The Red Tractor ACCS referendum

SilliamWhale · Mar 3, 2021

snarling bee said:
That's what I said.

There are comments on here that the rules are broken WITH an annual assessment. To what extent do you think the rules would be broken WITHOUT some sort of check?

It depends how into it you want to get.

I don't think many people wilfully go out to break the law annual assessment or not. Very few probably. If you want to break the rules you will regardless of the annual assessment anyway. There is a reason laws are usually scrutinized and considered before making it law. RT just make up new ideas but with precious little scrutiny

If I spray with a broken nozzle but I passed my NROSO test 3 weeks earlier is that good or bad?

Humble Village Farmer · Mar 3, 2021

snarling bee said:
That's what I said.

There are comments on here that the rules are broken WITH an annual assessment. To what extent do you think the rules would be broken WITHOUT some sort of check?

That doesn't create the need for red tractor though. There are plenty of government agencies with jurisdiction over agricultural policy and environmental protection.

Drillman · Mar 3, 2021

@FarmyStu the one thing I will point out is if there is an issue further along the supply chain RT won’t back the farmer.

I had a load of grain rejected this last season on moisture, there test disagreed with mine and the merchants samples taken before the lorry arrived. despite me having my meter tested as per RT requirements.

Would RT back me on this? Would they hell!

To sum up were basically paying into something that only adds cost to our business? No quantifiable benefits to the farmer at all!

Would you tolerate such a situation if you were in that position?

I along with everyone else in the farming industry are still waiting for RT to give us a good reason how we would be better off by subscribing to there scheme!

And in business the bottom line ££££ is the important bit regardless of what your doing.

A lot of us have been waiting 20 years now living on the back of false promises of what the scheme was set up to achieve.

Chickcatcher · Mar 3, 2021

I am sorry that I take space of ACCS but I feel my comments may give ammunition for some to come and do me a mischief
@snarling bee
As you say and I agree with what you say. The World has got us all by the short and curleys and unless you are a member of the travelling fraternity or an illegal fly tipper regulation is controlling us.
Over the 20 years RT has been out there I have probably had more than 10 different auditors including one where the auditor was being audited, but I do have 2 different types of RT subscription. I have been fortunate to have probably the most decent human beings out there to actually undertake the audit some were friends before some have become good associates as well. Probably the most unlucky one was a Crops auditor who had done 3 other audits before he got to me at 2pm only to not leave me until around 3.5 hrs later this was probably 10 years ago, I am a bit further advanced now as a junior family member is administering it all as of this year 2021, her first one was on 6th Jan.
There has been some real eye opening posts within this thread of how different society is but from where I am One audit per year and the knowledge there could be spot ones is a damn site better than what was being expected in the early days of RT.
In those days I was having multiple audits from different Customer bases (all threatening unannounced as well) and in my Industry, there is not a lot of options of where you send the amount of livestock I produce annually. For those that don't know, it was damn nearly impossible to get any to wholesale markets 11 months ago. Non RT processors have had a very difficult time since.
I know by having a RT Audit it addresses the requirements of the Environment Agency regulations. The EA have just charged me in excess of £1400 for "them" to make a permit change, I wonder what the cost would be if they actually did the triannual Audit, it also ticks the box for my major Customer to supply most Supermarkets.
I fear the potential control that future audits will have, be whatever organisation is operating it "RT" or other, we will feel more and more of our collars held, there will be no known financial benefit for this just the hope that we will have some protection from imports being costed into the country at below our cost of production.
I offer a bit of info (gossip) a certain lady in government has the idea that the UK will have such high standards of production that the world will be falling over itself to buy it at a premium, so then the UK can import all its food requirements at a much lower cost and Sod the carbon footprint (they will make that up anyway).
There have been mentions of Whole life Assurance wanted for larger livestock surely this will be horrendous further control, degrading the freedom of what most Farmers would prefer.
I understand many statements regarding differing standards within the milling trade but could the UK fulfil Warburtons total requirements? Perhaps, AHDB and plant breeders should be coming up with the tools so we could supply the Quality of grain they need or even the quantity of field beans as Beans/Peas and Rape that have taken up quite a slice of incorporation into animal feed from Soya.
A question that just may get an answer, is there a greater financial margin in producing to RSPCA standard audits.
Another how many have looked on the various consultation and understand why EC15 is different for different Schemes?
That will do for now.
I may just even have managed to kill off this thread as usually happens when I Post

Dave645 · Mar 3, 2021

FarmyStu said:
Is it possible to buy commercial "RT only" animal feed? I have no idea. There is of course RT "approved" animal feedstuffs and I think you make a good point about an animal being fed non RT grain but being sold as RT itself. Enforcing a rule like this would, at a guess, increase the price of UK produced feedstuffs. Great for cereal producers but not great for livestock producers. Are you in favour of this?

Would I be in favour of an increase in prices of the feed I sell?
well is see this as, that is what I was promise when I was heavily encouraged and leaned on by merchants to join RT told me that I would get. Simple as that.

The premium we should be getting would bump up farm prices for us crop growers, as you said, Is that fair to livestock users?
I am sure they would be unhappy if they did not get a premium for doing so (which is currently so) but why promise me one thing then use livestock users as a reason not to. Either RT is worth something to the consumer or it’s not.
If it’s not then there is no premium to pass down to livestock RT members, so they cannot pass down our fair share to us.
The very fact animal producers can just use imported assured feed make the RT system at the farm level for cereal producers like me pointless as in fact zero of my crop is ever needed or used above the basic assurance that imported grain gets made into, by some Miracle of paperwork.

The system has been operating for 20 years it’s never worked as it was advertised the only people it works for is retailers.

FarmyStu · Mar 3, 2021

Humble Village Farmer said:
There is no difference between RT standards and UK farm standard. The only thing RT does is create paperwork and jobs for inspectors and a bit of extra profit for the people at the top.

Are you saying that RT standards are the same as minimum legal standards (UK farm standard)?

Humble Village Farmer · Mar 3, 2021

FarmyStu said:
Are you saying that RT standards are the same as minimum legal standards (UK farm standard)?

Yes

FarmyStu · Mar 3, 2021

Humble Village Farmer said:
Yes

So anyone who is up to legal standards is up to RT standards? There is no "gold plating"?

SilliamWhale · Mar 3, 2021

FarmyStu said:
Are you saying that RT standards are the same as minimum legal standards (UK farm standard)?

There isn't a lot of difference in actual standards. RT isn't anything magical that makes the product higher quality - its just a pile of bulls**t to be able to access the market.

If you want to argue that the man who records when he washed his grain bucker or when he tested his grain tester is a higher standard producer that's up to you. Most real worlders know it means nothing.

Is the man who runs his sprayer with a yearly nroso test but a broken nozzle for 2 months a higher standard farmer than the one who's sprayer doesn't have a yearly test but has since developed unrepaired leaks and two broken nozzles for the season?

If you get your head out of the clipboard and into real farm life you would see this

DrWazzock · Mar 3, 2021

Chickcatcher said:
I am sorry that I take space of ACCS but I feel my comments may give ammunition for some to come and do me a mischief
@snarling bee
As you say and I agree with what you say. The World has got us all by the short and curleys and unless you are a member of the travelling fraternity or an illegal fly tipper regulation is controlling us.
Over the 20 years RT has been out there I have probably had more than 10 different auditors including one where the auditor was being audited, but I do have 2 different types of RT subscription. I have been fortunate to have probably the most decent human beings out there to actually undertake the audit some were friends before some have become good associates as well. Probably the most unlucky one was a Crops auditor who had done 3 other audits before he got to me at 2pm only to not leave me until around 3.5 hrs later this was probably 10 years ago, I am a bit further advanced now as a junior family member is administering it all as of this year 2021, her first one was on 6th Jan.
There has been some real eye opening posts within this thread of how different society is but from where I am One audit per year and the knowledge there could be spot ones is a damn site better than what was being expected in the early days of RT.
In those days I was having multiple audits from different Customer bases (all threatening unannounced as well) and in my Industry, there is not a lot of options of where you send the amount of livestock I produce annually. For those that don't know, it was damn nearly impossible to get any to wholesale markets 11 months ago. Non RT processors have had a very difficult time since.
I know by having a RT Audit it addresses the requirements of the Environment Agency regulations. The EA have just charged me in excess of £1400 for "them" to make a permit change, I wonder what the cost would be if they actually did the triannual Audit, it also ticks the box for my major Customer to supply most Supermarkets.
I fear the potential control that future audits will have, be whatever organisation is operating it "RT" or other, we will feel more and more of our collars held, there will be no known financial benefit for this just the hope that we will have some protection from imports being costed into the country at below our cost of production.
I offer a bit of info (gossip) a certain lady in government has the idea that the UK will have such high standards of production that the world will be falling over itself to buy it at a premium, so then the UK can import all its food requirements at a much lower cost and Sod the carbon footprint (they will make that up anyway).
There have been mentions of Whole life Assurance wanted for larger livestock surely this will be horrendous further control, degrading the freedom of what most Farmers would prefer.
I understand many statements regarding differing standards within the milling trade but could the UK fulfil Warburtons total requirements? Perhaps, AHDB and plant breeders should be coming up with the tools so we could supply the Quality of grain they need or even the quantity of field beans as Beans/Peas and Rape that have taken up quite a slice of incorporation into animal feed from Soya.
A question that just may get an answer, is there a greater financial margin in producing to RSPCA standard audits.
Another how many have looked on the various consultation and understand why EC15 is different for different Schemes?
That will do for now.
I may just even have managed to kill off this thread as usually happens when I Post

Very valid points. I don’t disagree with assurance in itself. I think we are stuck with it as are many industries. If all this consultation process does is wind it in a bit then it will have achieved something.

tullah · Mar 3, 2021

DrWazzock said:
Very valid points. I don’t disagree with assurance in itself. I think we are stuck with it as are many industries. If all this consultation process does is wind it in a bit then it will have achieved something.

It needs to be wound in more than a bit. No compromises unless it's equal to imports.
Our crops assurance should just meet the same standards as those required of imports.
I disagree with assurance unless the definition of assurance means going with the same rules applied to imports, then I'm in favour of assurance. There's no point in this so called gold standard being imposed upon us as it means absolutely nothing except money and plush offices for those involved auditing us at our expense. Those on the payroll of RT are laughing at us all the way to the bank. After all that's the true purpose of it all isn't it. Then at the same time they are deliberately mixing imports with our ultra clean motd sprayer, insect counted , temperature probed, moisture calibrated, mouse counted crops.
One can't seriously say the rules applied to imports make them assured. RT assurance rules mean nothing too , they are just an expensive box ticking nuisance that can never be verified.

Humble Village Farmer · Mar 3, 2021

FarmyStu said:
So anyone who is up to legal standards is up to RT standards? There is no "gold plating"?

Yes

Breakthru · Mar 3, 2021

Dave645 said:
Would I be in favour of an increase in prices of the feed I sell?
well is see this as, that is what I was promise when I was heavily encouraged and leaned on by merchants to join RT told me that I would get. Simple as that.

The premium we should be getting would bump up farm prices for us crop growers, as you said, Is that fair to livestock users?
I am sure they would be unhappy if they did not get a premium for doing so (which is currently so) but why promise me one thing then use livestock users as a reason not to. Either RT is worth something to the consumer or it’s not.
If it’s not then there is no premium to pass down to livestock RT members, so they cannot pass down our fair share to us.
The very fact animal producers can just use imported assured feed make the RT system at the farm level for cereal producers like me pointless as in fact zero of my crop is ever needed or used above the basic assurance that imported grain gets made into, by some Miracle of paperwork.

The system has been operating for 20 years it’s never worked as it was advertised the only people it works for is retailers.

Ask any pig producer right now if they would buy imported grain or pay more for RT. If our standards allow us to sell grass fed beef to US at a premium excellent, the argument is why do we need all the costs of gold plating when its just mixed with any old crap be it GM or whatever.

DrWazzock · Mar 3, 2021

Drillman said:
@FarmyStu the one thing I will point out is if there is an issue further along the supply chain RT won’t back the farmer.

I had a load of grain rejected this last season on moisture, there test disagreed with mine and the merchants samples taken before the lorry arrived. despite me having my meter tested as per RT requirements.

Would RT back me on this? Would they hell!

To sum up were basically paying into something that only adds cost to our business? No quantifiable benefits to the farmer at all!

Would you tolerate such a situation if you were in that position?

I along with everyone else in the farming industry are still waiting for RT to give us a good reason how we would be better off by subscribing to there scheme!

And in business the bottom line ££££ is the important bit regardless of what your doing.

A lot of us have been waiting 20 years now living on the back of false promises of what the scheme was set up to achieve.

Same here. Nobody takes any notice of the farmers retained samples or his moisture meter readings. I had a load returned because they said it was 16.9%. I sampled it three times as they tipped it back in my shed at under 15% with my RT tested meter. Rang the merchant. Not interested in my readings at all. So there’s no point in having any formal testing of farmers moisture meter.

warksfarmer · Mar 3, 2021

Chickcatcher said:
I am sorry that I take space of ACCS but I feel my comments may give ammunition for some to come and do me a mischief
@snarling bee
As you say and I agree with what you say. The World has got us all by the short and curleys and unless you are a member of the travelling fraternity or an illegal fly tipper regulation is controlling us.
Over the 20 years RT has been out there I have probably had more than 10 different auditors including one where the auditor was being audited, but I do have 2 different types of RT subscription. I have been fortunate to have probably the most decent human beings out there to actually undertake the audit some were friends before some have become good associates as well. Probably the most unlucky one was a Crops auditor who had done 3 other audits before he got to me at 2pm only to not leave me until around 3.5 hrs later this was probably 10 years ago, I am a bit further advanced now as a junior family member is administering it all as of this year 2021, her first one was on 6th Jan.
There has been some real eye opening posts within this thread of how different society is but from where I am One audit per year and the knowledge there could be spot ones is a damn site better than what was being expected in the early days of RT.
In those days I was having multiple audits from different Customer bases (all threatening unannounced as well) and in my Industry, there is not a lot of options of where you send the amount of livestock I produce annually. For those that don't know, it was damn nearly impossible to get any to wholesale markets 11 months ago. Non RT processors have had a very difficult time since.
I know by having a RT Audit it addresses the requirements of the Environment Agency regulations. The EA have just charged me in excess of £1400 for "them" to make a permit change, I wonder what the cost would be if they actually did the triannual Audit, it also ticks the box for my major Customer to supply most Supermarkets.
I fear the potential control that future audits will have, be whatever organisation is operating it "RT" or other, we will feel more and more of our collars held, there will be no known financial benefit for this just the hope that we will have some protection from imports being costed into the country at below our cost of production.
I offer a bit of info (gossip) a certain lady in government has the idea that the UK will have such high standards of production that the world will be falling over itself to buy it at a premium, so then the UK can import all its food requirements at a much lower cost and Sod the carbon footprint (they will make that up anyway).
There have been mentions of Whole life Assurance wanted for larger livestock surely this will be horrendous further control, degrading the freedom of what most Farmers would prefer.
I understand many statements regarding differing standards within the milling trade but could the UK fulfil Warburtons total requirements? Perhaps, AHDB and plant breeders should be coming up with the tools so we could supply the Quality of grain they need or even the quantity of field beans as Beans/Peas and Rape that have taken up quite a slice of incorporation into animal feed from Soya.
A question that just may get an answer, is there a greater financial margin in producing to RSPCA standard audits.
Another how many have looked on the various consultation and understand why EC15 is different for different Schemes?
That will do for now.
I may just even have managed to kill off this thread as usually happens when I Post

The RT audit doesn’t stop other inspections though. Far from it in fact.

We’ve had the EA, RPA, NE, Trading Standards, Environmental Health and HSE and none of them were interested when I showed them the RT pass certificate.

So as a grain farmer selling grain that gets mixed into a pile imported from abroad, I get absolutely nothing from being a RT member other than more paperwork that other far more important and powerful government bodies have zero interest in. I’ve no issue being inspected by all the above as it’s part of the job. RT inspections on the other hand are not a legal requirement when the country is importing produce that does not meet the RT rules.

Its just a total con .

Dave645 · Mar 4, 2021

Breakthru said:
Ask any pig producer right now if they would buy imported grain or pay more for RT. If our standards allow us to sell grass fed beef to US at a premium excellent, the argument is why do we need all the costs of gold plating when its just mixed with any old crap be it GM or whatever.

I agree RT want to give the illusion that crops need to be RT assured to be fit to be animal feed when clearly they don’t. Why force me to pay every year and do piles of paper work when it’s going to be mixed with imports and sold as assured anyway not RT assured. With no premium over imported crops. The moment it’s cheaper to import they drop the price they offer uk farmers.

Dave645 · Mar 4, 2021

The core of RT is just sensible stuff which everyone in there right mind is doing anyway, the difference with RT is they require written proof, or records, and now piles of new rubbish about employee training emergency plans etc etc the bulk are now pointless paper work that have no contribution to the actual quality of the crop.
Who in there right mind rushes back to there office to fill in paper work, every time they do something notable or required to be noted.

For me crop assurance is fine, but RT is no longer that. Next it will want to know what my farms carbon foot print is, then what measures I am taking to reduce it, then force me to reduce it, then make it a requirement in am carbon neutral, then have a carbon surplus to export or sell. All in the name of crop assurance.
Non of those are crop assurance they are marketing or environmental requirements.
But should I be forced to pay for a scheme under the banner of assurance for complying with things that are not assurance of crop quality when 99% of feed wheat grown under it then just get mixed with imports and get called assured and sold to RT animal farmers. . .

I see it as we should be paid every year, with a tangible sum of money, and that’s the compensation for jumping through the those RT hoops, to help retailers sell our produce at a profit, as retailers cannot be trusted to pass it down because there is no system in place to make them. Farmers get robbed year on year by retailers so if they cannot be trusted to pass profits down then someone else has to and bill it to retailers.
They are happy to say RT is important let them pay me for the scheme they want me to be in.
Make it actually work as advertised then I will happily fill in the pointless paper work.
What I want is £5 per tonne for every tonne I sell every year. And maybe more for human consumption crops. And free to be in it.

And the same for animal farmers a fixed amount per head depending on the animal value and the scheme is free.
To the user so if RT add some new rubbish at the request of retailers and consumers, the retailers and consumers pay for it but the farmer gets his premium for complying to the new RT rules.
That is assurance no one will want to break the rules because they will lose tangible money, and it’s free to be in. So we get paid as promised to comply.

Then and only then will RT work for uk farmers, and will the consumer and retailer be made to pay for the premiums they request, as others have said the consumer is always right. Now the consumer has to put there money where there mouth is. If they want it they pay for it, if the retailer see value in it they pay for it.
It’s as simple as that.

As long as I see my premium I am happy to comply if I wish to get that premium.

Grass And Grain · Mar 4, 2021

AIC replied to our question...

AIC letter, Request to use 'Gatekeeper' method for assuring UK grain.

The following question has been put to the Agricultural Industries Confederation in an email dated 22/02/2021... We've had farmers asking if we might put a specific question to you. I note in your earlier correspondence the 'gatekeeper' methodology used to ensure the safety of imported...

thefarmingforum.co.uk

Well, I say replied, not entirely certain they directly answered the question.

Edit. But they have said they'll discuss it at upcoming meetings.

stroller · Mar 4, 2021

I think its a polite way of telling you to jog on.

Green grower · Mar 4, 2021

DrWazzock said:
How many times does it need saying that just because boxes are ticked and records written it does not mean that anything has actually been done on the ground. This blind faith in bureaucracy astonishes me. Maybe it works in corporate staffing structures where there is peer review and supervisory verification that tasks recorded have actually been done but in sole trader businesses as many farms now are, it is meaningless window dressing.
And then there is the sprayer MOT idiotically transposed directly from the world of motoring because that’s the only simplistic world these people understand. Once in three years would be enough to check structural items like chassis and tank. The rest is inspected and maintained, modified and adjusted every time we take the machine out. It really would be a race to the bottom if we relied on the annual MOT and used it for the year without checking anything ourselves. As I say, it’s nothing more than meaningless whitewash to appease the moaners and haters of all things agricultural who never will be satisfied and should be told to go and mind their own business.

Any sprayer operator worth his salt knows when there's a problem with with equipment he's using

The Red Tractor ACCS referendum

Would you leave or remain a Red Tractor ACCS member ?

Yes, I would resign my Red Tractor (ACCS) membership and join a new "equal to imports" Scheme

No, I would remain in the Red Tractor scheme

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