Who has replaced Guy Smith at Red Tractor?
- Thread starter Chris F
- Start date
- Location
- Essex
You have to be nice to him if you want the rain.
- Location
- Essex
Benefit of the doubt and all that...
Kit Papworth
Member
I think this is highly unlikely. Norfolk is a long way from Stoneleigh and I think I have enough on my plate alongside running my own business.
Kit Papworth
Member
Hi @Chris F - I saw it on the RT website, applied and was interviewed along with a number of other candidates I believe. Thank you for your welcome - I look forward to engaging with members of the forum
He’s got a big enough business not to have to do stuff like this for money.
- Location
- People's Republic of South Yorkshire
Tactical place to post it as know most farmers never go there...
I wish @Kit Papworth all the best , this dislocation of our industry is harmful and unproductive .
- Location
- Essex
To be fair, we all knew Guy had jacked it in.
No doubt in due course we will hear why he applied for the job in the first place.
SilliamWhale
Member
How about we propose to Kit that the AIC enforce their members to give farmers a £12 ton above market price premium for RT assured produce?
I mean it must be of value to these mills or they wouldn't ask for it and AIC good at tying up their members it seems.
That way we stop getting angry and then Jim Mosely can then say with truth that there is a premium. Everyone wins all round, what's the problem?
I mean it must be of value to these mills or they wouldn't ask for it and AIC good at tying up their members it seems.
That way we stop getting angry and then Jim Mosely can then say with truth that there is a premium. Everyone wins all round, what's the problem?
@Kit Papworth
good evening.
only one point I will make. red tractor claim to have world beating standards.
So why aren’t we getting a world beating premium for our grain?
The rt beef and sheep sector are losing members hand over fist as there’s no financial advantge and the same will happen to grain unless you address this very important issue.
I’m sure no British farmer who is a rt member will object to passing on there bank details if you prefer to collect nd pay the premium direct to us.
In the event that red tractor are unable to negotiate a premium for there farmer members Im sure we would appreciate an explanation amd valid reasons as to why we should continue paying a private company for no financial gain to us.
End of the day as I’m sure you will appreciate we are all in business to make money, If there’s nothing to be gained whats the point of red tractor?
many thanks
Drillman
good evening.
only one point I will make. red tractor claim to have world beating standards.
So why aren’t we getting a world beating premium for our grain?
The rt beef and sheep sector are losing members hand over fist as there’s no financial advantge and the same will happen to grain unless you address this very important issue.
I’m sure no British farmer who is a rt member will object to passing on there bank details if you prefer to collect nd pay the premium direct to us.
In the event that red tractor are unable to negotiate a premium for there farmer members Im sure we would appreciate an explanation amd valid reasons as to why we should continue paying a private company for no financial gain to us.
End of the day as I’m sure you will appreciate we are all in business to make money, If there’s nothing to be gained whats the point of red tractor?
many thanks
Drillman
- Location
- the brecks norfolk
So what makes kit any different from tom Bradshaw, guy Smith or any of the others. They've all got big businesses to run yet still ride the gravy train.
I genuinely hope kit does do what is needed, I gather he's a very nice chap and indeed runs a very good we'll run business but I think it's just going to be more of the same, and so it goes on.
Let’s wait and see the results. No point lambasting him on here straight away. If he fails then have a go at him.
- Location
- South Molton
Majority of businesses advertise jobs within their business on their own website.
- Location
- East Yorkshire
i dont doubt the quality of the man but we have heard the same sort of thing before. Its just whether the mother ship allows things to be changed
Guy Smith said: “I’m delighted to join Red Tractor at such a critical time for British Agriculture. I’ve been Red Tractor Assured since its inception twenty years ago. Their standards have been developed over two decades and are the bedrock of our industry. We must continue to protect and defend these standards, and work to win the hearts and minds of government, consumers and the industry; so we don’t witness an influx of imported food produced to standards that are lower than the UK.”
were just 2 years on and no closer to seeing sense.
Guy Smith said: “I’m delighted to join Red Tractor at such a critical time for British Agriculture. I’ve been Red Tractor Assured since its inception twenty years ago. Their standards have been developed over two decades and are the bedrock of our industry. We must continue to protect and defend these standards, and work to win the hearts and minds of government, consumers and the industry; so we don’t witness an influx of imported food produced to standards that are lower than the UK.”
were just 2 years on and no closer to seeing sense.
- Location
- Yorks
This is the problem. The RT Combinables board work for RT. They're in the job to make the scheme more successful, retain members etc. Otherwise they fail their paid jobs.
If the whole industry let UK grain have exact same market access arrangements as imports do, then RT and SQC would stand to lose members (N.B. According to SQC website, AIC are one of the 8 members of SQC! - see link).
This is what we're up against. Industry treats UK farmers with equality = RT Combinables could disappear.
@Kit Papworth Evening Kit, really good to see you on here and listening - even before you've officially started the RT job ! Quick Introduction...Steve Ridsdale, grower from East Yorks, Committee Chair of British Farming Union, been involved in this combinables level playing field issue for last 18 months or so. Tricky for someone like yourself in a board position to answer every question, reply to all tags etc. Hopefully everyone will respect you giving the time.
A few things...
Imports get access to our markets with no on farm assurance required. We're not even given that option.
Imports have to pass gatekeeper (GK) methods (well, not always, more on that in a moment).
So what is GK? I'll try to fill you in with what I know. .Merchant/shipper grain assurance protocols. Think the two most common ones are called EFISC-GTP and GMP+.
Pages and pages of procedures and standards, VERY VERY boring to read!!!, and complex, with cross over of how one scheme relates to others etc.
First desire of these schemes is for grain to be farm level assured, but if not then the rules explain how non-assured can be considered to become assured under their scheme rules. Essentially lab testing for pesticides (although not sure which ones, or if there is actually a list), usual stuff like moisture, SW, Hamburg, the dioxins, PCB's and heavy metals.
Full suit of tests costs about £1k.
However, drill down into the rules, and you find the testing methods, frequency etc.
Different GK schemes have different rules.
Can't remember which says what, but one of them requires 1 lorry load in 20 to be sampled.
When it comes to ship loads, sampling for GK is done by GAFTA 124 sampling procedures. Google it and take a look. Samples are taken as the boat is loaded. Sampling frequency depends on cargo tonnage, but for 60k tonne boats iirc it's one × 1kg sample per 100t. So by time boat is loaded there's 600 × 1kg samples.
Let's imagine the first of those samples was a fail for Mercury ppm. Keep that thought in your head.
The GAFTA independent superintendent now takes all those 600 samples and blends them up in a big bucket. A sample is then taken from said bucket and sent to lab for the £1k lab tests. That first 1kg sample is now, on average, blended to 1/600, so although that load would have failed on Mercury ppm, the lab test comes back as a PASS.
The system is designed (due to the blending methodology) not to fail the grain. That's no surprise, as the ship is already loaded before the sample went off to the lab!!!
....So that's GK lab testing, sampling methodology and frequency. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the imported grain, but the point is it costs 1.6 pence per tonne for the lab test with no hassle at all for the farmer versus us having to be RT assured.
Imports under GK can access same feed mill as our RT grain. UK non-assured grain trades at a discount price to RT grain, and at a discount to the imported (imported able to access same markets as our RT grain).
There's another GK rule hidden deep in the standards. Get this....
GK doesn't always insist on the lab tests. If the flour mill has intake lab testing (and there's no list of what these tests should be, so presume lab test we'd normally expect at the flour mill - moisture hfn, SW, insects, foreign objects, protein, temp), then the full suite of lab tests isn't required by the GK scheme, as the mill intake is deemed as OK. So in other words, the grain doesn't need any farm level assurance or full lab tests at vessel loading. Nothing at all other than the normal mill intake procedures.
To match imports, we could take a sample from 60 farms, each with 1k tonnes in store, blend all those samples together and do a single set of lab tests. That's exactly what happens with the boat load. Grain from multiple farms, one lab test.
Or another good way to think of it is as a central store. One big heap of wheat mixed up from many farms. Just like a boat on land. If imports can do a single lab test on this bulk, then why can't the central store? It's exactly the same. But no, we're forced to be RT assured. That's unfair. It's not right at all.
Grain from every country in the world can access our markets via the GK method. There's just one country not allowed to use GK. Just one out of all the countries. It's the UK. And who says this? AIC on behalf of the feed mills (weather the feed mills agree with it or not), and the UK Flour Millers and Oilseed processors and Maltsters who are on the RT/SQC boards. Strange isn't it
People could be forgiven for using the word "discrimination" in regards to the industry requirements based on country/nationality.
So this is why famers are upset. The double standards. The discrimination. The unlevel playing field.
The assurance market hasn't been able to function naturally. It has been decided in board rooms. That's wrong imho.
Let's not dwell on the past, but look forwards and find solutions....
Here's some thoughts...
First thing, there's nothing wrong with RT providing high levels of assurance to the markets/processors who desire it. Fine, no problem.
Farmers often complain they jump through RT hoops but receive no price premium. There would be happier farmers if RT members saw a premium.
atm, AIC say feed grain must be RT/SQC, so even this base market of feed mills required RT, so most grain has to be RT, so flour mills are guaranteed to have access to RT grain. They don't need to pay any premium to get it.
Maybe if there were two standards accepted, import equivalent UK grain, and RT grain, then some mills (particularly feed mills) would be happy with import equivalent, but some may ask for RT. Those wanting RT would need to pay a premium, otherwise farmers won't bother with the RT hoops. A real price premium. Will mills want this? they'll say they don't because currently we're giving them RT for free. So there's one option - have 2 × standards.
Could scrap RT altogether. Buyers wouldn't have any choice, so would save famers a whole load of cash. I like this one, but don't think RT will like it.
Could vastly reduce the RT standards and make it some sort of import equivalence. Do we really need a H&S policy audited by RT? Do we really need to have 12 month NSTS certs? Is NRoSO bringing anything to the party? Do we have to record what time we washed the grain bucket? The important thing is the bucket is clean, not that we wrote it down. It's only written down so the RT inspector has something to inspect!
There's 47k cereal growers in UK, but only about 20k assured growers. That's more than half who can't access a feed mill and who will be getting price reductions vs our import competitors. We should work to give these farmers easier and fair market access.
In actual fact, handled right, RT could gain members, but not with continued inaction to tackle the issues. I'm currently RT assured because I grew OSR, but next year I'm dropping rape so I don't need to be assured, and I'll take the price knock from being non-assured and having no access to feed mill markets. The hassle of RT means no OSR from me and more non-assured OSR imports. Not very good!
RT currently tries to be all things to everyone. Is it a base market access standard, or is it a high end premium standard? And does it produce a price premium. I'd suggest it tries to be everything, but achieves neither very well.
Do we really need an inspector on farm each year? Couldn't we have a £30 desk top audit most years, then a quick check of grain stores and pesticide store every 5 years or so?
Couldn't the computer check most things?
When the RT inspector visits they check what we've written down. Pesticide records, trailer cleaning date, machinery maintenance records etc. What they are checking is a farmer declaration. They don't know when the grain trailer was cleaned, they simply verify that it was written down. It's simply a farmer declaration. Just like the mycotoxin score we declare on the grain passport, or the RED declaration we sign on the passport, or the declaration we give on passport about use of post harvest pesticides.
If grain trade are happy with those declarations, then why not simply have all the declarations (grown to UK legislative standards) on the passport? And if they must, RT could come check our stores every few years
Or if someone passes all OK, then extend their next payment and assessment to 2 years, then 3, etc.
In regards to import lab tests, UK legislative standards mean we don't need most of those lab tests. It's the same reason RT grain doesn't need lab tests. We have a risk based approach, and it's an approach our government and Food Standards Agency are content with. They deem grain produced to UK legislative standards to be safe for animal and direct human consumption. Local authorities are required to send Trading Standards to our farms to check compliance, and check we have written HACCP procedures in place for grain drying, handling and storage. If we don't pass, or amend procedures then they have the power to close us down/prosecute.
A rather thought provoking question is.... Is UK non-assured grain safe for consumption? If anyone thinks it isn't safe, please do say - it would be rather important.
Anyway, just a few thoughts to be going along with. Hopefully some of that might help.
Last edited:
- Location
- Yorks
Give him a chance.
As @SilliamWhale says @Kit Papworth , can RT get AIC mills to offer a £11/t premium, itemised on the ticket. They say they want RT, and they won't accept UK grain under GK. Ask them to pay if they won't accept UK GK equivalent.
Think Borda Bia have negotiated a price premium for assured Irish beef+lamb.
- Location
- East Yorkshire
@Kit Papworth the way i see simply is that
1 we have to have farm assured produce to access markets for our produce
2 we are competing with imports that dont need assurance for the same markets
3 its branded as a premium product but we never have received a premium for it
4 the cost and the mental stress it causes are unnecessary
5 we are governed by laws and red tractor dosent set the laws and dosent have power to enforce them so it goes back to point 1
theres some massive hurdles to jump to fix it and farmers cant fix it with out support from other organisations and the nfu own red tractor dont they so why would they go against an income source
like someone said if aic think it is worth something they will pay if not there just using us to pay for something they wont pay for and think is worthless
1 we have to have farm assured produce to access markets for our produce
2 we are competing with imports that dont need assurance for the same markets
3 its branded as a premium product but we never have received a premium for it
4 the cost and the mental stress it causes are unnecessary
5 we are governed by laws and red tractor dosent set the laws and dosent have power to enforce them so it goes back to point 1
theres some massive hurdles to jump to fix it and farmers cant fix it with out support from other organisations and the nfu own red tractor dont they so why would they go against an income source
like someone said if aic think it is worth something they will pay if not there just using us to pay for something they wont pay for and think is worthless
- Location
- East Yorkshire
they wont pay a premium why would they when they can buy and use imported stuff for less
thats the main issue sort that and the rest sorts its self