- Location
- Yorks
Should they?
Need to be tested if applying pesticides e.g. slug pellets.
Do they need to be tested otherwise? Didn't think they did, but stand to be corrected.
There's that many rules and regs nowadays. I can't keep up.
Wtf EU RED audit.
- Thread starter Badshot
- Start date
Need to be tested if applying pesticides e.g. slug pellets.
Do they need to be tested otherwise? Didn't think they did, but stand to be corrected.
There's that many rules and regs nowadays. I can't keep up.
kiwi pom
Member
- Location
- canterbury NZ
I have no idea.
I haven't looked into it yet.
Just really don't like being told to do something because of EU regulations when we're no longer part of it.
kiwi pom
Member
- Location
- canterbury NZ
Might only take a couple of hours in the office and allow you to keep a large market open for your crops, if you're selling them into the EU, don't you have to follow their rules?
Don't think anyone likes being told what to do do they?
- Location
- Moreton-in-Marsh, Glos
As I understand it, we have to prove that we do the Mass Balance, but not actually show the figures to the assessors.
I have a Grainstore that holds approximately 1,000 tonnes. I sell say 800 tonnes and when that is gone, estimated what I think is left and sell maybe a conservative amount I think there is left. Then again if there is still some left, until it is empty.
What is the point or need of actually writing it down? The merchant tells me how much has been collected and I can easily then know how much more there is needed to fulfil that Contract.
Only when it is all gone, will I accurately know how much was actually in that Grainstore. But not until then.
So why and to who does it actually really matter? And what business is it of RT’s whatsoever?
The whole point being that I do not want to sell more than I have actually got and be put into default of Contract.
But if I do, that is my fault and nothing to do with RT at all.
Recording Mass Balance is nothing but a complete and utter waste of time!
I have a Grainstore that holds approximately 1,000 tonnes. I sell say 800 tonnes and when that is gone, estimated what I think is left and sell maybe a conservative amount I think there is left. Then again if there is still some left, until it is empty.
What is the point or need of actually writing it down? The merchant tells me how much has been collected and I can easily then know how much more there is needed to fulfil that Contract.
Only when it is all gone, will I accurately know how much was actually in that Grainstore. But not until then.
So why and to who does it actually really matter? And what business is it of RT’s whatsoever?
The whole point being that I do not want to sell more than I have actually got and be put into default of Contract.
But if I do, that is my fault and nothing to do with RT at all.
Recording Mass Balance is nothing but a complete and utter waste of time!
No
but he didn’t wr
but it won’t take long so we should put up and shut up according to the RT acolytes. Which is hardly the point.
- Location
- People's Republic of South Yorkshire
If your not selling for bio fuel then why need to do it ?
How green and sustainable is a fuel that needs its raw ingredients to be hauled across the EU....?
How green and sustainable is a fuel that needs its raw ingredients to be hauled across the EU....?
- Location
- Yorks
Just for once, I don't blame RT for RED mass balance.
EU's daft rules. Can't really see how doing mass balance proves I haven't ploughed up species rich grass over past dozen yeara but hey ho.
Historic cropping records submitted once only would be more proof.
However, someone ought to give us a different option to RT to comply with RT (for those of us who don't want to be RT).
EU's daft rules. Can't really see how doing mass balance proves I haven't ploughed up species rich grass over past dozen yeara but hey ho.
Historic cropping records submitted once only would be more proof.
However, someone ought to give us a different option to RT to comply with RT (for those of us who don't want to be RT).
Not for red tractor yet
kiwi pom
Member
- Location
- canterbury NZ
Trouble is if you have another scheme, some buyers will want RT and some will want the other one. You'll end up doing both.
- Location
- South Shropshire
Record keeping for record keeping’s sake.
How many of us actually take record keeping for Red Tractor seriously; a good proportion is made up for the inspection isn’t it?
This whole shambles needs shaking up.
How many farmers abroad would stand for it? So why do we?
How many of us actually take record keeping for Red Tractor seriously; a good proportion is made up for the inspection isn’t it?
This whole shambles needs shaking up.
How many farmers abroad would stand for it? So why do we?
Whereas you have the UK and empire and boris to blame for everything that was/is bad your side the water, got to love the irony
Every industry is the same, records are kept to satisfy the requirements often bear little resemblance to reality
- Location
- north lincs
Surely the merchant importing said biofuel into the eu could tick a box to say it meets their criteria, just like foreign produce imported into the uk magically meets rt standards. Are Europe farmers going to have an inspector come round to see their mass balance calculations?
Sounds like usual uk gold plating to me.
Sounds like usual uk gold plating to me.
GeorgeK
Member
- Location
- Leicestershire
I think mass balance is the EU attempting to maintain the credibility of the biofuel/energy industry which is rightly suffering from bad PR. Used cooking oil is in such demand for biodiesel it's worth more than virgin so unsurprisingly cheap palm oil from deforested areas in Brazil is finding it's way into 'green' biofuel. Mass balance in theory links the green energy to where it was sustainably grown but as we all know it's very easy in some countries to get certified without meeting the standards.
Last edited:
That would depend if you can locally sell your crop under the new alternative scheme or not, for me I could sell all mine to just fuel production, it’s going to increases, that’s one of the reasons wheat prices are stronger.
I also think a new simpler scheme would hit a lot of the minimums for non human consumption, ie, what feed mills need in the uk, the actual requirements not fake RT requirements. If the new scheme hit both the new red2 requirements and current import standards for animal feed, that would cover most farms unless they have milling wheats etc, if they chose to grow human Consumption crops, RT makes more sense currently for them as a solution, rather than a very basic fuel and feed only new scheme.
Because it makes no sense to be in both unless the other offer everything you as a farm needs.
it’s not yet clear what any new scheme would offer farmers but a simple RED 2 compliant system I expect would be part of it, at the very least.
I also expect that a scheme would encompass basic assurance levels mills require for assured animal feed.
That opens up a large outlet for non RT crops, if an additional layer was added for milling crops and all the grades that includes, then it would cover all but, suppliers requiring RT only which very few are.
So a new scheme could have 2 levels where stickers used on passports can have different levels of usage so fuel and feed level, and human consumption levels, you get the colour based on the level of the scheme you decide to comply with, if a new scheme offers that, then most arable farmers will drop RT over night.
my guess is the key is getting the AIC to adopt the new scheme, if they try to block it then that’s the fight we need to make. But making a new scheme based on there current import requirements means that If I had to guess
Off the top of my head I would draft a scheme using current AIC standards for imports,
I would offer farmers a scheme that covers all the requirements, for every grade of, let’s say wheat, use the minimums already in place under current rules for imports, then offer farmers a scheme that offers the level of assurance they need for there current years crop, so animal feed and fuel use, is the new minimum, if that’s all the farm needs that’s the all the farm needs, as farm as assurance scheme checks.
If they need bread making quality assurance, then that’s the higher scheme version they opt for, this automatically covers all the other lower levels of the scheme rules.
I expect the majority of wheat growers would need animal feed level of assurance as well as fuel use as these seem interchangeable uses for animal feed level crops. And are both very basic requirements if we base it on import standards.
In a perfect world a new scheme would offer farmers the same range of outlets RT does now, but without the extra layers of red tape. The problem with a perfect work thinking is we don’t live in one, and the AIC may block any attempt to start a new scheme by block there recognition of it, and the 95% of mills they control will be blocked from farmers, not in RT.
its similar to a mass debate
- Location
- Yorks
AIC seem to be obstructive to the concept of anything other than RT/SQC for UK crops. There's no reason why they can't allow an equal to imports sytem. AIC are quite happy with safety of imported grains.
Make your own conclusions from those facts.
Note. AIC are on RT Combinables board. AIC are part owners of SQC. AIC are on technical advisory of SQ Meat. RT livestock schemes and SQ Meats only allow compound feed from a AIC UFAS mill (or similar mill assurance scheme).
P.S. There aren't any other assurance schemes for UK feed mills afaik.
Our nabours in Eire have to sucum to rt there government should not have allowedone it in my view.
If another scheme was set up and was really farmer frendly most farmers would dump rt straight of. Would it not be easier to chalanget aic over manipulating markets if they refused access to mills with new scheme.
When you have done the work for rt and go threw your inspection how many of you get it out and look at it etc over the year . I don't think many.
If another scheme was set up and was really farmer frendly most farmers would dump rt straight of. Would it not be easier to chalanget aic over manipulating markets if they refused access to mills with new scheme.
When you have done the work for rt and go threw your inspection how many of you get it out and look at it etc over the year . I don't think many.
looks like we should start here,https://www.food.gov.uk/print/pdf/node/145
The foods standards agency, if they pass our new assurance scheme
And we get passed the animal feeds standards hurdle and we construct a scheme that complies with these rules, then it leaves little room for the AIC to wiggle out, if it also complies with import standards they already accept as well.
The reason to publicly refuse the new scheme becomes slimmer.
https://www.food.gov.uk/business-guidance/earned-recognition-approved-assurance-schemes
When you follow the link basically the food standards agency approve assurance schemes, so from the looks of it we only need them to except a new assurance scheme to force the AIC to take it.
How far along are we about getting a new schemes rules set out, what needs to be done?
If we talk to the food standards agency and comply with the minimums that the AIC already use on imports then what does that look like at the farm level?
I would still suggest we go all in setup a multi level scheme, feed and fuel, and a gold standard, human consumption, at some point. Start aiming at animal feed, and fuel, then progress up to human consumption once the scheme is up and running.