Guy Smith's response to FW article on AIC rules.

Drillman

Member
Mixed Farmer
The simplest way to protest is to stop paying to be in the scheme and sell "UK farm QUALITY ". It's the only way to bring this to an end. It's also the least time consuming and the most legal.

Most people joined the red tractor for no better reason than because it seemed like a good idea at the time. Seems like a good idea to get out now. So cancel your direct debit.

It's a big step but ultimately it's the only one guaranteed to work.

We can talk about something else then.
Fixed that for you👍
 

Farmer Ed

Member
Oh Guy. What are we going to do with you. I liked your articles years ago in the Arable magazine.(y) Your tales of owning a Ford 7000 elevated you to god like status.:cool:
But then you got involved with the NFU and became snooty and aloof.:headphone: Full credit to you for venturing down to the Southwest to suffer the wrath of GUTH however.:eek:
Then you got involved with Red Tractor and lost the plot completely.💸💸💸💸💸

Resign your post immediately, save face, and we can draw a line under this whole nasty business, and move on.:joyful:
I instantly lose respect for farmers when i see publicity shots of them wearing a business suit!
 

Dave645

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
N Lincs
Ok so far my emails have been bouncing around departments in the food agency, one says not them try these, they say not ustry them again.
It would seem that the food standards agency are a headless horseman.
Riding around with no clue what they actually do.

from a look of it, as along as it’s not contaminated with anything poisonous then the food agency doesn’t step in.

While we are in talks with all the main players in the industry, what about trying to do something about contract standards,

the 15% moisture, bushel weight etc.
As far as I remember 15% moisture was stated because intervention storage required wheat to be under 15% moisture to be excepted for intervention when was the last load of wheat that required to be stored in intervention?
While I am fine with standard specs for wheat, I am not fine with the double standard system we get a claim for over 15% moisture but zero for being under, yet the trade use this as a big stick against farmers all the time, where is the balance the extra for being better than spec, if they can penalise for being over 15% then they can use that money to reward under spec.
While in theory you shouldn’t supply better than spec, and if you have better try to sell it better, but how hard is that, when has anyone actually gained for being better than spec?
If they can penalise for being outside spec then there should be value for being better than spec.

You would think our supporters RT the NFU etc (lol) could sort that, have fixed contracts with pre agreed terms that work both ways, re look at the use of 15% moisture level as a claim threshold, and the penalties for being over, the reality is what difference for short term storage has 16% moisture wheat, over 15% I would guess very little, now export crops have to meet export requirements set by the purchaser, but feed going to uk feed mills? I doubt very much other than the weight difference between 15% and 16% moisture it makes any difference to the mill.
Yet they get to deduct like they are incurring a great cost taking wheat at over 15% moisture, which we all know is not true.
 
Last edited:

An Gof

Member
Location
Cornwall
I instantly lose respect for farmers when i see publicity shots of them wearing a business suit!

You need to dress appropriate to the circumstances. Wouldn’t look good turning up at Portcullis House to give evidence to an EFRA committe in a John Deere boiler suit and turned down wellies. 🤣
 

Humble Village Farmer

Member
BASE UK Member
Location
Essex
Ok so far my emails have been bouncing around departments in the food agency, one says not them try these, they say not ustry them again.
It would seem that the food standards agency are a headless horseman.
Riding around with no clue what they actually do.

from a look of it, as along as it’s not contaminated with anything poisonous then the food agency doesn’t step in.

While we are in talks with all the main players in the industry, what about trying to do something about contract standards,

the 15% moisture, bushel weight etc.
As far as I remember 15% moisture was stated because intervention storage required wheat to be under 15% moisture to be excepted for intervention when was the last load of wheat that required to be stored in intervention?
While I am fine with standard specs for wheat, I am not fine with the double standard system we get a claim for over 15% moisture but zero for being under, yet the trade use this as a big stick against farmers all the time, where is the balance the extra for being better than spec, if they can penalise for being over 15% then they can use that money to reward under spec.
While in theory you shouldn’t supply better than spec, and if you have better try to sell it better, but how hard is that, when has anyone actually gained for being better than spec?
If they can penalise for being outside spec then there should be value for being better than spec.

You would think our supporters RT the NFU etc (lol) could sort that, have fixed contracts with pre agreed terms that work both ways, re look at the use of 15% moisture level as a claim threshold, and the penalties for being over, the reality is what difference for short term storage has 16% moisture wheat, over 15% I would guess very little, now export crops have to meet export requirements set by the purchaser, but feed going to uk feed mills? I doubt very much other than the weight difference between 15% and 16% moisture it makes any difference to the mill.
Yet they get to deduct like they are incurring a great cost taking wheat at over 15% moisture, which we all know is not true.
Thanks Dave, for doing the digging on that.

It's looking more and more like there are no tests done on imports, after all tests cost money, so why bother?

You would think that the NFU would have something to say about the moisture claim situation, but as they are owned by trade, processing and retail corporations, they can't. They are the non farmers union.
 

Grass And Grain

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Yorks
Thanks Dave, for doing the digging on that.

It's looking more and more like there are no tests done on imports, after all tests cost money, so why bother?

You would think that the NFU would have something to say about the moisture claim situation, but as they are owned by trade, processing and retail corporations, they can't. They are the non farmers union.
Greenhouse gas saving if the moisture spec was slightly raised.
 

farmerm

Member
Location
Shropshire
The simplest way to protest is to stop paying to be in the scheme and sell "UK farm standard". It's the only way to bring this to an end. It's also the least time consuming and the most legal.

Most people joined the red tractor for no better reason than because it seemed like a good idea at the time. Seems like a good idea to get out now. So cancel your direct debit.

It's a big step but ultimately it's the only one guaranteed to work.

We can talk about something else then.
er when did it ever seem a good idea, we joined only when it effectively became mandatory if we wished to stay in business :scratchhead:
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 79 42.0%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 66 35.1%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 16.0%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 7 3.7%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,291
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top