Pig producers and abattoir settle dispute over payment procedure

Press, 10 May 1979, Page 1

Pig producers and abattoir settle dispute over payment procedure

Local pig producers and the Christchurch City abattoir appear to have settled a dispute over payment procedures that has been the source of much ill feeling in the local pork industry and of a police investigation.

The issue entails manipulations to killing-out weights at the abattoir, and subsequent false returns to pig farmers. What the abattoir described as “garbled rumours,” caused talk of “breached trust,” and possible boycotts by the producers.

The dispute arose from a survey which indicated the unauthorised inclusion of light carcases in heavier grades, for which the payment per kilogram is less. The matter has been negotiated by the Canterbury district Pork Producers’ Committee, and Associated Meat Buyers, Ltd. the trading arm of Canterbury ByeProducts, Ltd, which runs the abattoir under contract to the City Council.

Talks have brought greater understanding between the parties, but disagreement remains over just who benefited from irregularities in the weighing of carcases over an unspecified period. A Christchurch C. 1.8. spokesman said yesterday that investigations into the matter were continuing.

Associated Meat Buyers has given assurances that the weight manipulations will not reoccur, but it has suggested that the producers have benefited over all financially. Changes have also been made in the procedure at the abattoir; however, the com-

pany does not regard these as being connected directly with the argument. The survey, which was made by a lecturer in agricultural economics and marketing at Lincoln College, Mr M. J. Melon, included returns to seven farmers who had pigs killed at the abattoir over varying periods from 1974.

It was found that few pigs were weighed-out at the top weights in each category — the level at which a producer received maximum return — while an unnaturally high number were logged through to the bottom of the next bracket.

The pattern of weights which emerged from the survey defied the principles of natural distribution, and raised suspicions among producers who felt that a trust over the provision of accurate weights had been breached.

An example from the survey occurred at the 41kg weight break between a light porker and a heavy porker. For one farmer, only four pigs were weighed out between 37kg and 41kg, but 117 were recorded at a weight of 41.5 kg. Market fluctuations determine the payment per kilogram to the farmer at any given time. It appeared that carcases weighing 41kg were being logged through at 41.5 kg. If this were done, the pro-

ducer would lose a fraction of the pig’s worth, although he had beencredited with an extra 0.5 kg. In this case, at a time when the schedule price was $1.35 per kg for light porkers and $1.35 per kilogram for heavy porkers, the farmer lost 16c on the pig.

Concerned about the possibility of small losses over a prolonged period, the pork producers’ committee approached the abattoir. Individul farmers talked of boycotting the facility in favour of the Belfast freezing works of the Canterbury Frozen Meat Company, Ltd. However, few. if any, producers made this move. A trend to slaughter more pigs for local con=> sumption at the works could push up the retail price of pork in Christchurch. A “hanging fee” applied to pigs killed for the local market outside the abattoir would have been passed on to the consumer.

Such a trend could also lead to a shortage of pork in the city, as producers would concentrate on bacon production. The secretary of Associated Meat Buyers (Mr J. D. Anderson) said that the company did not know about the weights manipulation before it was mentioned by the producers. Mr Anderson said that no gain had been made!

either for an individual or the company. He described the irregularities as the work of an employee who had the mistaken impression that he was doing something for the producer.

He could not say for how long the. manipulation had occurred, but suggested that only one producer in “50 o: 60” had lost money in the long term. The gain for farmers lay in carcases which had logged through Ikg or more past their correct weight. Using the 41kg break as an example, Mr Anderson said that the survey showed 40.5 kg pigs had also been reported at the 41.5 kg weight. Using the same schedule figures as above, this meant a producer could actually gain 52c on a pig. Mr Anderson said that, by the law of natural distribution, it was necessary to accept that at least half the weights pushed past the 41kg break must have, in fact, been 40.5 kg or less. According to Mr Anderson, the producers have now accepted this probability, and are satisfied with the company’s explanation. Checks were now going on continuously against additional irregularities, he said. “I would be very surprised if any manipulation could happen without being picked up very quickly,” Mr Anderson said.