#BTColumn – Would RiRi devalue the Fenty brand?

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by the author(s) do not represent the official position of Barbados TODAY.

by Heather Cole

Back to the Budget of a few weeks ago. Many may have missed it; many would have wondered why they were included in a Budget Speech, and many are still wondering what the real story is behind black belly sheep that caused it to make it to the budget speech delivery when truth be told they had nothing to do with government revenue or expenditure.

Fenty is Rihanna’s brand and black belly sheep is one of the components of the Barbados brand. Rihanna would never consider devaluing the Fenty brand so everyone should be quite concerned and question why the Government of Barbados wants to devalue the black belly sheep brand.

In a part of her speech, the Prime Minister mentioned quite a few things in relation to black belly sheep that leads to the devaluation of the brand.

1. She stated that the sheep were to be raised in Guyana and then shipped to Barbados for slaughter. This may not be a good idea as there is no evidence provided that black belly sheep can thrive under the conditions that exist in Guyana.

2. She mentioned that the black belly sheep will be cross bred with another type of sheep in Guyana. This means that there is some knowledge that the black belly sheep cannot thrive in Guyana. If they could indeed thrive, there would be no need to cross breed to create a hybrid.

3. One can only presume that this cross breed would be more suited to the environment in Guyana. What will the cross bred be? Will it retain the name Black Belly Sheep? The soil and vegetation are not the same so therefore, the meat and fat content will not be the same and the quality of the hide will not be the same.

4. She also mentioned the sale of two types of meat.  One of the pure black belly sheep and the other of the cross breed. The pure black belly will be for export and the diluted cross breed for local consumption. Will they be packaged accordingly? How will a consumer know that they are consuming the diluted version and not the authentic brand? Will the taste and texture of the meat be the same?

5. Have 400 years of slavery damaged us so psychologically that it is still acceptable to be offered food that is less than the best or can we still be forced to eat what the ruling class would never eat?

6. She mentioned that there would be a price differential.  How will Barbadians feel knowing that they may not be able to afford an authentic brand that was created right in their own backyard centuries ago?  How will they feel knowing that they are forced to settle for a substitute?  Is the meat of the authentic black belly sheep which will be exported for a premium price be too good for Barbadians to consume?

7. It was not stated that government of itself would be farming the black belly sheep so why was it so quick to come up with the price differentials between the meat of the authentic brand and the diluted product, given that the production cost will be the same?

Two burning questions that remain are which of the local farmers can afford to start a sheep farm in Guyana and if this venture is only for the select few? One will only know both literally and figuratively if the project gets off the ground and the meat comes to market.

With the banks hardly lending money these days and given the additional risk of an across the border loan one wonders how the local sheep farmers will be able to afford this venture. One also wonders if this proposed venture will spell the death of the livelihood of some of the sheep farmers if they are unable to compete with the Guyanese imports.

In coming up with this decision, it seems as though half of the equation has been left out. There is a huge difference between breeding and branding. A brand is a unique identity.  This proposed breeding with another sheep that has no brand recognition and poor-quality meat is in the best interest of Guyana and not Barbados. Barbados should find other ways to increase its production of Black Belly sheep. Government should have made plans to utilise the over one thousand acres of land that will be going out of sugar cane production at the end of this year’s sugar harvest.  They should also have sought to upgrade the brand by way of diet.

The Government of Barbados should get some help from Rihanna on how to market this authentic brand. Rihanna would never collaborate with anyone to dilute her brand and sell her merchandise at a cheaper price. If that were the case, she would not be a billionaire today. So why is the Government of Barbados destroying the identity of the black belly sheep to promote a cross bred hybrid? Who will be enriched through this venture?

We should be all for the creation of an enhanced product but not for a dilution and devaluation of the black belly sheep brand of Barbados. Government’s action to alter the breed of the sheep does not offer increased value since it has stated that the cross breed will be sold at a cheaper price.

Livestock rearing is not new to Barbados. Incentives can be offered to small farmers and all of Barbados to raise and produce this product for local consumption and for export while maintaining the authenticity of the brand.

Government can also ensure that the real black belly sheep meat is available to all Barbadians by fixing its price per pound on the domestic market.

Finally, instead of engaging in this mulberry bush exercise that defeats its purpose, would it not have been easier and cheaper to just purchase mutton from Guyana instead of New Zealand and leave the black belly sheep brand alone? The same results would be obtained, that is cheaper mutton on the domestic market and the branded mutton of the black belly sheep for sale at a premium price on the international market.

Heather Cole is a senior budget analyst and social commentator.