![More consultation please but tick of approval for carcase measuring plan More consultation please but tick of approval for carcase measuring plan](/images/transform/v1/crop/frm/38U3JBx5nNussShT8aZyYjc/14da1ed6-d4bf-4157-9186-1d15d0de2a0a.JPG/r0_313_6000_3688_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg)
THE enterprising bid to install objective carcase measurement equipment in all red meat processing plants has met with a uniform thumbs up, however there have been mumblings about a lack of consultation with those who will house the ground-breaking technology.
Subscribe now for unlimited access to all our agricultural news
across the nation
or signup to continue reading
Meat and Livestock Australia’s plan to acquire a commercial loan on behalf of the industry to finance the $150 million one-off cost of installing Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DEXA) gear in up to 90 registered slaughter facilities was unveiled at its annual general meeting in South Australia last week.
MLA managing director Richard Norton put OCM in the same arena as visionary initiatives like the progressive eating quality program Meat Standards Australia (MSA), the beef industry’s trace-back and integrity program and online marketing platform AuctionsPlus.
All were “break-the-mould” developments, introduced by forward-thinking past industry leaders, that had created enormous long-term value, he said.
MSA, for example, in the past financial year had delivered premiums of $88 a head for carcases that made the grade, which equates to over $200m back in producer pockets.
“To put that in context, MLA’s rolling budget is $180m,” he said.
“We must view investment in OCM in the same manner as past leaders of our industry viewed investment in these initiatives.
“If we, as an industry, had listened to the critics of MSA or NLIS (National Livestock Identification System), think about where we would be today.
“Independent data analysis has MSA returning $12.50 for every $1 invested. Our integrity systems returned $8:1.”
Australian Meat Industry Council’s Lachie Hart said the processing sector was supportive of technology aimed at improving grading, transparency and data-driven pricing and OCM had great potential in that area.
He said it was important to note the development of OCM was jointly-funded by the processing industry’s research and development arm, the Australian Meat Processor Corporation, and MLA.
As yet, the processing group still had to be consulted on the details of roll out.
“We need to assess the feasibility study and see detailed implementation plans to ensure that the technology is rolled out in responsible and cost-effective manner for all processors and that the technology actually delivers to expectations,” he said.
“All of industry is behind this initiative, however it’s critical we take a cohesive and consultative approach to its introduction to make sure all supply chain participants benefit.”
Mr Norton referred to recent Australian Competition and Consumer Commission recommendations the industry could improve competitiveness in the cattle market via OCM.
It was a “slap in the face” that the ACCC compared the red meat industry unfavourably to the wool industry, saying the latter has objectively measured its product for decades, he said.
“OCM will provide beef producers with the transparency they have asked for in every forum I’ve been to in the past two years,” Mr Norton said.
“There are 845 graders in accredited plants. Working on an annual cost of between $50,000 and $100,000 each, graders are costing us $40 to $50m a year, if not $80m,” he said.
“It is not feasible to say to government ‘solve our problems and give us $100m so we can do our own independent grading’.”
OCM was the long-term solution.
But it had to be installed universally, and in a uniform and collaborative manner, for the benefits to be reaped, according to Mr Norton.
He promised MLA would continue to consult and work with peak industry councils on how to structure the introduction of the one-off cost.
What appears to be non-negotiable, however, is that the resulting data be available to all participants across the supply chain and be easy for producers to access and use.
“We’ve learned our lessons around locking up data,” Mr Norton said.
Peak producer group Cattle Council of Australia welcomed the commitment.
Director David Hill said DEXA had been extensively mentioned as part of the technological advancements that would not only improve the producer/processor relationship but also underpin a move towards value-based marketing.
“Cattle Council recognises there has already been a significant amount of money invested in this technology by some in the processing sector and in moving towards value-based marketing - this is where I feel industry can justify the costs associated with DEXA and other technologies,” he said.
“We must remain mindful of the market advantages that can be gained through this technology, and that is why we are committed to the ongoing collaboration currently happening within the red meat industry.
“Ongoing collaboration will only be successful if the costs associated with reducing risk and increasing reward are equitably shared, as well as any benefits.”