scottish Rural Action, https://www.sra.scot/viability-and-sustainability-of-mobile-abattoirs-in-scotland/

618 responses were received, an anonymised overview of the responses is shown below.

Summary of Further Information Responses Provided

The following graphs take the additional feedback provided at the end questionnaire, by 235 respondents. The questionnaire asked for any other information which they felt would be useful for consideration, in terms of the viability of MSUs.

In terms of Figure 15, it should be emphasised that the questionnaire was not set up as to be MSU versus Micro-abattoir. It is, however, pertinent for individuals who believe that fixed, micro-abattoirs should be considered over the MSU option (17 individuals). The vast majority of respondents providing additional information were extremely supportive of MSUs (217). However, this should also be read with caution since in reality it seems reasonable to assume that what respondents are really supportive of is a local kill service, which addresses the concerns, costs and lost business opportunities, which the current abattoir arrangement in Scotland is giving them. This is very much borne out by the views given by those expressing their support for MSUs, summarised in the following figure.

The full range of reasons is given in the figure below for the 17 respondents providing further information and views on their preferences, for micro/fixed abattoirs.

Further points of consideration that arose during a Meeting with the NFUS (Less Favoured Areas)

The focus of the meeting was around the potential viability and demand for MSUs, however some miscellaneous points of interest were also made, which are summarised below:

• An EU-funded trial using an English MSU was carried out in Skye in the 1990s, near Portree, further details provided earlier in this report.
• It was commented that Orkney was an interesting case in point, having the highest density of cattle in Europe and would require an MSU to visit weekly. It was considered that whilst there was a demand for slaughter provision on Orkney, there was limited interest on Orkney to re-vist a static abattoir. The representative was aware that there there was some limited demand for an MSU on Orkney, but he believed that the vast majority of farmers would choose to continue to transport cattle down to Dingwall. A meeting was also held in Orkney (see section 5.4.4 of the main report)
• In Shetland it was mentioned that a vet flies out to the islands every two days – this was given as an example of the costs that are incurred, however, it should be noted that this is addressed to a great extent later in the report, following discussions with FSS, where it was commented that abattoirs with low throughputs receive 85% discounts of OV and MHI fees.
• Regulatory burden stated consistently as a barrier (including incoming CCTV requirement).
• In addition concerns were raised about the ability to get licenced slaughterman/ OV willing to travel.
• It was commented that the Forestry Commission used cold stores, and there was a question about whether this infrastructure could be used collaboratively with future MSU operations.
• There was concern regarding the potential impacts on small and island abattoirs (mull and Shetland specifically mentioned), there was a preference for any money that might be available to be spent on the existing infrastructure, rather than for an MSU, which might impact on the viability.
• It was stated that the Mull abattoir services the mainland as well as several other islands. However, it was reported that there were significant waits for the service, therefore indicating that there is sufficient demand for extra provisions.
• Would prefer to see more local, rather than mobile abattoirs, it was mentioned that there was more demand for local meat e.g. through the co-op, etc. However, there were approximately 5 or 6 farmers that would consider using an MSU.

Summary of ad hoc discussions with farmers