ok, he's not doing it for the money or solely for farmers ,what actually is he doing it for then ?
Who has replaced Guy Smith at Red Tractor?
- Thread starter Chris F
- Start date
- Location
- East Yorkshire
if people got the choice of selling wheat at say 200 produced in accordance with uk rules or 210 for wheat produced to agreed red tractor standard we have a choice and that works
- Location
- the brecks norfolk
The progression!!!!
- Location
- People's Republic of South Yorkshire
- Location
- South Molton
And then they get told they are wasting levy payers monies on job adverts or consultations.
Keeps going round in a circle and they can never please all of the people all of the time!
- Location
- Yorks
Point 4.
We've had, who was it, user barleymow? is taking £10 less for his wheat because of his principles. Sees imported access our mills without farm assurance, but barleymow must be assured. Think's it's wrong (which it is), and takes a massive financial hit.
Makes my blood boil and makes me really sad to hear this.
In regards to feed mills. RT livestock schemes set the rules for what compound feed RT livestock farmers can use, and the spec is UFAS assured feed mill (or equivalent, although there's no other UK feed mill assurance scheme). RT have already said they don't think UK grain should need to be RT assured to access feed mills, so maybe RT can change their livestock scheme standards?
RT allow a feed warranty declaration for fa to farm grain sales to RT livestock farms, so why not just use this exact same declaration for feed grain to mills? It's a really short quick form to fill in declaring grain is safe, free of contaminants, grown to UK standards, that sort of thing.
The first 2 lines of words sums it all up. I will alter it a touch to cover a wider spectrum of red tractor.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, 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.
Anyway, just a few thoughts to be going along with. Hopefully some of that might help.
the rt boards work for rt. There in the job to make rt more successful, retain members etc, Otherwise they fail there paid jobs!
So as I see it red tractor are failing right across the board as there losing members not gaining them. Why aren’t they doing something about it? The beef and sheep sector in particular are getting a right hammering, we’ve just binned it and it seems rt aren’t bothered. You would think they would be begging us to stay or asking why we’re leaving?
Regualr ramping up of requirements and no thought to the loss of customers as a result! Strange way to run a business.
Was £20 ton less to put it on a boat
- Location
- Acton Scott, South Shropshire
I am going to print that off as my crib sheet next time I am explaining the situation to someone!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, 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.
Anyway, just a few thoughts to be going along with. Hopefully some of that might help.
Kit Papworth
Member
That is a fabulous and well constructed post which I am very grateful for. I totally agree that dwelling in the past won't help and that we need to be constructive and look forward. Thank you @Grass And Grain. I have ideas and am listening carefully so look forward to discussing with you in the future.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, 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.
Anyway, just a few thoughts to be going along with. Hopefully some of that might help.
Kit Papworth
Member
Thank you @graham mc . I am not sure that NFU derive an income from RT but I will find out if they do. The rest of your points are noted.
With the greatest of respect, does the combinable crops chairman have much of a say whatsoever about anything?
Is it not the day to day staff of Red Tractor who decide on all the policies? Does the chairman have veto power over all decisions? Can the chairman sack the CEO? Or is he the same as a student rep on the harper adams ag course, and just tells the lecturer that the rest of them don't like 9am starts?
Is it not the day to day staff of Red Tractor who decide on all the policies? Does the chairman have veto power over all decisions? Can the chairman sack the CEO? Or is he the same as a student rep on the harper adams ag course, and just tells the lecturer that the rest of them don't like 9am starts?
With out dout Exelent spot on.
- Location
- Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
Thank you for coming on and spending much time on here on the first day as Chair Elect , RT Combinables
I note you’re a new TFF member , so as a farmer welcome .
Notwithstanding the inevitable response you’ll be getting on RT topic, I hope you’ll stay a while and spend time and contribute on other threads and get to see what a fantastic resource this place is
I’m an interloper on an arable thread but I’d welcome your lobbying at RT towers for other RT sector chairs to come on here ; as a beef leviy payer and working in the pig sector , I’d welcome an open and direct dialogue as you have initiated with your sector
Welcome to TFF
Jeremy Perkins, Suffolk
Last edited:
Steevo
Member
- Location
- Gloucestershire
Not that new….
In fact first post was back in 2013 too.
There’s no way feed mills are ever going to pay a premium for grain that goes to feed animals,
so any talk of it is a smokescreen in my opinion . @Kit Papworth, stop and think about how this impacts on farmers mental health, it’s a pointless strain on peoples mind and bank balances , and one of the reasons I’ve decided to take early retirement from farming .
so any talk of it is a smokescreen in my opinion . @Kit Papworth, stop and think about how this impacts on farmers mental health, it’s a pointless strain on peoples mind and bank balances , and one of the reasons I’ve decided to take early retirement from farming .
Always been the case, with "our" subsidies essentially going into the maw that are the big processors and supermarkets profits!
- Location
- Cirencester
Yes fine if the market price is £200/t at the time, being docked £10-15/t for non assured is just a pee take
Does seem to be a rather high level of naivety I have to say, at the very least....Slightly worrying that you dont understand how it all works...
Thought as new chair you woukd need an understanding to get the job.
But a broad education can soon be gained here.... Best of luck in the new role @Kit Papworth and sharpen that axe...
- Location
- Cirencester
varied from £10 to £15/t here