Unfortunately it looks as if red tractor UK no longer have the funds to protect their own brandI await the legal action from RT in the New Year....
But WTH would we want Oz oats... ??? Bizarre.
Unfortunately it looks as if red tractor UK no longer have the funds to protect their own brandI await the legal action from RT in the New Year....
But WTH would we want Oz oats... ??? Bizarre.
I can't wait. Each mill will want its own assurance scheme, so will each maltster and brewer and supermarket and candlestick maker. Why don't we have one assurance scheme that covers everything? Oh ..hang on...
Unfortunately it looks as if red tractor UK no longer have the funds to protect their own brand
That was one of the main principles for starting RT [allegedly], to avoid multiple schemes, but it has failed.
Most buyers already have 'bolt-ons' because they want to say they have 'even higher standards'.
It has continually been stated by RT that they want to keep raising standards which in practice means trying to meet every retailers demands which fuels the race for increased costs and evermore standards with no extra returns for the producer and ever diminishing 'improvements' from the extra requirements.
As others have explained very well, RT actually removes market forces from assurance which makes every producer worse off.
Unfortunately it looks as if red tractor UK no longer have the funds to protect their own brand
This is exactly why farmers are leaving the supermarket supply chain in droves.Rt has over 1 million in the bank so the loss is 250000 in funding will not sink them unless they do nothing about the loss of income
cereal grains that go to ethanol need to be proven sustainable source
if this was only available from the merchant that supplies them then the merchant would have suppliers over a barrel
supermarkets will also need a system of checking farms
they have a system for checking their own supermarkets which each manager has to comply with
spot inspections when their reputation is on the line the inspectors are strict on adherence
we may find that with out red tractor the inspection companies out source to the merchants and super markets with the farmer paying to be on the approved supplier list ( super markets already use this type of system with suppliers )
It means it's an Australian grain product . If it's not a protected name, it should be dumped immediately and not waste any more money on itThe ironic thing is that their fudging brand is so lame the only people who know anything about it are you guys who are paying for it.
The consumer doesn't know what the fudge it means. Why would they care? Ah red tractor. I see. A tractor that is red. Got it. Does it indicate an ethical purchase? A sustainable purchase? A vegan purchase? Is it palm oil free? What is it? British produced product? Does it indicate sustainable forestry or fishing? Fish meal free? Soya free? It's generic to the point of obscurity. It is not unique to a particular retailer either, unlike Tesco's finest or the like which they cleverly use to charge a premium for something.
This is exactly why farmers are leaving the supermarket supply chain in droves.
Speaking for myself I would much rather trade with small family businesses that I can “look in the eye of”, and do just that when I can.
I await the legal action from RT in the New Year....
But WTH would we want Oz oats... ??? Bizarre.
how can you turn cows milk into mozzarella? could that be a trading standards issue?Goes to Glanbia to be turned in to Mozzarella (& whey for milk powder by a third party) and then in turn to Pizza Hut, Papa Johns and Dominoes as well as some supermarket own brand pizzas
I don’t think there is any dairy contract that doesn’t as a bare minimum have a requirement to be RT assured
official line or personal?I can't wait. Each mill will want its own assurance scheme, so will each maltster and brewer and supermarket and candlestick maker. Why don't we have one assurance scheme that covers everything? Oh ..hang on...
You are right....Possibly because as a consumer of oats those Aussie oats look to be being retailed for 66.5 pence per 100 grammes. This afternoon I did the Morrisons shop. In which I purchased a 1 kg bag of their cheap oats at 75pence for 1 kg. So are they a premium brand well marketed at almost ten times the price of cheapest UK sourced oats. Any more detail of the retailer - health shop etc. As here is your answer I expect. I drive a Sunderland bus (Quashui) but I gather any folk drive cars from other countries that cost far more. So a UK farmer might not want Aussie oats here but a cute upmarket retailer may have a client base that doesn't shop in the basement bargain section of Morrisons, like me.
Thoughts?
They’ll probably just raise their fee to farmers for the inspection by £25 a shot and charge 10p each for stickers. The stickers along should cover the loss of AHDB funding.Red tractor claim they run as a not for profit organisation.
now they have a £250k hole in there budget to fill
at a £250k loss per year they haven’t long for this world unless they under go some changes PDQ.
So instead of one scheme have 20 schemes? What kind of madness is that? Produce food legally and if the processor, supermarket or indeed the producer want their own USP such as free range or forage only or zero microbial then so be it. We want less red tape not more. I have more than one customer I don't need more assurance schemes!If every buyer of UK produce has its own scheme then there will be a market for assurance, they will be competing for suppliers. Mill A needs suppliers that meet its requirements, it will have to attract enough that sign up to that standard, otherwise it faces possibly running out of supplies. Thus in order to guarantee its supplies it will either have to offer a premium price, or lower regulatory standards to attract them from Mill B's scheme. As opposed to RT whereby it gets the standards for free because the growers have nowhere else to go.
Its to farmers advantage for there to be multiple competing assurance standards, mills and processors cannot have all farmers as potential suppliers as they can with RT (and thus each farmer is competing purely against his neighbour on price). So there is competition on both sides, farmers on price, processors on price and the severity of their standards. The RT monopoly benefits only the processors, thats why they are fighting so hard to keep it a monopoly.
Madness.I'm glad I am not alone in my thinking.
The assurance scheme we have needs to wind its neck in before it it has a mass resignation of members. It brings zero benefits, zero increased margin for the member, has minimal relevance to the general public.I can't wait. Each mill will want its own assurance scheme, so will each maltster and brewer and supermarket and candlestick maker. Why don't we have one assurance scheme that covers everything? Oh ..hang on...
If the buyer want the product assured, they pay for it.So instead of one scheme have 20 schemes? What kind of madness is that? Produce food legally and if the processor, supermarket or indeed the producer want their own USP such as free range or forage only or zero microbial then so be it. We want less red tape not more. I have more than one customer I don't need more assurance schemes!