- Location
- Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
@egbert you've got to work that in to one of your pieces sometime
GFC was to go ahead - now not going ahead
- Thread starter Vader
- Start date
tullah
Member
- Location
- Linconshire
You don't need to be RT assured if growing only feed wheat. Farmers can sell non RT feed wheat to the mill who can pass it on as an RT ration to an RT livestock farmer.
- Location
- Darlington
No customer around here would accept non RT wheat
which is a shame as the main customers are Ensus, who used to, and feed mills. Not sure if a dog food end user still does
tullah
Member
- Location
- Linconshire
I think non assured feed growers can go along with this to sell to feed mills or direct to RT livestock producers.No customer around here would accept non RT wheat
- Location
- Yorks
There isn't any point.
Works for farm to farm. AIC won't accept it into feed mills, but they will accept non-assured from every other country of the world.
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
JG's point is he doesn't want to have to comply with several didn't assurance schemes to keep his selling options open, hence he likes one overarching assurance scheme.
That hands control over though.
My ideal scenario would be either a single assurance scheme FULLY INDEPENDENT OF THE RETAILERS whose standard they all accept or else each has their own scheme but they all share 90% of their standards which are all set out and tested in the same way so producers can comply with them all at once, just needing to meet the other 10% appropriate to the buyer they chose.
Legal compliance should be proved by relevant public bodies (Trading Standards, APHA, EA etc) and the extras over that which each retailer are prepared to pay over base for should be stayed and tested in a consistent way.
The legal compliance bit would be done in a single go by effective collaboration between the public bodies responsible, maybe via DEFRA.
We did come up with a plan for that in the private conversation on here the other day but it seems to have gone quite about it.
I don't think we should be putting it out on the public forum just yet though.
Sorry, you miss the point I was trying to make that RT is a load of crap and doesn't do what it is supposed to. I despise it and cannot see why LA and FS rules do not apply. If I cannot get a commercial advantage and all it is doing is putting more power to the BRC then it should be scrapped. Most farmer's I talk to only want the same rules as imports have to follow unless there is some reward for going further if they so wish
They want farmers to be given area payments to then choose to subsidise their cheap food growing hobbies. The supermarkets are not on our side. Wake up.
We need choice. The vast majority of farmers being forced against their will to join farm level assurance must stop. Batters has said BRC members won't pay a premium for RT. RT equates to ever decreasing farm income and ever increasing workload. We have won the battle when we have the choice to dip in and out at will to sell at farm level assurance, trade level assurance, possibly no assurance level and cut out everyone and sell direct to the consumer. We welcome any other assurance scheme like BFU but only if we can choose as we please how to sell our produce from the aforementioned, we must not be forced against our will to join anything. Dealing with the unforgivable criminal AIC will be a good start. Then the BRC members.
This must be stopped what these AIC criminals are doing and by doing so Moseley,Tacon and co will see a collapse in their money supply, I suspect AIC will be hit in the pocket too. It's long overdue that RT and AIC take a big financial hit which is what they have done to us farmers for years.I'm using https://www.bfu.org.uk/ main page for the MPs to contact BFU and to read about AIC allowing cheap imports non farm assured, trade assured if that grain with some of it bound to be illegally produced under UK law. I'm also mentioning BRC members demanding UK farm assured produce yet sell from abroad trade assurance if that and bound to be some illegally produced under UK law.
I am a little tired these days as lambing here.
I just don't agree with SFI. I as farmer would like to produce food for a fair price for the the nation to consume not to grow wild bird seed. And I would of liked to of seen subsidises scraped altogether, at least then it would of sorted out the boys from the men
I am of the same opinion to be honest.
tullah
Member
- Location
- Linconshire
Done the same and just emailed my MP asking what he's going to do about it?
Better on his desk than mine. Also copied in Steve Barclay and Mark Spencer at DEFRA.
[email protected] [email protected]
Emails were rejected to DEFRA ministers. Was advised to email them at [email protected]
Last edited:
Brilliant stuff
After the election I will probably contact the MPs again. Action is the only way to bring about change.
yellow belly
Member
- Location
- south west lincolnshire
Often governments continue with the previous policy
1922 great betrail continued
1947 ag policy continued till 1975
yellow belly
Member
- Location
- south west lincolnshire
Ensus need renewable fuel wheat audited for sustainabilityNo customer around here would accept non RT wheat
- Location
- Darlington
So all of the imported wheat has been red tractor audited?
Can't we tick the box, saying it has been grown on sustainable land, like it says on the passport?
- Location
- East Sussex
Been a busy week here with the herd tb test etc........
So are we all happy farmers now GFC has been withheld for the time being?
It feels that way.
So are we all happy farmers now GFC has been withheld for the time being?
It feels that way.
- Location
- Scottish Borders
Could you make sure all the subsidies are scrapped in Europe while you are at it so we can compete on a level playing field with them aswell?