Farm assurance cost

I think farmers really need to look at the total cost of been farm assured and then work out if there is a cost benefit.

The cost is not just the initial fee, but the wasted days it takes to get all the paperwork compliant and ready. The wasted day of showing the clipboard parasite around the farm. The vet fees of doing a livestock management plans etc, etc.

Not forgetting the cost to your health for the unnecessary stress that this all causes !!

Add the costs up and divide it by the amount of produce you sell. I suspect in most cases it won't cover the few pounds that non FA produce maybe discounted by.



The farce is that the mills will still be full of imported GM crops that are allowed to be mixed with FA crops. The magic lorries will still convert your non FA produce into FA produce by the time it is sold. The consumer will still be buying the cheapest products in the supermarket without a care in the World wether it is FA or not............ or for that fact, worry if their 4 beef burgers for 50p comes from a horse or a cow !

Highland Mule said:

I’ve never tried, and don’t grow grain, so can’t offer any personal experience, but there’s been posts on here from some who have and do sell non-FA. Presumably there’s a market out there if you try hard enough to find it, and set the price accordingly? I know that’s the case for meat sales, and I also know I don’t care what status the grain based feeds I buy in had.

Click to expand...

You may struggle to sell to a mill. But then again the same mill won't ask for the same standards as what comes in on a boat.

SilliamWhale said:

You may struggle to sell to a mill. But then again the same mill won't ask for the same standards as what comes in on a boat.

Click to expand...

And that is the total hypocrisy of it all and why it’s no more than a tool to control us and the market.
Mill demands FA wheat or barley but happily buys in foreign none farm assured maize to control the price of domestic cereals. It is, quite simply a charade at best and a protection racket at worst.

Even with the benefit of hindsight, it was surprising that farms sleep walked into assurance. Cant recall what kicked it all off, was it to retain a grain export 'advantage' or a livestock industry driven campaign? Believe it started off in the south east of England, and then went viral from there?

Mills won't take non assured grain full stop.
That leaves selling direct to livestock farmers.
And selling grain to a livestock farmer is a lot like selling snow to an Eskimo who's cat has just died.

Widgetone said:

Even with the benefit of hindsight, it was surprising that farms sleep walked into assurance. Cant recall what kicked it all off, was it to retain a grain export 'advantage' or a livestock industry driven campaign? Believe it started off in the south east of England, and then went viral from there?

Click to expand...

The original idea was the NFUs, as they said that it would be better for farmers if they put their own scheme in place before one was insisted on by the big buyers, and which might have been more draconian. I originally thought of joining but was put off by the rapidly escalating demands.
The laugh is that the present scheme has become exactly what the NFUs one was supposed to avoid.

Widgetone said:

Even with the benefit of hindsight, it was surprising that farms sleep walked into assurance. Cant recall what kicked it all off, was it to retain a grain export 'advantage' or a livestock industry driven campaign? Believe it started off in the south east of England, and then went viral from there?

Click to expand...

Widgetone said:

Even with the benefit of hindsight, it was surprising that farms sleep walked into assurance. Cant recall what kicked it all off, was it to retain a grain export 'advantage' or a livestock industry driven campaign? Believe it started off in the south east of England, and then went viral from there?

Click to expand...

Actually there was talk of a price bonus to get us stupid idiots on the hook, soon fell by the wayside.

The premium on our cattle will be at least £100 if we could get them away at all. Until we get WLA then beef is a joke though, 90 days and suddenly it gets a sticker, nonsense. We could probably get away without doing crops, everything we sell goes straight off the combine into the merchant's store where it will be sold as FA regardless. That does mean that the inspector isn't interested in our antiquated stores at home though.

Guy Smith said:

GUTH - you never let me down.

Click to expand...

Sorry I meant the RT board and not the AHDB, I was thinking about another thread when I posted on this one, had been a long day!

I actually think it was/is a great loss to the NFU that they didn't re-elect you @Guy Smith, we may disagree about the odd issue but I will certainly give you credit for the way you worked very hard to engage with NFU members when you were on the top team regardless of if you were on the same page or not as them on an issue.

I sincerely hope that you have finally got your new restaurant up and running regardless of the virus problems.

Personally I’d use SAI global over NSF. They are a lot easier to get on with.

Guy Smith said:

Careful - there can’t be much more room at GUTH towers for another dart board with a face on it.

Click to expand...

Not a bad little side hustle in these difficult times though, eh, Guy?!

Daniel said:

Not a bad little side hustle in these difficult times though, eh, Guy?! [emoji6]View attachment 898529

Click to expand...

To be honest, I think that is a fairly low paid position.

BB

Well I’m not doing it to get rich but in my view it’s fairly remunerated.

And I don’t start until November 1st.

Guy Smith said:

Well I’m not doing it to get rich but in my view it’s fairly remunerated.

Click to expand...

which begs the question 'why are you doing it?'........fair play for still being on here ......are you going to tell RT how unpopular they are with farmers?....or do they already know

Banana Bar said:

To be honest, I think that is a fairly low paid position.

BB

Click to expand...

Guy Smith said:

Well I’m not doing it to get rich but in my view it’s fairly remunerated.

Click to expand...

£400 a day, that's what £80-90k pro-rata?

I don't mean to have a go Guy, because I think you're very likeable and I enjoy your writing but.....

We are audited by Red Tractor, Red Lion, RSPCA and the Environment Agency, all of them send round well paid inspectors all.pulling a fair salary plus travel expenses, often they send 2 inspectors so one can audit the other.

Each of these inspection bodies has awarded itself the right to demand 'just that little bit extra' each year as they 'revise their standards'

This on a 600ac mixed farm with 3 full time and 2 part time staff.

They each have layers of very well paid management above them, I note that there is an overall chairman above you at Red Tractor.

These people are all earning a very nice living out of the hard work of the producer, who is directly or indirectly obliged to fund this stuff, and I'm the mug who is just heading into work on a Sunday morning to pack eggs and tend to chickens that the retailer will barely pay a break even price for.

What are all these assurance schemes doing to benefit me?

Meanwhile all these layers of well paid staff are just thinking of putting on the kettle and browsing the Sunday papers.

This racket is becoming unsustainable and it is only the likes of you that are getting any financial benefit from it.

And.. while I'm at it, these schemes are all interlinked. The red lion demands two x 6 monthly audits on both the hens and our feed mill, so 4 audits a year from them, and they DEMAND that only farm assured grain be used in the chicken feed, so we have no option but to sigh and comply with the requirements of your scheme on our arable business.

Anyone who knows me knows I’m a genuine combine driving arable farmer with a diversified business who has done a fair bit off farm over the years. I’ve been in RT for over 20 years. The annual inspection isn’t my favourite day of the year and I think some of the rules could do with some changes but generally I don’t find it too burdensome or expensive and in many cases it’s incentivised me to improve my farm management. Like most farmers I prefer to be outside working rather than doing office jobs ( not sure in the world of handheld devices that phraseology still works) but I recognise that good management means good record keeping. I don’t think assurance schemes are going to end anytime soon so in my smug way I hope I’ve got something to contribute. But I will be just one small bit player in a large organisation and will have to work as a team player not some sort of tin-pot dictator.

I’ve noted that over the years I’m one of the very few people who occupy ‘positions’ that contribute to TFF which has its downsides but I’m happy to continue to do so. I’ve always believed that if you take these positions you should be transparent to your peers or the people you claim to represent.

@Guy Smith
While the red tractor, is not a terrible idea, it’s execution is diabolical.
The reality is, very few people rush into the farm house the minute they do something that needs recording on paper, the paper evidence based system is a Stone Age solution, to a modern age problem.
especially when the majority of people have mobile phones in their pockets, it seems a missed trick for making the system more user friendly, which can include reminders and suggestions. To help the scheme be a more natural part of the day to day operations on farm.

The next bug bare for me and reading this thread a lot of others is the creep of extra rules every year, I would suggest 50% of the scheme is now stupid stuff that has nothing, or a very tenuous connection to assurance of quality.
Eg Sampling and testing every load of corn coming off the combine and keeping a sample, to show we did it?
certification of fertiliser we buy, seed bag tickets, explain how that is helpful to the end user of the corn?
bare in mind unless I was treating corn somehow myself all corn I can buy and dress is either treated buy suppliers or treated by mobile seed dressers, or it’s taken as is off the heap.
Same for fert, what possible supply of fert can I be getting that means I need what I buy to be, a known type, or I need records to prove what it was, and where it was from. And how much I used, on what field, so that the end users is so concerned he needs me to record it?

I am very interested to have the reason for every rule explained in detail so the reason behind it inclusion is clear and who requested it and why?

I think the red tractor scheme needs an audit. . .

it needs to justify the existence of every rule showing the benifit to the farmer and the end user.

I find like many farmers the end user while happy to take my assured produce is also happy to take imported produce. Which does not, so why require it from me, as a red tractor buyer they either only buy red tractor feed or they don’t require red tractor assurance it’s a two way street. Not one of convenience, red tractor is not a convenance for the farmer it’s a costly burden.


so I would request that red tractor police the end user of our red tractor produce, what ever that maybe, just as hard if not far harder, than they do us, so that they use zero non assured produce, that includes imported. So that they are complying, and not making our time and costs a joke, as that end of the food chain seems more important to the end user.
I as an assured member would like to see those records made available, the visits, the recoding, the end users, ability to use the red tractor logo has got to be won by compliance and we as members paying for the scheme to exist need to see the assurance that our money is not funding a joke on us.

To the end user of the farm assured scheme it’s a way of adding value to a product they sell to the consumer, so they need policing to make sure they are holding up there end of this devils bargain as much as we are, if not more so.

So to summarise.

The option of apps for recording the data red tractor requires.
An audit on those requirements to explain why they exist and who actualy requested them and why. And what value they actual have.

I would like to ask what body is requesting these added requirements is it coming from the actual end users of our farming produce, or is it coming from inside red tractor?

Then explain how the red tractor scheme is protecting farmers from the supply chain, from there exploiting the scheme with using imported products, non assured products, that they also use in their products, and what red tractor is doing to stop this, while not offering the farmers True added value. Red tractor should be protecting farmers from the suppliers using non assured products at the same time requiring them from them us, double standards should not exist, or this scheme is a joke, we should not be paying for, the end user should be, not farmers.

while your not a dictator only one of the captains, all these request are reasonable of any voluntary membership scheme, especially when the members themselves are the ones paying for it all, we demand an audit of the scheme please.
As captain we are asking you to ask for it, or your membership may chose to withhold payments. Until they get it.