A Red Tractor Alternative

[Neddy flanders]

So instead of paying for assurance which bakers dont even use on their bread labelling....

could farmers upload 10-20 photos per year of their stores, sprayer, combines, records etc to a free photo sharing site. On submission of photos, you get stickers. Run by Farmers for Farmers. the public could even see where their cereals or beef comes from if they're even remotely interested.

just a thought

 

[traineefarmer]

I think we're at the point where we'd be better to argue for nothing. Trying to launch a new standard for farm assurance against an established brand like RT would be near impossible. Not least they would use their (our) cash reserves to aggressively market against any perceived competition to their domination. The easy argument being that their standards are higher.

It would be an easy sell to farmers, but trying to get retailers and processors on board would be impossible.

 

[Grass And Grain]

I fear traineefarmer is correct, but it'd make me happy to bin off RT and join a farmer owned scheme.

Make the standards equivalent to start with, everyone move over on mass, bankrupt RT, then chip away at reducing any daft requirements.

Most of the invoice fee is for the inspection organisation, which could be done in a much more efficient way.

 

[Robt]

This forum has what 40,000 members . So say 20% of them are cereal farmers that each produce so that’s up to 12 million tonnes of cereals. At £200 per tonne that’s ... well you get it. So tell them to fudge off. Where would that 2 billion tonnes come from

 

[Zippy768]

Just to play devils advocate..... we all suggest we are whiter than white and that we do our upmost for what we produce, and any shortcomings we have, we are fully aware of and intend to improve.
.......but what if not all farmers are like that and in fact need a RT inspector to keep them on their toes every 12 months.

Would a farmer owned (or similar alternative) not be liable if something were to be traced back to a farmer on the scheme. Then maybe 20 pics wouldn't really be enough to let them on membership, when quickly enough a certain standard would have to be met.

 

[Jackov Altraids]

In the beginning, with subsistence farming, you didn't need any rules as your own lives depended on good husbandry.
Then when people started to supply the locals, they could see how it was produced.
When butchers started, they knew and could vouch for the farmer.

Today we send our animals miles to a market, which are then transported miles to an abattoir.
The meat is then processed and distributed far and wide and we have to tick a lot of boxes to prove we are properly caring for the animals.
Doesn't anyone realise that a farmers livelihood depends on giving whatever his produce, all the care and attention it requires?
Doesn't anyone realise that the people with the most knowledge on the subject are the farmers with years of practical experience?
Can you think of any food scares that have ever been the fault of a farmer?

Perhaps we should get the Pope to sign a document each day to show he still believes in god.....


I guess what I'm saying is, if there are problems on farms these days, they will soon be noticed by someone. If you want to commit fraud, red tractor doesn't stop it and customers couldn't care less. We don't need red tractor or an alternative.
I do think there is a future for several niche labels such as organic, ethical, sustainable etc.
They would actually return a premium for a specific 'goal'.

 

[wanton dwarf]

Documentation does not affect the quality, quantity or guarantee viability of the food produced. That's down to how the land is farmed, chems, meds, welfare and the weather.

Food is checked by traders at the point of sale for viability. If no RT existed there would be no difference in the crops produced at all nor would the real checks by traders be any different.

RT are not liable for any crop produced on farms .. RT is mostly a waste of farmers time, effort and money. Perhaps the only valid point is that RT farms are basically tidy and clean (I hope).

Pictures ? They might help a robber spot which farms to target for the best return. There is no guarantee the vehicles are in the condition at the point of cropping regardless. Not as though it matters that much considering the real tests are done at the point of sale and directly affect the price. So a dirty trailer means a dirty crop which is most likely of lower quality.

All UK farms should come with a basic guarantee of Legal Pesticides, Medicines and Welfare standards applied due to UK legislation - THAT promise should never be applied to imports because it cannot be verified.

I do think the public, retailers and manufacturers should be invited to a tour of UK farms where the produce should be the main point not whether someone has tickets for the seed they planted, or has a list of dates when they "Inspected" their sheds. I doubt most sheds go for more than a few days not being inspected IMHO.

But a previous poster was correct there are some problem farmers who most likely would benefit from a closer farmer culture and welfare where they can get support. Getting into a situation where their ability to have an income is reduced won't benefit those people. Nor will the avoidance of mental help and support if it's needed.

 

[Farmer Roy]

err, why not ignore FA completely,

buyers - meat processors, grain end users etc etc all have their particular standards & specifications. I dont know about the UK, but i know our buyers have fairly tight quality testing regimes. As long as you meet them, thats all that matters surely ?

 

[Sid]

err, why not ignore FA completely,

buyers - meat processors, grain end users etc etc all have their particular standards & specifications. I dont know about the UK, but i know our buyers have fairly tight quality testing regimes. As long as you meet them, thats all that matters surely ?

Do you have any similar schemes at all in Australia?

 

[T C]

FA has lost on farm confidence.
I think there is a solution with a tiered approach.
A basic compliance check would be the entry point to check and advise where any legal breaches occur.
The second and third tier would add more specific requirements such as traceability or environmental considerations.
This would mean that FA provides a service rather than a confrontation.

The alternative of individual customer audits can also be a positive as it opens up communication between farmers and their customers. FA has put up a barrier to this conversation.

 

[Farmer Roy]

Do you have any similar schemes at all in Australia?

not really . . .
years ( 20 ? ) ago someone tried to introduce assurance schemes for grain & for beef, but I think the uptake was very limited & don’t know if they still exist . . . The fact I don’t know shows they don’t have much of an impact . . .

we are predominantly export producers, exporting into some very difficult markets, with a lot of competition from other countries, so we have to meet the specifications & standards of our buyers to keep those markets. We have to meet those standards, simple as that. FA doesn’t come into it.

 

[Hfd Cattle]

Let's face it ....an RT inspection pass is a bit like a car MOT only good for the day. All the disinfection tubs are nicely filled up and clean etc etc .
The whole thing is a farce .
A gravy train for the 'so called elite ' who manage to climb the ladder to a 'position of authority ' .
A bunch of ego filled tossers !

 

[An Gof]

This thread is a really bad idea. Arguing for an alternative just reinforces to RT the need for a scheme.
we do not need a scheme. If any buyer wants specific criteria then it’s up to them to offer a price where the supplier considers it worth their while to supply that in exchange for the consideration offered.

 

[An Gof]

FA has lost on farm confidence.
I think there is a solution with a tiered approach.
A basic compliance check would be the entry point to check and advise where any legal breaches occur.
The second and third tier would add more specific requirements such as traceability or environmental considerations.
This would mean that FA provides a service rather than a confrontation.

The alternative of individual customer audits can also be a positive as it opens up communication between farmers and their customers. FA has put up a barrier to this conversation.

Tiered approaches are another bad idea. Once available in time they just get ratcheted up And Tier 2 becomes the new Tier 1 and so on. This is exactly what has happened with RT, Basic food safety and traceability now only a minor part of the total scheme.

 

[Sid]

This thread is a really bad idea. Arguing for an alternative just reinforces to RT the need for a scheme.
we do not need a scheme. If any buyer wants specific criteria then it’s up to them to offer a price where the supplier considers it worth their while to supply that in exchange for the consideration offered.

The idea was that RT would do away with multiple QA schemes.

What I would like to see is the first set of RT standards we had to conform to and compare!

I have an additional set of standards, organic, i adhere to, I get a premium for that. Same as a Waitrose lamb producer or and Arla milk producer with Arlagarden.

 

[Brisel]

The idea was that RT would do away with multiple QA schemes.

What I would like to see is the first set of RT standards we had to conform to and compare!

I have an additional set of standards, organic, i adhere to, I get a premium for that. Same as a Waitrose lamb producer or and Arla milk producer with Arlagarden.

RT hasn't done away with other QA schemes. LEAF Marque, Nature's Choice etc etc. RT inspectors frequently do the produce schemes too - RT inspections are the shortest of these, so standards are certainly lower than some of the alternatives.

What RT has done is enable Trading Standards, Environmental Health and other NGOs like them to back away from farming, knowing that most farms are independently audited and have a set of standards in excess of the legal minimum. Try dealing with the Environmental Health people if you have a food preparation business and you'll think that RT on farms is a light touch by comparison. I'm not defending RT here, just reminding folk that RT's existence shields us from multiple clipboard wielding officials with no knowledge of farming.

Alternatives to NSF, SAI Global like the old Genesis scheme were just swallowed up by what is now RT. If you are going to compete with RT then you will have to have deep pockets and a lot of support as you'll be up against pressure from government, the big retailers and processors. There are only a few of them but many of us.

 

[roscoe erf]

Just to play devils advocate..... we all suggest we are whiter than white and that we do our upmost for what we produce, and any shortcomings we have, we are fully aware of and intend to improve.
.......but what if not all farmers are like that and in fact need a RT inspector to keep them on their toes every 12 months.

Would a farmer owned (or similar alternative) not be liable if something were to be traced back to a farmer on the scheme. Then maybe 20 pics wouldn't really be enough to let them on membership, when quickly enough a certain standard would have to be met.

like everything you only need to right one day a year

 

[roscoe erf]

err, why not ignore FA completely,

buyers - meat processors, grain end users etc etc all have their particular standards & specifications. I dont know about the UK, but i know our buyers have fairly tight quality testing regimes. As long as you meet them, thats all that matters surely ?

i do but i seem to be a lone voice in the wilderness even my hardened advocate @7610 super q went over to the dark side

 

[traineefarmer]

Just to play devils advocate..... we all suggest we are whiter than white and that we do our upmost for what we produce, and any shortcomings we have, we are fully aware of and intend to improve.
.......but what if not all farmers are like that and in fact need a RT inspector to keep them on their toes every 12 months.

Would a farmer owned (or similar alternative) not be liable if something were to be traced back to a farmer on the scheme. Then maybe 20 pics wouldn't really be enough to let them on membership, when quickly enough a certain standard would have to be met.

We've been in some form of FA continuously for nearly 25 years. I've posted many times on here in defence of RT as I have felt it genuinely benefits our business, keeps other inspections at bay and helps maintain best practice and beyond.

But right now I'm feeling sick over the new proposed regs. I'm thinking about the hours I have spent over the last two decades filling forms, auditing databases and writing plans and risk assessments when I could have been doing something productive. I'm a skilled engineer, but have dedicated myself to the farm as that's where my heart is, but what I could have been earning during those wasted hours as a glorified data clerk is really opening my eyes.

I'm also thinking about some of the dirtiest shitholes locally, where you wouldn't accept a cup of coffee for fear of ebola and the large scale "professional" agricorps who generously give the headland of our fields that border theirs a nice dose of AN in the spring and some glyphosate drift in the summer along with the watercourse between. All these premises have an RT sign at the gate. How bad do you have to be to fail? Or am I just crap at paperwork?

I'm done with it all. Hurry up ELMS - I want to be a park ranger.

 

[Sid]

We've been in some form of FA continuously for nearly 25 years. I've posted many times on here in defence of RT as I have felt it genuinely benefits our business, keeps other inspections at bay and helps maintain best practice and beyond.

But right now I'm feeling sick over the new proposed regs. I'm thinking about the hours I have spent over the last two decades filling forms, auditing databases and writing plans and risk assessments when I could have been doing something productive. I'm a skilled engineer, but have dedicated myself to the farm as that's where my heart is, but what I could have been earning during those wasted hours as a glorified data clerk is really opening my eyes.

I'm also thinking about some of the dirtiest shitholes locally, where you wouldn't accept a cup of coffee for fear of ebola and the large scale "professional" agricorps who generously give the headland of our fields that border theirs a nice dose of AN in the spring and some glyphosate drift in the summer along with the watercourse between. All these premises have an RT sign at the gate. How bad do you have to be to fail? Or am I just crap at paperwork?

I'm done with it all. Hurry up ELMS - I want to be a park ranger.

Skilled engineers have to have QA now even on farm buildings!