Tarw Coch
Member
- Location
- Bottom of Wats Dyke
How much and who to?The end user pays a royalty to be able to print the RT label on the packet!
Don’t think it’s in the form of a premium to the producer.
How much and who to?The end user pays a royalty to be able to print the RT label on the packet!
Dead easy to be a not for profit organisation, pay everyone a massive salary and make sure you have lots of overheadsI am sure we were promised less red tape post Brexit! Seems to be going the other way, not a surprise though.
interesting to read that RT is a not for profit organisation. Someone must be getting fat out of it.
I don’t think anyone thinks that we can get away with no assurance scheme. There needs to be an alternative and is it worth gathering the buyers feedback on the appetite of such a scheme?
Yes, they are collecting information.
I was asked if I fed antibiotic milk to calf’s.
I asked if it was a RT requirement, no it’s not so why do they want to know?
Inspector told me they slip such questions in to find out what’s going on at farm level
Isn't there rumblings that ELMs could "reward" you for being part of an assurance scheme?
Dead easy to be a not for profit organisation, pay everyone a massive salary and make sure you have lots of overheads
The local firebrigade visited us to go through all the procedures of fertiliser,especially Nitrogen,storage,and said they were the body to oversee it.So do we need RT as well ? Lots of what RT are proposing will just be duplication as a lot is already covered by other Agricultural bodies or is written in law.Because RT see Governemnt and Defra as one of their “stakeholders” That means that they will help to facilitate their needs in the scheme. That is why they are becoming the Policeman for governemnt regulation. Conveniently for the Government a Policeman we pay for. At a meeting i attended that Mosley spoke at the reason for increased measures on fertiliser storage was included SPECIFICALLY at the request of the anti terrorist squad.
That clearly demonstrates that RT is the method to control us, has become a licence to farm and most conveniently is enforcement that we have to pick up the total cost for.
These proposals must be robustly rejected. Our representatives organisations will not back us as they are part of RT.
I sat in a Regional NFU Crops meeting where the feeling against these changes was VERY strong, it really concerns me that the response that the NFU make as a whole to this consultation will not truly reflect the views of those members. The RT representatives present alluded to the fact that they will take more note of the consultation submissions from representative bodies than from individuals. That means that a huge number of NFU members who have strong views on this will potentially be disaffected by the NFU response.
The thing is I am lucky, in the middle of last year last year I was able to get a decent premium milk contract. None of the requirements are less than red tractor, many of them exceed what red tractor ask for, so in my case if my processor is happy I don’t see a reason for red tractor to inspect me. I get 3 audits a year from the processor all of which so far I have come away from feeling positive about what I am doing.
Bg
........ a common buying group and co-op model in UK ag
@Guy Smith is on circa £500 / day plus expenses (where you can REALLY take the pee) in his role
Don't want to get off topic but I've been told of all sorts of overseas trips "fact-finding" jolly in many UK ag organizations (not talking just RT) all expenses paid while paying these day rates and picking up the first-class travel, accommodation, food and beer bills, etc
I'm up for any TFF fact finding trip, how about The Maldives to start
Bg
I'm up for any TFF fact finding trip, how about The Maldives to start
Bg
I have made this point before: your processors/buyer is the ultimate arbiter of whether your business can cut the mustard or not. RT is an insignificance and should no longer apply to you. You already comply with requirements that exceed any RT legislation. It adds no value to your business and so I don't see why you should shoulder any cost from it.
An if that buyer or processor was willing to buy imported ingredients and not yours of the SAME standard I think they would be breaking laws ? I'm not sure a buyer can discriminate legally?
Think its more about tying cows up in byres by the neck with a chain. That will be us out of red tractor if it is. Have 70 spring calvers all tied up. In my eyes best way to keep them, keeps them quiet, cheap to keep and easy to manage the calves once there calved. Be a shame as were getting on well selling all lambs deadweight.Just wondering - "tethering as a management practice would no longer be permitted "
What is meant by tethering? Would adopters no longer be acceptable for ewes and lambs?
He's probably on a beach in Dubai with the rest of the Z list celebs sipping his cocktailsWhat does he do all day?
I bet he’s better paid for it.
I think any buyer can choose what he buys and from where provided he can demonstrate food safety is being complied with. As I understand it most companies involved with food are whiter than white because their reputation and brand revolves around food safety and consumer confidence and understandably so. A single piece of print in a Newspaper and your business could be bled for millions in lose sales?
RT is meaningless, though I suspect imported ingredients will have some quality assurance process applied to them, whether by the buyer themselves or through self-certification abroad. Things like Soya in Brazil are big big business and their government will be pretty keen on ensuring that trade continues. One slip up and look how fast the EU are to ban food imports from country X on health or safety grounds?
In my opinion RT are doing this the wrong way around. The public/end consumers don't know RT or the current standard we have, why are they looking to increase them with no benefit? Once the end consumer has good brand recognition with RT and appreciates our current standards then I would be more infavour of increasing them further.
IMO all changes to RT and any increased expenditure should be 100% marketing focused not tweaking standards that Joe public has no idea about
you can't market a brand and logo that is not on the packaging and can not go on packaging no matter how much money you throw at it
When it comes to ACCS this is the case - hence its pointlessness
ACCS = Assured Combinable Crops Scheme? I take your point for combinables, we're a mixed farm so don't tend to think of the crop assurance separate to the beef and lamb as its done on the same inspection on the same day.
RT is only really marketable from a beef, lamb, milk & fresh produce side of thinks to be fair
But I’ve got a glossy pamphlet from RT sitting on the kitchen table claiming the RT brand is highly recognised by consumers.In my opinion RT are doing this the wrong way around. The public/end consumers don't know RT or the current standard we have, why are they looking to increase them with no benefit? Once the end consumer has good brand recognition with RT and appreciates our current standards then I would be more infavour of increasing them further.
IMO all changes to RT and any increased expenditure should be 100% marketing focused not tweaking standards that Joe public has no idea about