Red tractor consultation

Did you disagree with the majority of the new red tractor proposals in the current consultation?

  • Yes

    Votes: 108 93.9%
  • No

    Votes: 7 6.1%

  • Total voters
    115

Flasheart

Member
Location
N.Suffolk
I 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?
Dead easy to be a not for profit organisation, pay everyone a massive salary and make sure you have lots of overheads
 

Boysground

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Wiltshire
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

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
 

Clive

Staff Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lichfield
Isn't there rumblings that ELMs could "reward" you for being part of an assurance scheme?


I think we (I'm talking as a cereal grower here )will probably need to remain assured BUT only to the same level that the Millers and processors accept for the imports they blend with our product

These imported assurance standards are lower that we already have so should be significantly less expensive and complex for UK farmers


This is the case BEFORE this proposed gold plating of standards and the SIGNIFICANT increase in cost that I'm told is proposed internally at RT towers right now

We don't just need to block the proposed changes, we need to go further and push for equality of standards applied to imports that we know are acceptable by millers. retailers, consumers, and Uk law
 
Last edited:

Clive

Staff Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lichfield
Dead easy to be a not for profit organisation, pay everyone a massive salary and make sure you have lots of overheads

........ a common ag organisation, 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
 
Last edited:

texelburger

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Herefordshire
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 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.
I think its time for all of us to stand together and reject these proposals or better still leave en masse.I for one am willing to even if it will,initially,hit the bottom line.If not how much more regulation,during the next few years,will they have introduced ?
 
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

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.
 

Boysground

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Wiltshire
........ 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 :ROFLMAO:

Bg
 

Clive

Staff Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lichfield
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?

ant lawyers on TFF ?
 
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?

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?
 

Stw88

Member
Location
Northumberland
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?
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.
 

Clive

Staff Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lichfield
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?


If you look on .gov website there is a legal min standard for imported grain, its miles below what expected under red tractor however even in its current form let alone what is proposed in the consultation

UK growers could easily set up a very cheap scheme that complied with those legal import standard as most of them are law already so do not need duplication
 
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
 

Clive

Staff Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lichfield
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
 
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
 

Clive

Staff Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lichfield
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


yes combinable crops are the focus (for now) as its the most indefensible part of RT, we have to tackle this a bit at a time realistically, it's David vs Goliath here as it is !

Even as a mixed farm you are paying for it despite wrapping it up all as one thing / one inspection
 
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
But I’ve got a glossy pamphlet from RT sitting on the kitchen table claiming the RT brand is highly recognised by consumers.
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 80 42.3%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 66 34.9%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 15.9%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 7 3.7%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,293
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top