The Red Tractor ACCS referendum

homefarm said:

AHDB will get behind it if enough levy payers ask for them to do so .
Everyone who voted for an equal to import scheme should contact AHDB and make their views known. Numbers will make a difference.

Click to expand...

I'll tag @snipe @Steevo
Edit to this post. Possibly best not to send any extra emails to Martin GS at AHDB. Martin fully understands the weight of feeling, and I'm sure AHDB are considering the sitiation, if they can help etc.


Chris F has sent an email this morning.

We just need to point out the benefits for AHDB, how it would be excellent for unassured levy payers to access markets, level playing field, creates competitiveness for UK growers, creates efficiencies for growers, makes AHDB look like heroes, gets AIC out of a hole, is common sense, cheap to set up, cheap as chips to run, simple declaration of UK pesticides used and mycotoxin risk assessment, AHDB cereals levy payers would really value AHDB.

No risk to farmers. They can stick with RT if they wish, then see what their customers require as the next season progresses.

The marketplace and end user can decide if it is happy with the AHDB simplified scheme, or if it wants RT.

It might fit well with AHDB UKS and UKP export specification wheat, as a sumplified food safety assurance.

I think it has legs. If anyone else thinks so please make your feelings known to AHDB, etc. that you'd like AHDB to give it consideration and hopefully create it ASAP. Could be done in a few weeks.

I think it ticks all the boxes, as long as it's simple as possible to equal imports.

It would have to be different to import standards, because of the rules on sampling and testing shipments. This version needs to be nimble enough and cost free enough to deal with a 10 tonne trailer load.

If we don't use raw sewage sludge, do the mycotoxins assessment, declare only used UK licensed pesticides, documented HACCP for grain drying, handling and storage, then we're about there. A risk based approach to more than equalling testing method of imports. Plus sampling a 30,000t shipment has to have its own problems.

Simple, free, and probably goes beyond imported food safety standards.

Also, there's a lot of unassured grain gets sold farm to farm, it could drag that into a simple assurance status. AIC say they have a responsibility for food/feed safety. Well this would cover that nicely. If AIC are happy with imported food safety standards, then they can only be more than happy with this proposal.

Also great for smaller farmers who find RT too expensive, so drags even more UK grain into a simplified food safety assured status.

Let's get it out there as a good way forward.

I'd like to think NFU were worth contacting to get behind it. Worth trying. But I fear they'll think it's a bad idea for no good reason at all. Come on NFU, step up to it!

Hindsight said:

But your agronomist is not legally charged with making sure you use up or do not apply non approved chemical. Your agronomist has no legal control and thus how could they sign off compliance. And what about farm businesses which have more than one agronomist. No, the final responsibility for application of pesticides in law is with the farmer and thus the proof of compliance must sit with the farmer.

Click to expand...

While as you say he cannot stop you he may also know if you are breaking the rules, and if you want any level of cert even import level, you are limited to what is Registered for use and, at the correct rate, as suggested by its manufacture. That is a minimum on all schemes even imports, the only way around this is testing of the crop to get it certified as safe.

So how do you intent to do that without an agronomist simply? Your swopping a simple signature from an agronomist from lots of paper work where you have to prove what you put on and a what rate based on the amount to buy in and what you have in stock. Maybe even force mandatory sample testing.
Baisically if your in red tractor now, or any scheme, that is a minimum, they ask for spray records to be kept which is no big deal. And you have to use an agronomist. If you stick to what your agronomist has recommended and read the labels on the products to see if the application rates suggested are within the guide lines then your fine.

I would go for a agronomist sign off, he has a choice, they either sign off or not, it would be up to them.
if you change the recommendations or increase the rates and timing of applications you run the risk he will not sign off at harvest time which is likely the best time to do it. As all applications on that crop end
Just like any scheme you can lie and do what you want but if your actually interested in actually having a scheme that meets uk law and is simple, what’s easier than doing what you need to to get your agronomy signed off on by your agronomist or field Walker, if you chose to go self agronomy then you open the door to having to prove what you did was right and maybe if you fail that, actually having to have your crop tested at harvest.

As for, you as a farmer being Responsible that’s true, if you were found to be in beach only you would be at fault, all regulation even those on imports have minimum standards, and chemical applications is top of that list.
Direct testing on crops or assurance schemes, this is not a flexible requirement.

All the agronomist is doing is saying is that he gave you recommendations and likely told you want chemicals to use and in what quantities if he signs he is saying he trusted you to have done what he recommended, and nothing else, if your found in breach of the law and he didn’t put in on the sheets, but you did it on the sly, it comes back to you not him even if he signed off for you, but I bet he would not sign them off for you the next year, as it’s trust your trading just as it should be.

everything is trust, all systems rely on it, a scheme where trust is used with minimal paper work, and testing, is what we are after, we still do have to meet the rules of law, proving that in a very simple way is what we are after, for a new assurance scheme, all an assurance scheme is even those needed by importers, need either, trust or direct testing of crops, I would avoid expensive direct testing if at all possible

if your happy not being assured then just don’t join any scheme it’s simple. And zero paper work, but you will find it harder to sell crops without even import levels of assurance on your crops.

I cannot see a simpler system than getting your agronomy signed off each year, while they are vouching for you they are not liable for your actions, you are and always will be, but it’s not a red tractor inspectors it’s your agronomist who you deal with all the time.
I will add no system even red tractor operates with any value outside of trust, we are saying that the agronomist is vouching for our work instead of a red tractor inspector. Neither system made anyone but the farmer the last buck stop for blame. And he only has his word outside of paper work and testing. Even then it’s still your word that’s key.

Fuzzy said:

Does imported wheat or barley need a sprayer MOT or Chemical store check ? NO. so why do we ?

Click to expand...

No, but if not assured (you still can be non assured all schemes are optional) it has to proven that it meets minimum standards this by direct testing of the crop, my guess is that’s multiple test looking for multiple things.
That and to actually spray you need to be tested and pass, the MOT is a NRoSO thing among others not just red tractor.
Some rules apply even without red tractor applying them. I don’t spray, but the contractor I use has to have all his certs and MOT’s I am not 100% sure what is required by law and what is just by red tractor? I do know you have to have a cert to spray chemical legally in the UK.

Humble Village Farmer said:

This sounds great but not that different to red tractor?

Click to expand...

Well any less, and it’s not an assurance scheme that even meets import levels of assurance.

and if you cannot see the difference between a signature from an agronomist, and abit of basic paper work that most of is required by law, and needed to meet even the most basic import standards, without which crop testing is mandatory (which I am sure costs an arm and a leg). And RT paper work that includes rat, environments rules and workforce health and safety, and a million other paper cuts. over doing your job in storing your crop and getting an agronomist to sign off on your spray applications, and a few basic rules on the certs everyone who sprays must have anyway, and a MOT on a sprayer to say it’s in good order.
That cuts 90% of RT out, and store management has to be done because why are you not doing it? Good store management is just good business. Making a few clicks in an app to say you did it which takes a few seconds to do when you do it is not RT. Not even close. Half of what RT do would be 100% less painfully if implemented with a app.
This even removes 90% of that it just leaves a few good practice storage rules to say your minimising risk to stored crops and reducing the chances of getting infestations with out of town friends.

Import assurance does have a minimum, and to avoid mandatory crop testing we would still have some rules to follow to be assured.

if that’s to much then your only choice is go non assured.

SilliamWhale said:

Because our regulations ask for it. Whicj is not unreasonable. But red tractor add their own crap to it

Click to expand...

Dave645 said:

No, but if not assured (you still can be non assured all schemes are optional) it has to proven that it meets minimum standards is by direct testing of the crop, my guess is that’s multiple test looking for multiple things.
That and to actually spray you need to be tested and pass, the MOT is a NRoSO thing among others not just red tractor.
Some rules apply even without red tractor applying them. I don’t spray, but the contractor I use has to have all his certs and MOT’s I am not 100% sure what is required by law and what is just by red tractor? I do know you have to have a cert to spray chemical legally in the UK.

Click to expand...

You are missing the point here. None of this is required for imported Wheat or barley which we compete against. We do not get a premium for being Red tractor assured.

Fuzzy said:

You are missing the point here. None of this is required for imported Wheat or barley which we compete against. We do not get a premium for being Red tractor assured.

Click to expand...

I get you im just saying a 3 yearly sprayer test is a regulatory thing (I think)

Fuzzy said:

You are missing the point here. None of this is required for imported Wheat or barley which we compete against. We do not get a premium for being Red tractor assured.

Click to expand...

Ok imports still have standards to meet the primary one is that some chemical applications are restricted, if the imported crop is not assured it has to be tested. (This is not cheap)
That’s the minimum, I can tell you now, to have your crop tested every year for multiple chemical residues, will be way more expensive way of proving you meet import requirements than simple rules that by law you have to follow anyway, but without over sight you cannot prove in any way that could be described as assured.

all assurance by its nature is an oversight requirement, saying that someone is checking your following the rules.
Any less is basic non assured that would require testing to be used by any mill that meets Even the most basic import standards. And the testing would be at your cost. and it maybe required on every load you sell, without assurance, just like imports.

hope that helps you see assurance is not something that you as a farmer can give yourself. By its nature assurances always requires some level of Independent review, or trust, the only extra trust my version asks for is that your agronomist trust you are doing your job when you apply what they recommended.

and a few basic storage rules and meet the uk law on who is applying your chemicals.and a few clicks in a app every few weeks to say your looking after the crop in ways that make just good business sense, while it’s in storage. 95% of this is on trust. Just like RT is even if they don’t want to admit it.
Every rule that’s outside the remit of assuring the quality of the crop that’s the RT creep get dropped.

when you drop the ball, and a mill finds something that should not be there, that is the point you get suspended and have to prove you rectified the problem.

but off the top of my head unless you go about smashing glass into your stored crop or mix dressed seed with crop, or have small friends around for all night parties, I highly doubt that anything other than being out of spec will be a problem to mills. Not something that will trigger an assurance breach.
Even if you had a problem with the crop, what ever that maybe, there are still places that take non assured crop for uses like slug pellets and making rat baits etc, to get you out of a hole.

Ok the UK’s AIC mandate that all crops have to be assured, be them, imports, or from the uk, if mills wish to create assured feed or for human food from them.
imports get around on farm assurance by actually testing for chemicals and other requirements in the imported crop, that the importer is expected to do, the oversight that creates assurance that the cropiswhile this is currently less than uk crops it’s not less than the version I suggested.

what I suggested was a cut down assurance (which is still a mill requirement for assure feed etc) that was focused on only the things that imported crops are also required to do, while self cert would be great, it’s not possible even importers are bound by the tests which I assume they have to get someone else to carry out.

if that still to much your no longer assured so mills will favour imports over your crop.

The AIC is clear on the rules. At no point is non assured crops expected to be used with out the minimum standards of assurance or testing.

Gadget said:

https://www.aafarmer.co.uk/news/sta...-to-engage-with-red-tractor-consultation.html

Click to expand...

So the question is: Do we accept what all these companies say, with their track record in making hundreds of millions of pounds giving consumers what they want? Or do we go with the views of @Clive and others who are very angry that they have to get their moisture meter tested once a year.......

Gadget said:

https://www.aafarmer.co.uk/news/sta...-to-engage-with-red-tractor-consultation.html

Click to expand...

That sounds like big business don’t see it the way we do. Imports still pile in and they don’t come close to red tractor standards.
Or more likely RT is trying to prop up there narrative. In the eyes of the public.
If I had a large supermarket contract that requires me to comply to RT then the argument is made in cash to why I do it anything else is fluff, that only retailers truly benefit from.
Ask farmers who grow just feed wheat where there premium is coming from.
Especially when we easily meet import standards that also pile into the assurance feed markets.

The french farmers approach

Fact is you can be inspected by DEFRA at any time to check your spray records so they had better be right. Isn’t that an independent audit? So why do we need the RT inspector to do that job as well. And as said, if a qualified agronomist has signed the recommendation and the operator has signed the job sheet, all with ultimate oversight by DEFRA then isn’t that assurance enough?

DrWazzock said:

Fact is you can be inspected by DEFRA at any time to check your spray records so they had better be right. Isn’t that an independent audit? So why do we need the RT inspector to do that job as well. And as said, if a qualified agronomist has signed the recommendation and the operator has signed the job sheet, all with ultimate oversight by DEFRA then isn’t that assurance enough?

Click to expand...

No, you need another inspector to make sure everyone else has signed the form and ticked the box.
Apparently

FarmyStu said:

So the question is: Do we accept what all these companies say, with their track record in making hundreds of millions of pounds giving consumers what they want? Or do we go with the views of @Clive and others who are very angry that they have to get their moisture meter tested once a year.......

Click to expand...

The consumer doesn't want it. Hence the lack of premium over and above non assured or non red tractor stuff.

I could say farmers have a track record of producing hundreds of millions of tonnes of good quality food for 100's of years and yet some bloke with a clipboard is angry because they haven't calibrated their moisture meter.

What's important to the mill? The grain delivered on spec at 15% or the sticker?

FarmyStu said:

So the question is: Do we accept what all these companies say, with their track record in making hundreds of millions of pounds giving consumers what they want? Or do we go with the views of @Clive and others who are very angry that they have to get their moisture meter tested once a year.......

Click to expand...

RT is a bad joke to 90% of arable only farmers, the ones with contracts to supply food to those retailers will be more than happy to comply, and even as the rest of us as non assured in RT eyes we are, just as assured in reality to those that fill in all the RT paper work, the joke is retailers need RT to say we are. When we don’t.

And if it was as simple as a moisture meter no one would bat an eye, don’t try to over simplify a complex issue.
It’s not anger it’s an argument over the shape of bananas. Where the rules to what a banana looks like changes every year. Even when our bananas are the same as they were before RT even started.
The uk doesn’t burn down rain forests to grow crops or any other environmental disasters that the public are worried about, but if some fool says it’s an issue in the public’s eyes then it becomes one even when it’s not.

90% of retail is creating a problem, for the product your selling to fix. . .

The environment is a sales tool that is not needed in the uk farming industry, but retailer love it because it sells stuff, the jokes then on the farmer now having to supply info on how they are so environmentally good when zero has changed in reality, and no money trickles down to pay for it. RT will never work because when 100% of farmers comply their is zero premium to be had especially when AIC lets very poorly run import system hold prices down.

As far as I can tell RT is really just for farmers with retail contracts. The rest get forced to comply by unfair rules created by the AIC that don’t treat us equally with imports.

FarmyStu said:

So the question is: Do we accept what all these companies say, with their track record in making hundreds of millions of pounds giving consumers what they want? Or do we go with the views of @Clive and others who are very angry that they have to get their moisture meter tested once a year.......

Click to expand...

Yes , lets trust the companies making hundreds of millions.....they definitely have their suppliers and customers best interests at heart!

tepapa said:

No, you need another inspector to make sure everyone else has signed the form and ticked the box.
Apparently

Click to expand...

I think we need another load of inspectors to inspect red tractor as well!

It’s the ever diverging disjoint between the theoretical abstract office and media based world and the real world on the ground.

DrWazzock said:

It’s the ever diverging disjoint between the theoretical abstract office and media based world and the real world on the ground.

Click to expand...

A clerisy vs practical people