Red Tractor lies again

kiwi pom · Mar 29, 2023

fieldfarmer said:
Well he new you would give him traffic from another country defending something you don't have to do yourself. I haven't read on yet but I bet you respond loads to this post further along supporting this protection racket.

I've said before on other threads that RT clearly isn't working and needs to be scrapped and let individual buyers set their own requirements when they buy from farmers. You can then choose who you supply to and how you farm.
This may reduce the number of buyers you can sell to though, which for some, particularly grain farmers might reduce their current open market options.

Bury the Trash · Mar 29, 2023

FarmyStu said:
Interesting example. You call it a farce and it is definitely disliked by teachers. Parents on the other hand seem to like knowing the results. Even schools seem to like getting a good pass. Hence the "outstanding" and "good" posters outside them when they get a positive grade. Nobody likes being assessed, hence the dislike by teachers. But the consumers of the education service use the assessment to decide where to send their kids.

In RT's case, the farmers don't like being assessed. But if you ask a consumer if they think it is a good thing that farms are inspected for quality and welfare, I think most would agree it was. Of course, pretty much 100% of RT members pass because that's the only grade, even if they have a few minors to correct first. What would be good would be multiple grades, just like Ofsted. Failing/Pass/Good/Outstanding or similar. Then when you come on here to whinge, the 1st question asked would be "what grade did you get?".

The Catchment area we were in chose the School for our Children.

A lot of people think of Ofsted that Its a poor wasteful way of accessing schools as my Wife who is Staff will attest, time wasted not on Child education or care they do it differently in other Countries as i understand it.

and as far as Farm Assurance schemes go i know some of the best Stockman and Growers there are and they aren't Farm assured their produce is at least as good as any that red tractor puts a sticker on.

How can an inspector improve a product if they know less about the subject of the inspection than the person/company inspected does ? that doesn't make sense to me.

PostHarvest · Mar 29, 2023

Would there be any mileage in reporting Red Tractor to the Advertising Standards Authority for making baseless claims?

gone up the hill · Mar 29, 2023

Well if the RT logo is caught up in the scandal announced by the farmers weekly today then it will be the end of the logo/ farm assurance as we know it anyway!

gone up the hill · Mar 29, 2023

PostHarvest said:
Would there be any mileage in reporting Red Tractor to the Advertising Standards Authority for making baseless claims?

I would not worry, the TV advert is so bad that the only people watching it will be either nursery kids or kids in a primary school.

Robt · Mar 29, 2023

Scholsey said:
There is a lot of RT labelled produce that can be traced ‘field to store’ but don’t let that spoil your latest dig.

I can’t help but feel this constant anti NFU/RT barrage is like the last 10+ years of opposition government rants and raves about how crap everything is and badly everyone is doing their job without actually helping sort it out.

Yes but a lot is different to 100%

SilliamWhale · Mar 29, 2023

Scholsey said:
View attachment 1102298

Massively but I would rather have RT every 18 months then constant inspections from FSA, HSE, EA, TS, RPA, or mr Morrisons, Tesco’s, sainsburys, Waitrose, I hope the supermarkets choosing to use the logo less will force change and at the end of the day the supermarkets are RT customer not us.

FarmyStu said:
Interesting example. You call it a farce and it is definitely disliked by teachers. Parents on the other hand seem to like knowing the results. Even schools seem to like getting a good pass. Hence the "outstanding" and "good" posters outside them when they get a positive grade. Nobody likes being assessed, hence the dislike by teachers. But the consumers of the education service use the assessment to decide where to send their kids.

In RT's case, the farmers don't like being assessed. But if you ask a consumer if they think it is a good thing that farms are inspected for quality and welfare, I think most would agree it was. Of course, pretty much 100% of RT members pass because that's the only grade, even if they have a few minors to correct first. What would be good would be multiple grades, just like Ofsted. Failing/Pass/Good/Outstanding or similar. Then when you come on here to whinge, the 1st question asked would be "what grade did you get?".

No, farmers want something back from being assessed. Assessment per se is nothing to be bothered about.

Why shouldnt we have some money out of it all?

kiwi pom · Mar 29, 2023

Martin Holden said:
Interesting thread and posts. Perhaps the supermarkets use these accredited logos etc for “ethical marketing reasons”. Food supply crops up in the press all the time and maybe they believe they can differentiate from their competitors by embracing the logo fad. As others have said, i too believe the shopper doesn’t give two hoots about source. Perhaps the NFU ought to buy some supermarkets and have a go based on 100% fresh UK produced product. Rather like a massive farm shop chain?

It's a cover your arse as much as you can thing for many. For some processors and retailers, they use schemes to try and show a point of difference to win sales and contracts. Arlagarden in the dairy industry being one of them.
I think RT was meant as a bit of a catch all, to prevent buyers coming up with a ton of different schemes or requirements and allowing UK farmers open market access to their crops, which I think has some value to it.
Perhaps the alternative should be no assurance at all, but in a time when food safety or the products sustainability and climate impact is in the headlines, I think buyers want more assurance and traceability not less.
The other option is for every buyer to pay a bit more for their own standard and farmers supplying under contract to that buyer.
That doesn't seem to be what UK farmers want though, they want off contract, full market access.
How do you fix it?

SilliamWhale · Mar 29, 2023

kiwi pom said:
It's a cover your arse as much as you can thing for many. For some processors and retailers, they use schemes to try and show a point of difference to win sales and contracts. Arlagarden in the dairy industry being one of them.
I think RT was meant as a bit of a catch all, to prevent buyers coming up with a ton of different schemes or requirements and allowing UK farmers open market access to their crops, which I think has some value to it.
Perhaps the alternative should be no assurance at all, but in a time when food safety or the products sustainability and climate impact is in the headlines, I think buyers want more assurance and traceability not less.
The other option is for every buyer to pay a bit more for their own standard and farmers supplying under contract to that buyer.
That doesn't seem to be what UK farmers want though, they want off contract, full market access.
How do you fix it?

Put RT under market forces for meat and milk.

Get it out of the grain trade. Simple

kiwi pom · Mar 29, 2023

SilliamWhale said:
Put RT under market forces for meat and milk.

Get it out of the grain trade. Simple

Wouldn't be a grain farmer, would you?

So for example, if Arla said all grain for cattle feed has to be RT if you supply us with milk then any mills supplying Arla would need their growers to be RT, that might kill imports, but you still need RT.
Chicken, Beef, Pork suppliers the same.
I find it interesting that the group of farmers with perhaps the easiest time with RT are the ones making the most fuss about it.

But I agree with you, scrap it and let the market decide.

Drillman · Mar 29, 2023

kiwi pom said:
Wouldn't be a grain farmer, would you?
So for example, if Arla said all grain for cattle feed has to be RT if you supply us with milk then any mills supplying Arla would need their growers to be RT, that might kill imports, but you still need RT.
Chicken, Beef, Pork suppliers the same.
I find it interesting that the group of farmers with perhaps the easiest time with RT are the ones making the most fuss about it.

But I agree with you, scrap it and let the market decide.

That won’t work as I don’t believe that some of the ingredients that tends to go in animal feed is grown in this country or under rt assurance.

Grass And Grain · Mar 29, 2023

Scholsey said:
I fill in every survey, regularly speak to NFU branch secretary’s and asked question to Minette at a county meeting, if you think agriculture is the only industry with a regulating body with ever increasing rules I am afraid you are mistaken.

Personally I think every farm should have a minimum of Red tractor, admittedly with some of the silly rules taken out and try and reduce these absolute hell hole RSPCA cases you see on the news with rotten carcasses everywhere and mud upto their bellies. If that requires more spot inspections then so be it.

I'd leave it for the authorities to police.

Coffee shops display the local authority food hygiene rating. Customers are happy.

What NFU have done is got farmers to pay for their own audits. Coffee shops were smarter than the NFU. Coffee shops did precisely nothing, and are better off for it.

FarmyStu said:
I think it proves that it's supermarkets that are the driving force behind much quality assurance requirements. Constantly going on about consumers buying on price misses the point.

It also surely makes those on here who suggest a new "complies with the law" quality standard think twice? Here's a major supermarket stating quite clearly, that RT standards are the minimum they will accept. Ideally they want even more, as they state. So this lower standard that I believe the BFU advocate, would be losing customers from the outset.

...but they readily retail non-assured flour/grain/ bread. Reason they sell/buy it is because they can't get hold.of assured imported grain.

Bury the Trash · Mar 29, 2023

Drillman said:
That won’t work as I don’t believe that some of the ingredients that tends to go in animal feed is grown in this country or under rt assurance.

Soya could be a classic example of that and it can and will in some cases be Generically Modified .
can be other ingredients though
E.G My current sheep feed tickets have imported GM rape seed meal in it, it will be passed by Farm Assurance as an assured feed from an assured uk mill /feed formulating company .
Wouldn't be from this Country would anyway, because we cant grow gm crops

its a funny old World full of weirdness, double standards and hypocrisy that's for sure

kiwi pom · Mar 29, 2023

Drillman said:
That won’t work as I don’t believe that some of the ingredients that tends to go in animal feed is grown in this country or under rt assurance.

Yep it's complicated, I think RT was a good idea to give you access to all buyers, unlike say dairy where you supply a contract, but it's got a bit silly without actually being much of a standard at all, at least for grain farmers.
Time for it to go. Let the buyers decide what they want.

Anyway, Clive got what he wanted, started a thread with a dodgy tweet and picked up 5k views and nearly 200 replies, in 24 hours.
RT's good for business.

Tarw Coch · Mar 30, 2023

Sid said:
You have a choice on beef and lamb.

You get additional money for being assured. It's stated on the pickstock photo.

Yet others claim to be getting just as good prices for non assured stock in the market as assured stock.

Evidently there is a difference in the price Pickstocks pay for assured and non assured, quite how we determine wether one is a premium or the other a deduction I don’t know

Barleymow · Mar 30, 2023

Drillman said:
That won’t work as I don’t believe that some of the ingredients that tends to go in animal feed is grown in this country or under rt assurance.

Such as gm soya

Andy Nash · Mar 30, 2023

FarmyStu said:
Interesting example. You call it a farce and it is definitely disliked by teachers. Parents on the other hand seem to like knowing the results. Even schools seem to like getting a good pass. Hence the "outstanding" and "good" posters outside them when they get a positive grade. Nobody likes being assessed, hence the dislike by teachers. But the consumers of the education service use the assessment to decide where to send their kids.

In RT's case, the farmers don't like being assessed. But if you ask a consumer if they think it is a good thing that farms are inspected for quality and welfare, I think most would agree it was. Of course, pretty much 100% of RT members pass because that's the only grade, even if they have a few minors to correct first. What would be good would be multiple grades, just like Ofsted. Failing/Pass/Good/Outstanding or similar. Then when you come on here to whinge, the 1st question asked would be "what grade did you get?".

The difference between OFSTED and RT is huge.
In education you are actually measuring, against agreed standards, the actual quality of the teaching delivered to the pupils.

In farming you are NOT measuring the quality of the agricultural output at all. In dairy, your bulk sample tells you whether your milk is good quality or not. Not a farm assurance pass.

Also I didn’t care for your attempt to demean Clive’s ‘poor use of English’ or however you put it.
Does that mean if someone is mildly dyslexic, they should not have a voice?

Lincsman · Mar 30, 2023

principal skinner said:
I’m pro

kiwi pom said:
It's a cover your arse as much as you can thing for many. For some processors and retailers, they use schemes to try and show a point of difference to win sales and contracts. Arlagarden in the dairy industry being one of them.
I think RT was meant as a bit of a catch all, to prevent buyers coming up with a ton of different schemes or requirements and allowing UK farmers open market access to their crops, which I think has some value to it.
Perhaps the alternative should be no assurance at all, but in a time when food safety or the products sustainability and climate impact is in the headlines, I think buyers want more assurance and traceability not less.
The other option is for every buyer to pay a bit more for their own standard and farmers supplying under contract to that buyer.
That doesn't seem to be what UK farmers want though, they want off contract, full market access.
How do you fix it?

Not true, if Warburton,s bring me a set of rules to follow with a £20 premium I will seriously consider it.
Many years ago at a meeting they said they would like all hereward wheat grown from C1 seed, not a problem we replied, its going to cost you £15/tonne... it didn't happen.

texelburger · Mar 30, 2023

PostHarvest said:
Would there be any mileage in reporting Red Tractor to the Advertising Standards Authority for making baseless claims?

Well the claim of tracing field to plate is a fallacy at best but more like a blatant lie.

Bury the Trash · Mar 30, 2023

Andy Nash said:
n farming you are NOT measuring the quality of the agricultural output at all. In dairy, your bulk sample tells you whether your milk is good quality or not. Not a farm assurance pass.

Yes exactly, that's what this is all about Simply and truthfully put,
farm assurance clearly and categorically does not improve /add to quality of produce or respective price .

Red Tractor lies again

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

0 %

Up to 25%

25-50%

50-75%

75-100%

100% I’ve had enough of farming!

Share this page