SIR, – Scotch beef – good, bad or indifferent, why so 'special'?

Before I voice any opinions (no doubt those reading this will already have theirs regarding Jim Brown’s recent column!) on the current flurry of letters in The Scottish Farmer on the merits or otherwise of 'Scotch Beef', it is worth doing a bit of historical research.

What happened all those years ago to merit 'Scotch' being so special? Some facts and breed timelines – which breeds were the pioneers into the main beef producing countries; when did they arrive and how are they doing today?

Argentina – Shorthorn, 1826; Hereford, 1858; Aberdeen-Angus, 1879; Charolais, 1910; Limousin, 1966.

Australia – Shorthorn, 1825; Hereford, 1826; Aberdeen-Angus, 1840; Charolais, 1969; Limousin, 1973.

USA – Shorthorn, 1780; Hereford, 1817; Aberdeen-Angus, 1873; Charolais, 1965; Limousin, 1969.

Today Shorthorn, Hereford and Aberdeen-Angus make up the majority of beef cattle worldwide. In Argentina, Australia, Canada and USA, they lead numerically, not by a small margin over their Continental cousins but by a massive margin.

Why are these native British breeds so popular abroad? Or what are the differences in the beef systems of Australia, Canada, USA between UK and Europe?

Scale and cost of production quickly come to mind. They all do things on a massive scale and at a fraction of the cost per calf or kg beef produced here.

But the significant difference is their grading systems. Australia, Canada and USA, all major beef producing countries, pay producers based on yield and eating quality.

The European 'EUROP' system, was implemented in 1981 by EU Regulations (EEC) No 1208/81 and No 2930/81 to standardise carcase classifications throughout the EU.

EUROP is a yield-based system it takes no account of eating quality. So, truthfully, how do consumers know if our beef is any good to eat?

I consider Meat Standards Australia (MSA) the most sophisticated and it merits further scrutiny. Detailed grading criteria are available on the www.mla.com.au website. It makes our EUROP system look like a blunt useless tool and completely obsolete.

At this point, try answering this simple question. Who do you consider is the most important person in the beef industry?

The farmer? Processor? QMS? supermarket/butcher? or the consumer? I’d suggest it’s the consumer as it is they who pay the final bill.

Here we must consider modern trends for ready meals. If much of the beef goes into ready meals, (where do all the cull cattle go?), then eating quality is not a real issue. However, beef is an expensive protein, compared to chicken. When a consumer buys a steak to cook at home or dining out they want value for money and eating quality. The consumer doesn’t care if their steak came from an overfed show champion, an animal that was born along with 200 others the same week or finished in record time.

Fail to satisfy and the next purchase will be chicken.

Consumers have no discernible way of knowing what their expensive beef purchase will taste like! Yet, in the main beef producing countries, they can make their selection – feedlot corn fed, range grass fed, 'Prime' or 'Choice'? (And they are priced accordingly).

So why not in Scotland, the supposed home of the world’s best beef. Scottish agriculture is at a crossroads and beef production is one of the main parts of the agricultural equation.

Would we sell more beef if the best cuts had a guaranteed eating quality measure rather than a 'Blue Thistle'? I’d suggest we would with a noticeable jump in price. Anyway, why is 'Red Tractor' beef sold in Scotland?

Scrap EUROP and adopt a system that pays on eating quality like the rest of the world. It would benefit Scottish agriculture immensely.

Looking for a low cost system, why do we ignore millions of hill acres when our forefathers bred hundreds of thousands of head from the same now empty hills acres?

Disgruntled Drover

(Name and address supplied)