Innovation in the Pig Supply Chain

Nicholas M Green MBA, N.Sch, MIAgrM1

Abstract
The UK pig industry has changed significantly over the last five years and continues to be in a
state of economic flux. Part of the reason for this is that many of the parties involved fail to
collaborate in production, marketing and communicating with the consumer. The objective of
the following report is to identify the causes of current economic difficulties, the key players
involved, a basis for improvement, how appropriate it may be for implementation and if so, the
method of implementation. The study involves UK-based research and overseas travel to
Japan, Hawaii, Canada and the United States. Specific areas of interest are investigated in
each country or state.
Japan – supply chain management in non-agricultural industries;
Hawaii – a demand and supply economy in the pig industry;
Canada – education and consumer awareness; and
United States – integration and the opportunity to add value / reduce cost through effective
collaboration.
Conclusions are drawn from all areas of investigation and are summarised at the end of the
report but in essence cover:
- the integration and utilisation of modern technology;
- the establishment of discrete and dedicated supply chains;
- increased consumer awareness and education; and
- co-operation and collaboration as facilitators for adding value and cutting cost.

Introduction
In my role as Farm Operations Director, I have often thought how we might better operate
with our suppliers and customers in the primary production sector. My realisation that the
success enjoyed in the ‘cheese’ part of the business in these supplier / customer relationships
could be at least equalled by the pigs and farms stimulated a successful application for a
Nuffield Food Chain Scholarship. Sponsorship from the Royal Agricultural Society of England
and the Royal Smithfield Club and leave of absence from Alvis Bros allowed an in-depth
investigation of these relationships in three quite different countries.

As with many other parts of British Agriculture, the pig industry has suffered unprecedented
downward price pressure since 1998. Pressure has come from an increasingly global
competitive environment, EU and UK Governments, pressure groups, retailers, a more
discriminating consumer and a greater choice of substitute foods. As a consequence, radical
change within the pig meat supply chain has taken place over the last couple of years
(Knowles, 2004). Change has been largely reactive following price pressure and a contracting
market rather than proactive in an attempt to influence and grow the market. However, a
number of basic options have been identified to create opportunity within this crisis situation
affecting the farming and food industry, in effect distilling down to two main thrusts:

• develop niche markets / discrete supply chains supplying direct to the consumer or
retailer thus creating a position of power that attracts a premium price - product
differentiation; and
• reduce cost and compete effectively in the global commodity market – overall cost
leadership.

Each option requires a different strategy; however the one important aspect inextricably
woven into each is that of the supply chain and the networks that surround it. It is these
networks that, through identifying, analysing and refining, are likely to give the whole food

1
Nicholas Green is Farm Operations Director for Alvis Brothers Ltd., a food and farming business near Bristol. He is
responsible for the dairy, pigs, beef, arable and contracting operations. He is Chairman of the Institute of Agricultural
Management and a producer group member of the National Pig Association.
chain the greatest opportunity for improving competitive advantage in the short, medium and
long term.

Background
There are two distinct camps within the British pig industry; those that believe the future will
only strengthen with outside influence i.e. currency exchange rates; and those that believe a
collaborative effort between producers, processors and pig meat users will strengthen the
supply chain and provide better returns for those involved. However, in reality there is a
bigger threat than either of these factors currently ravaging the British pig industry – Post
Weaning Multisystemic Wasting Syndrome (PMWS) / Porcine Dermatitis and Nephropathy
Syndrome (PDNS) both categorised generically as wasting disease. This can account for up
to 20% mortality throughout the pig growth cycle. Little is known about the disease, which
severely limits what can be done to combat its effects.

Trends in Pig Numbers

The UK breeding herd has been in decline since 1998. As of autumn 2003, the national
breeding herd was estimated at less than 500,000 sows. The decline in pig numbers is as a
direct result of downward price pressure and lack of confidence in the industry.

Consumer Trends
There has been considerable change within the environment in which the modern consumer
operates. This is demonstrated by recent work conducted by the MLC (2004) which outlines,
amongst others, the following areas having impact on choice of food purchase:

• more women in the workforce than men;

• longer working hours: shift to white collar, service sector;
• huge increases in further education;
• commuting times and personal mobility increased;
• divorce rates up and average age of marriage up;
• cooking skills nice to have but not essential;
• average household size reduced;
• proactive approach to good health; and
• greater amounts of disposable income.

These factors have an influence on the decision-making process and the attitude of the
retailers in their attempt to satisfy/influence market trends.

Supermarket Influence
From the late 1960’s consumer shopping habits have changed as a small number of large
retailers have offered consistency of product, value for money, national availability, product
innovation and consumer security. By 2000, the top five supermarket chains in the UK
received over 80% of the total value spent on food in the country. Retailers have responded
to the ‘litany’ of customer alerts over the recent past by introducing quality assurance based
standards (indirectly) on primary suppliers, equal to the measures in place at the food
processor and distribution stages. In all schemes, traceability is fundamental to the success of
the process. Whilst not wishing to be absolved of responsibility, the obsession, in many
farmers’ minds, of the supermarket chains to inform the chattering classes of every aspect of
food production is going beyond the realistic expectations of demonstrating due diligence.

Co-operation and Collaboration

British agriculture in general has suffered from many years of business independence. There
has been, and still is in many cases, a fierce defence of independence and total resistance to
any form of co-operation or collaboration from farmers. The 21st century environment in which
pig farmers operate is concerned with large numbers of pigs being supplied into a small
number of large abattoirs, which supply a small number of multiple retailers. This scenario,
combined with the ability to trade meat globally means that the power in the chain is very
much at the retail point. However, it has been apparent to some for many years, and is
becoming more apparent to the majority, that much more can be achieved from the market
place if people look in the right place and are prepared to collaborate with others to add value
to their product (Curry, 2002).

Industry Stagnation
Much of UK agriculture is focussed on the production of commodities or raw materials and
many producers have little realisation of the value of ‘niche’ or added value opportunities. This
ignorance by many has led to restricted innovative development within UK agriculture and
allowed those that have realised the potential value to gain competitive advantage. As the
supply of different commodities has become more specialised so the gap between producer
and consumer has increased. This has been recognised by Curry (2002) as long-term
disconnection from the consumer.

The Supply Chain

In essence the pig supply chain has three primary stages, two intermediate stages and a final
stage that splits into four directions (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The Pig Industry Supply Chain

Pig Industry Supply Chain

r
ume
Cons
rt
Expo er
Farmer sum
1st Stage Processor Con
rer
Cate

Retailer Consumer

Butc
her
Cons
umer
Genetics Abattoir 2nd Stage Processor

The pig supply chain is managed in many different ways ranging from bit part, fragmented
operations loosely linked together through a series of trading strands to fully-integrated, fully-
owned supply chains. Within any of the supplying participants there is a need to innovate with
process (to become more efficient/lower cost producers) and product (to retain/gain
customers) whereas the focus for retailers is innovation in their sales and marketing with
other aspects being of a lower priority. Innovation in the supplying organisations is generally
achieved in incremental steps of development (evolution) rather than major step change
(revolution).

Depending on the perspective of the reader, one can interpret this study as an exercise in
business survival or alternatively take the view that it has the potential to provide opportunity
for the individual business and hopefully the industry on a wider scale to gain competitive
advantage over global rivals.
International Perspectives
In the countries visited, each was attempting to develop its markets in different ways: Japan
by ensuring traceability and total food security; Canada by attempting to develop export
markets and take product out of the country and the United States generically to exploit the
economies of scale by producing more and more. One obvious and interesting exception to
the USA focus was Hawaii, which, as a State, is totally market-focussed and produces
nothing without having a customer secured. Within these varying attitudes, common themes
recur i.e. those of consumer interest, education and pork promotion. Each country views
these activities as paramount in the future development and security of their pork industry.

Japan – A Country of Contrasts

Currently, there are three main goals in the Japanese pig industry:

• to increase primary food production;

• to demonstrate food traceability and provide consumer security; and
• to collaborate more with trading partners to improve technical efficiency.

There are various aspects of the Japanese pig industry that deserve recognition but one main
area that is worth highlighting is traceability and applied logistics.

Retailing
Japanese consumers place great value on freshness when buying food. They demand that
products such as oven fresh bread, morning harvested vegetables, raw tuna sashimi and
sushi are available in perfect condition and that the consumer can be sure of its origins and
logistical integrity.

Gaining Competitive Advantage

Delivering freshness is a major competitive advantage in Japan, but to do so cost effectively
retailers have to compress all their key activities into a 24 hour timescale or less. This pushes
regular Efficient Consumer Response (ECR) to the limit – a limit where business processes
are designed to work on an hourly basis; procurement is done one to one; collaboration is
tight and frequent, and the supply chain is thought out from the shop shelf upstream in order
to deliver goods fresh within one day.

In designing a supply chain for 24 hour products three factors need careful attention:

• Product perishability;
• Supply uncertainties; and
• Fragmented suppliers.

Whilst none of these factors impact directly on the Japanese pig supply chain to the degree of
some other products, they nevertheless are affected.

Method of Traceability
Major public investment is being directed into developing traceability systems. A Ubiquitous
Identification centre has been established with a remit to spread core technology to
automatically recognise micro-chipped objects and eventually realise a ubiquitous computing
environment. It is intended that its use will be for all sectors and will help avoid the fallout from
such problems as FMD, SVD and BSE by providing proactive visual security to the consumer.

None of the proposed traceability schemes are paper-based. They are all technology driven
with instant information input and access. The systems being developed are all based on the
use of internet-compatible mobile phones with keypad information input ‘in the field’ by the
farmer and infra-red scanning of a read only microchip by the consumer. Much of the
research in this field is based on the experience gained in other industries, the three main
ones being construction, clothing and sushi.

Hawaii – A State of Balanced Economy

Hawaiian Pigs
Hawaii’s pig industry is completely market-focussed. Latest figures available from the Hawaii
Agricultural Statistics Service show that the total number of pig stock on Hawaii farms on
December 1st 2002 was 24,000 head. This was comprised of 5,000 breeding animals and a
grower / finishing herd of 19,000 head. All bacon and ham is purchased by retailers direct
from the mainland whilst fresh pork is either produced on the island or shipped and delivered
live to the Hawaiian Livestock Co-operative slaughterhouse.

Route to market - The Hawaiian Livestock Co-operative

The main market is managed through direct sales and the Hawaiian Livestock Co-operative. It
is based strictly on economic demand thus aiding the market in two ways. Firstly it maintains
an appropriate price premium for all products and secondly customers always order in
advance to ensure supply. This scenario will continue to work as long as it is not possible to
successfully ship chilled pig carcases into Hawaii without perceived degradation of the meat.
(The ethnic market demands fresh meat, often citing 24 hours as being too long between
slaughter and delivery).

Price comparison with the UK is very interesting with Hawaiian ‘variety meats’ (offal)
commanding a premium over legs and loins. (Table 1)

There are two other secondary markets in addition to that supplied by the co-operative,
namely farm gate sales and off site direct to the user.

Route to market - Farm gate sales

Farm gate sales take place mainly to those ethnic groups that are not prepared to accept
meat that in their opinion has been killed too long. Generally they want to see the pig alive,
have it killed and take it home warm. They will then butcher it as they wish and use it only for
their own domestic consumption. This market is more popular with first generation immigrants
and is limited in numbers. However it does provide added value outlets for a small number of
farmers.

Table 1. A comparison of prices of pig products in Hawaii and the United Kingdom

Hawaii UK
Item
ppkg ppkg
Loins 3.30 3.64
Legs / Shoulders 2.70 4.36
Feet 2.20 foc
Belly 3.96 1.88
Ribs 3.65 1.88
Offal 4.40 1.15*
Head (£ per head) 9.33 0.50 - 1.00
Blood (£ per gallon) 7.33 Pay to dispose
Source: Author’s own market research
*UK offal restricted to heart, liver and kidney.

Route to market - direct to the user

This is a more official route to market than the farm gate sale and is strictly governed by the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The main markets targeted are top end
hotels and restaurants. These markets are capable of using the whole carcase and will do so
each week with the exception of some offal and blood.
There are three main messages that British producers should take from the Hawaiian market:

1. Know the volume of your market and don’t exceed it.

2. Communicate as much as possible with your customer / final user and supply exactly
what they want.
3. Don’t just think of pork as meat – think of it as a component of a meal that can be
prepared ready for the consumer.

Canada - ‘The Land of the Free’

Educating the consumer
Apart from the considerations of export either to the USA or Japan, Canada has a strong
domestic market that it concentrates great efforts towards. Pork promotion is built around
education and product awareness to the consumer. These activities are supported and
conducted by both the individual Provincial Pork Boards and national organisations. As an
example of collaborative efforts Provincial television advertising ensures pork generates a
local feel whilst work conducted centrally with retailers and food service companies across the
country ensures that new product development and material supporting it are distributed to
the widest possible audience.

However, by far and away the most effort is directed at educating the consumer of tomorrow –
the children of today. The main routes are via advertising, media and community activity and
linking industry education with curriculum activity. As an example, the Albertan Pig Rig is a
fully fitted out trailer that is taken by members of the industry to different events through the
summer. The events range from food fairs to agricultural shows to general expos (including
the Calgary Stampede) and charity functions. Over a million visitors a year visit the mobile
unit that tells the story of pork production from breeding through to processing the meat into a
consumer form. It is viewed by the industry as an events cruiser that is an ambassador for all.
There is never any shortage of farming volunteers to man it wherever it goes and preach the
gospel of pork production.

In addition to the mobile unit there are a number of Pig Science Centres being established
through Canada. They are mainly based on research establishments, aimed mainly at primary
school-aged children and are designed to give a clear picture to all visitors of the pork
industry.

The Canadian Pork industry recognises that its ongoing prosperity relies on the continued
custom of present consumers and those of the future. Across all pig producing Provinces
there is considerable investment in direct marketing, consumer awareness and education.

How secure is the food chain?

Although the mechanics of the Canadian pig industry supply chain are as good as anywhere
else in the world Thursday 14th August 2003 demonstrated its vulnerability. The biggest power
cut ever recorded spread across the whole of Ontario and many of the northern states of the
United States around New York. It affected 60 million people and covered an area larger than
the UK, France, Germany and the Netherlands combined. Within a couple of hours the whole
area had ground to a halt.

Shops had to throw perishable food away and the shelves were left empty. Restaurants had
no supplies. Three days later on my visit to a processor in Burlington they were in the process
of throwing 6200 carcases away that had been spoiled on the day of the blackout as the
chillers would not work without power. The overall experience was a salutary lesson in how
vulnerable the developed world is. However well any system of operation is developed and
refined it is only as good as the base influence. In the case of the whole food chain the
underlying base requirement is power. Without that it falls apart. That experience embedded a
powerful message. Go back to basics and make the infrastructure secure before trying to do
anything else.

The United States of America – Go big or go home!

A comparison of two states
The US pork industry is divided very much on a per State basis. As an example, Kentucky
Pork Producers Association data shows that 85% of its production is from mixed family farms
whilst 90% of North Carolina’s production is from a few corporate producers. Kentucky’s
production is based on herds between 250 and 500 sows, the majority of which are farrow to
finish, whereas North Carolina’s production is based on tri-site businesses with specialist
operators breeding, growing and finishing.

In general terms the larger the operation the greater the opportunity to access different sales
contracts. Smaller producers either have to collaborate to achieve volume status and qualify
for similar contracts to their larger counterparts or work independently and sell on different
contracts. For example there are three main contracts available to Kentucky producers:

• Cost of production plus. This contract is only available to producers or collectives

supplying 50,000 pigs or more annually..
! Advance / payback. A balancing contract between producer and processor that takes
off peak prices and levels off bottom prices thus keeping sale values in a narrower
band. It also includes overpayment and underpayment and mechanisms that allow
balancing at a later date. This contract is available to all producers.
! Spot market. This is exactly as it is in the UK – pigs sold on the day to whoever wants
them. Anyone can use this outlet but needs to accept that it is at the market’s mercy.
A demand will push prices higher. An oversupply will see prices fall.

However, there are certain contracts that are virtually inaccessible to the large producer. For
example one small, family farmer in Kentucky is supplying pigs to an abattoir for a slaughter
service and then having the hams returned to a processor to be marketed on his behalf as
low fat, drug free ham. Being such a small, specialised niche, the farmer and processor
through collaborative efforts are able to command a significant premium which is not
economically accessible to a large producer. This appears to be the exception in Kentucky
and Tennessee with most producers following an economy of scale route.

There is an interesting comparison to be made between the various countries visited with
regards to the % farm gate return. In both Canada and America where, in the majority of
cases, scale is seen as a main focus there is a much lower return to the farmer than in Japan
and Hawaii where added value is the main focus. Table 2 demonstrates the clear difference
between a market-led industry and a producer-led industry.

Table 2. Comparison of the farm gate value as a % of retail value (based on 2002 values)

Retail Value per 75kg Farm Gate Value per 75kg

% Return to
carcase equivalent carcase equivalent
farm gate
£ / Pig £ / Pig
Japan 304.00 189.19 62.23
Hawaii 168.00 112.00 66.66
Canada 214.50 67.50 31.46
USA 203.54 72.64 35.69
UK 170.33 70.23 41.23
Source: Author’s own market research

Health issues
Obesity and human health is currently capturing much media and medical interest in the
United States with extensive work being conducted to demonstrate the positive and negative
benefits of different foods. A positive portrayal of work conducted at the Kentucky State
University demonstrates quite clearly that there is less fat in pork tenderloins and certain ham
muscles than in skinned chicken breast. This is used to great effect in marketing pork to an
ever increasingly health conscious American consumer and is leading towards a more
market-led environment.

Pork Promotion
The National Pork Board was established by an Act of Congress in 1985 that in turn set up
the Pork Checkoff. The Pork Promotion, Research and Consumer Information Act –
commonly known as the Pork Act was requested to be upgraded to be mandatory by
producers in 1988 to further enhance the levy raising of the National Pork Checkoff. One
major project that emanated from the Pork Checkoff in the early days was “Pork, The Other
White Meat®”. This marketing campaign was launched by the National Pork Board in 1987
with the full support of America’s pork producers to help turn around a declining demand for
pork. Prior to this campaign, US pork had been on a long-term decline and the popularity of
poultry was on the rise as nutritional benefits and versatility became increasingly desirable to
consumers. The promotion was based on the strategic opportunity to position pork as a
uniquely different entrée, competing with white meat rather than its traditional red meat
competitor, beef.

The concept, programme and campaign were developed to favourably position pork as a
delicious break from the boring meal routine. The campaign educated consumers that pork
offered something surprising and unexpected, answering the call for something different. For
more than a decade, large and small pork producers across America have remained focussed
and committed to this position. Nine out of ten people in the US recognise pork as “The Other
White Meat®”.

It is due in part to this co-operative effort between America’s pork producers and the National
Pork Board that the retail value of pork has steadily grown, outpacing the rate of inflation.
Production has increased 37%, US per capita consumption has climbed from 23.40kgs to
24.27kgs, annual farm sales exceed $11 billion, the retail value of pork sold to consumers is
in excess of $38 billion each year and pork activity is responsible for over $72 billion in total
domestic economic activity supporting 800,000 jobs. These factors have combined to allow
America to reposition from being an importer of pork to being a net exporter of pork products
– all from 85,760 producers, down from three million in the 1950’s. Today, the United States
is one of the world’s leading pork producing countries being equal second with Denmark
accounting for about 10% of the world’s supply.

Integration and Communication

The positive and proactive dynamics within the United States industry appear more
concerned with size and market share rather than organic growth and this is where innovative
efforts appear to be concentrated with varying organisations taking the lead role with the
business principal. Innovation is not confined to domestic markets. Valuable opportunities are
being created in export markets. Collaborative breeding efforts have developed a pig
designed specifically for the Japanese market with extensive fat marbling and a deeper
colour. In addition to the genetic design, different rations are fed to the ‘Japanese’ pigs.

The major integrators’ operations appear well formed, tight, well monitored and well
supported with extremely good communications through all parts of the supply chain from
genetics right through to the retailers’ shelves. However, outside of the integrators’ embraces
there is little communication between producer and processor and even less between
producer and retailer. There is one distinct market for hogs and one distinct market for pig
meat. You are either in or out and the view from the integrators is to ‘Go big or go home’.
Conclusion
One common theme emerges from the studies in all of the countries i.e. commitment to
support, promotion and advertising. The support is from producers at all levels, promotion is
from individual businesses, producer organisations and marketing groups and advertising is
either on a national or State / Province basis. Advertising and high profile promotion combines
to keep pig meat in the public domain and encourages the consumer to put pork on their fork.
Every opportunity to promote the industry and its product is taken whether to producers,
customers or the consumer.

There is commitment in Canada and the United States to education above the general level
adopted in the UK which will provide objective information from which tomorrow’s consumer
will be able to make their purchasing decisions.

Hawaii has a great advantage in that it is an island state. However, the state industry realises
that continual efforts are required to maintain the level of success currently enjoyed through
controlling the market and promoting the ‘fresh is best’ label.

The embrace of technology in Japan will lead the country’s advance into developing a more
self-sufficient pig industry at the expense of the American, Canadian and European
industries.

In each of the countries visited there are good examples of dedicated supply chains and value
adding opportunities. Some are being exploited but there are many more with the potential to
be developed.

What can be done in the UK to strengthen the domestic pig

industry?
Individual Producers
Producers need to accept that the majority of markets are likely to be commodity based.
However, there is always a place for niche markets but the value adding process should be
evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Value adding activity is business specific and should
be viewed on that basis. Farmers need to take greater responsibility in producing for a
specific market and make and gain long term commitment both upstream and downstream.

Producer Groups / Agricultural Organisations

The Industry should formulate a structure and series of activities to re-engage and educate
the public about pig production. This could be by developing both a permanent site, for
example at Stoneleigh Park, and a mobile unit that could be used twelve months of the year
in varying situations such as agricultural shows, schools and other public gatherings.

Organisations such as the National Pig Association need to work with education authorities,
processors, retailers and farmers to educate the future consumer about pork production in a
fun, transparent and health orientated way. The mystery and poor perception of low cost pork
production needs to be overcome by an honest, positive portrayal of the industry.

The industry needs to educate the consumer to want to buy British Pork because it has been
promoted as being the best quality, the best value for money and a healthy option. This
should be led by producer organisations working with appropriate bodies such as the British
Heart Foundation, Department of Health, Local Authorities, etc.
The Wider Industry
Agricultural organisations should work with the Government to encourage British farmers and
growers to become more IT literate and introduce an electronic system of traceability.
Whatever is developed needs to have the integrity of a fully functioning backup infrastructure.
This should take into account the ever increasing use of a finite power source and threats of
bio- terrorism.

The industry needs to collaborate to launch a major effort to market, promote and inform more
pro-actively. Defra, BPEX and producer organisations should research and launch a
scientifically-based healthy pork promotion based on ‘British Pork - The Other White Meat’

Summary
The points of recommendation made here are by no means definitive for the British pig
industry, but more a foundation that can be used as a basis for future development. What is
definitive is the dire state the industry is currently in and the realisation that something needs
to be done. That said, the industry doesn’t have to change – Survival isn’t Compulsory!

Bibliography
Brown, S. Lamming, R., Bessan,. J. and Jones, P. (2000) Strategic Operations Management.
Butterworth – Heinemann.

Chadwick, T. and Rajagopal, S. (1995) Strategic Supply Management: an implementation

toolkit. Butterworth – Heinemann.

Curry, D. (2002) Farming and Food – a sustainable future. Report of the Policy Commission
on the Future of Farming and Food. Defra.

Ellwood, S. (2002) Seminar – Integration in the Food Chain. HSBC.

Gattorna, J. L. and Walters, D. W. (1996) Managing the Supply Chain. Macmillan Business
Press.

Harland, C. (1996) Supply Chain Management: Relationships, Chains and Networks. British
Journal of Management, 7, Special issue, S63 – S80.

Hughes, D. (2002) Informal presentation. Imperial College of Science, Technology and

Medicine.

Hughes, J., Ralf, M. and Michels, B. (2000) Releasing Value in Business. International
Thompson Business Press.

IGD (2001) Article from Grocer magazine February 2nd 2002.

Johnson, G. and Scholes, K. (1999) Exploring Corporate Strategy. Prentice Hall.

Knowles, A. (2004) EU Cost of Production Report. BPEX.

LaPiere, R. T. (1965) Social Change. New York.

Lowe, R. (2004) MLC Seminar. Market Research and Interpretation for Industry Use. Meat
and Livestock Commission (MLC).

McCartney, M., Danson, Y. and Brookes, S. (2004) MLC Seminar. Influencing the Retail
Agenda. MLC.

McClelland, D. (1961) The Achieving Society. Princeton.

MLC (2004) Research into Consumer Trends in Food.

Northen, J. (2002) Seminar – Integration in the Food Chain. IGD.

RMIF (2003) Conference. The Red Meat Industry Forum – Two Years On.

Schumpeter, J. (1934) The Theory of Economic Development. Harvard Press.

Tidd, J., Bessant, J. and Pavitt, K. (2001) Managing Innovation – Integrating Technological,
Market and Organisational Change. Wiley.
Whitehead, P. (2003) Informal presentation. Food Chain Centre.

Zheng, J., Harland, C., Johnsen, T. and Lamming, R. (1997) Features of Supply Networks.
Project ION Research Bulletin No 1 August. Centre for Research in Strategic Purchasing and
Supply (CRiSPS), University of Bath.
 Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England
Volume 165 2004
ISSN - 0080 - 4134

Copyright  2004 Royal Agricultural Society of England

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publishers.
The views expressed in this publication are not necessarily those of the Royal
Agricultural Society of England.

Royal Agricultural Society of England,

Stoneleigh Park, Warwickshire CV8 2LZ

Telephone: 024 7669 6969

Fax: 024 7669 6900
www.rase.org.uk