AIC Reply

Grass And Grain

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Yorks
Reply from AIC. Discuss.

Following on from your recent correspondence to Simon Williams and your subsequent discussion. AIC have now had a chance to consider your queries in consultation with our assurance committees.
AIC’s role in assurance is to uphold and maintain the standards of the feed and food supply chain for
cereals and feedstuffs for the benefit of our consumers and UK agriculture. Our role underpins feed and food safety for the agri-food supply chain, in which UK cereal growers have a pivotal role. We take this role very seriously and will not undermine any existing food/ feed standards in the UK. We believe and
know many farmers recognise that maintaining feed and food standards within the UK is of paramount
importance for consumer confidence, especially in the current climate of Covid and EU Exit.
On your points about the difference between the acceptance of AFS Red Tractor standards between UK
combinable crops and crops from non-UK/Eire our aim is to ensure consumer confidence in feed and food safety is maintained. It is recognised that the method of assurance can differ in some supply chains but the outcome of safe feed and food is paramount. AIC are not responsible for making or setting the standards at farm level but recognise existing farm standards are required at food retail and food service
level by all in the supply chain.
As you are aware there are no farm assurance schemes active in major grain exporting countries, but as
a result of this the first collector or shipper of the crops is required to carry out extensive sampling and
analysis of the commodities they are trading to demonstrate compliance with UK/ EU limits on pesticides,
heavy metals, mycotoxins to name three, more information can be found here “Grains and Feedstuffs in
the UK – Checks and Controls”. These requirements, sometimes referred to as “gatekeeper rules” are
included in the relevant AIC schemes as well as all the international schemes recognised by AIC, ensuring the safety of imported crops. These rules for feed and food safety come at significant costs to the supply chain.
Regarding the points in your email about the requirements of AIC schemes in relation to the supply of
combinable crops to feed mills or other potential users. Specifically, there is nothing to prevent a Red
Tractor assured farmer marketing their crops directly to feed mills, or any other potential user.
Thank you for highlighting the text from our Feed Food Schemes list relating to imported crops. This
acceptance of a statement from a supplier dates back in excess of 15 years, when the assurance of
overseas supply chains for combinable crops was less well developed. Since then, we have encouraged and cooperated with other organisations in the international supply chain to achieve certification back to, in many cases, the point of first collection or at least the port of loading. The acceptance of a supplier statement is now outdated and having consulted with a number of large users and traders of combinable crops we will look to amend these requirements as outlined in the paragraph above.

In terms of your central request to remove the requirement for assured UK and Irish crops, AIC strongly
believe that this would be a serious retrograde step having successfully developed a farm to fork supply
chain with each link independently certified to robust standards. AIC believe that the work of RTA, TASCC,
FEMAS and UFAS participants in maintaining, improving and complying with these standards has
benefitted the entire supply chain through reduced risk of food and feed safety incidents, and helping to
provide certified companies with a due diligence defence in case of any challenges. We understand that
many downstream users of your product (grains and seed) require assurance which AFS Red Tractor
provides.
I am aware that this response may not answer all of your concerns, however, as stated AIC only form one part of the agri-food supply chain. We, in turn respond to our customer requirements higher up the chain.
A large market share of UK retailers and food service organisations support the use of the Red Tractor
schemes, not only in combinable crops but across all of the major agricultural sectors of the UK. These
schemes are voluntary and farmers can choose whether to be part of this assurance chain or not.
You have raised some important issues around trading requirements in the UK and globally and I am sure
the debate will continue in this area.
Yours sincerely,
 
Last edited:
I didn't expect anything different. The fundamentals are that if you are offering AIC members extra arse covering for free via Red Tractor then naturally they will be very resistant to change from that. Its like saying do you want the free certificate for the same price or no certificate at all for the same price?

The key dichotomy remains. Imports are not really subject to anything particularly scrupulous.

Its a classic trap for anyone who doesn't think Red Tractor is a credible scheme.
 

Rossymons

Member
Location
Cornwall
tags.png


As they fully believe in assurance schemes what would they make of these untagged animals?
 

tepapa

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
North Wales
AIC strongly
believe that this would be a serious retrograde step having successfully developed a farm to fork supply
chain with each link independently certified to robust standards. AIC believe that the work of RTA, TASCC,
FEMAS and UFAS participants in maintaining, improving and complying with these standards has
benefitted the entire supply chain through reduced risk of food and feed safety incidents, and helping to
provide certified companies with a due diligence defence in case of any challenges. We understand that
many downstream users of your product (grains and seed) require assurance which AFS
They would think this as it's not them paying for it, all comes at a cost to the producer for no extra benefit.
Free due diligence and removal from any liability as they pass the buck down the chain.
 

kiwi pom

Member
Location
canterbury NZ
If feed mills in the UK could only use UK crops, would there be enough produced and what would it do to the price of livestock feed?
What happens if the export price is higher than what the mills are paying, who would you supply?
I asked on another thread, how much feed wheat and barley is imported in a normal year and does exported grain need to be RT. Never really got an answer.
I'm just trying to see it from the livestock farmers side of things. I understand as combinable cropping farmers you want the best price for your product and don't blame you for wanting higher standards for imports.
 

Old apprentice

Member
Arable Farmer
It is not voluntary as such it's like a monopoly . AIC RT NFU just keep passing it around and make more work for no benefit for us or end users , Years ago I usEd to buy artic loads from docks to feed dairy cattle no real asurance could be on dock side Withat birds craping on it.
 
If feed mills in the UK could only use UK crops, would there be enough produced and what would it do to the price of livestock feed?
What happens if the export price is higher than what the mills are paying, who would you supply?
I asked on another thread, how much feed wheat and barley is imported in a normal year and does exported grain need to be RT. Never really got an answer.
I'm just trying to see it from the livestock farmers side of things. I understand as combinable cropping farmers you want the best price for your product and don't blame you for wanting higher standards for imports.

We are not objecting to the imports. We know trade relies on both import and export. Exported grain often doesn't need to be RT for the buyer but for the middleman its free arsecovering again.

Livestock farmer wouldn't care either way as very little from the mill can be Red Tractor assured as there is usually a element of something imported in its sales
 
It probably took a full days meeting with 10 different people to construct that email but they should have just got the secretary to email you back with an F off.. would have been quicker for all involved lol.

I keep saying and people keeping hating on me for it.. unless some other "product" is available and ready to roll out... the buyers will not change their stance.. they need some ass covering somewhere down the line.

IMO somebody needs to step up and create the template for the new "product" but they will need to have time, money and leverage on their side.
 
AIC strongly
believe that this would be a serious retrograde step having successfully developed a farm to fork supply
chain with each link independently certified to robust standards


Yeah right.

So we have millions of tonnes of Oilseed Rape coming into the UK grown using Neonicitinoids in Ukraine, which is banned in the UK and that's "Okay".

Millions of tonnes of imported GM crops, GM crops being banned in the UK.

It a closed shop. You do as we say and you have no say.
 
I keep saying and people keeping hating on me for it.. unless some other "product" is available and ready to roll out... the buyers will not change their stance.. they need some ass covering somewhere down the line.


How does RT cover anything's "ass" ?

If there was a problem then RT isn't liable, it's not an insurance or guarantee.

Yes it needs an alternative but these assurance schemes are pointless, it's an excuse for someone to make a lot money at everyone else's expense.
 

kiwi pom

Member
Location
canterbury NZ
We are not objecting to the imports. We know trade relies on both import and export. Exported grain often doesn't need to be RT for the buyer but for the middleman its free arsecovering again.

Livestock farmer wouldn't care either way as very little from the mill can be Red Tractor assured as there is usually a element of something imported in its sales

So exported still has to be RT?
So what are you saying? RT is a UK scheme which can't be applied overseas so it should be scraped in the UK?
 
How does RT cover anything's "ass" ?
If there was a problem then RT isn't liable, it's not an insurance or guarantee.
Yes it needs an alternative but these assurance schemes are pointless, it's an excuse for someone to make a lot money at everyone else's expense.

It covers it by passing the buck right back to the farmer.. the whole field to fork thingy
If someone goes wrong it basically comes back to who showed the most duty of care along the way.

It's actually why assurance is important.. because it would always be the famers fault otherwise, but with an assurance scheme the farmer is showing their duty of care/ due diligence and can prove it easily with that certificate.. How could the farmer be wrong, if he did everything correctly??
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 113 38.4%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 112 38.1%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 42 14.3%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 6 2.0%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 4 1.4%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 17 5.8%

May Event: The most profitable farm diversification strategy 2024 - Mobile Data Centres

  • 3,715
  • 59
With just a internet connection and a plug socket you too can join over 70 farms currently earning up to £1.27 ppkw ~ 201% ROI

Register Here: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/the-mo...2024-mobile-data-centres-tickets-871045770347

Tuesday, May 21 · 10am - 2pm GMT+1

Location: Village Hotel Bury, Rochdale Road, Bury, BL9 7BQ

The Farming Forum has teamed up with the award winning hardware manufacturer Easy Compute to bring you an educational talk about how AI and blockchain technology is helping farmers to diversify their land.

Over the past 7 years, Easy Compute have been working with farmers, agricultural businesses, and renewable energy farms all across the UK to help turn leftover space into mini data centres. With...
Top