AHDB Article: Assurance of imported grain

Grass And Grain

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Yorks
I've pretty much come to the conclusion that they are all disingenuous and constantly try to bluff themselves out of tight corners.Why AHDB don't want to represent the majority of their levy payers is beyond me,I just don't understand.
I think it's because they've given a couple of million £££ to RT (to get RT out of a defecit situation imho). So now they don't want to see that money wasted by giving farmers an alternative which would reduce RT members and have different assurance schemes.

Now if AHDB ONLY give sub to RT does that stifle competition in the FA marketplace? I think it must have an effect. Remember, RT is a private company.
 

teslacoils

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lincolnshire
We pay a compulsory levy.....

To a company who then give a sub.....

To a company (part owned by the NFU).....

That is supposed to be voluntary, but is infact defacto mandatory.....

That we pay to be members of.....

That allows us to access the same markets that imports do without the cost. And imply we should be pleased we don't have the same regulatory burden as third countries do.

That's then kept in place by the NFU, aic, ahdb all refusing to engage with farmers.

That's the Ahdb who's stated aims are to develop access to markets and increase your efficiency. That's by a group who are attempting to "improv[e] transparency, efficiency and accountability." By the way, they're doing that by paying external consultants to engage with stakeholders.

Broken record
Broken aims
Broken ahdb

You need to wake up and smell the corporate junket free coffee. These organisations are intertwined like tentacles. They won't change from inside. When you get asked to consider their future, you should consider if they have a future.

#adhdballot
 

tullah

Member
Location
Linconshire
We pay a compulsory levy.....

To a company who then give a sub.....

To a company (part owned by the NFU).....

That is supposed to be voluntary, but is infact defacto mandatory.....

That we pay to be members of.....

That allows us to access the same markets that imports do without the cost. And imply we should be pleased we don't have the same regulatory burden as third countries do.

That's then kept in place by the NFU, aic, ahdb all refusing to engage with farmers.

That's the Ahdb who's stated aims are to develop access to markets and increase your efficiency. That's by a group who are attempting to "improv[e] transparency, efficiency and accountability." By the way, they're doing that by paying external consultants to engage with stakeholders.

Broken record
Broken aims
Broken ahdb

You need to wake up and smell the corporate junket free coffee. These organisations are intertwined like tentacles. They won't change from inside. When you get asked to consider their future, you should consider if they have a future.

#adhdballot
Nobody can continue to say but they do a good job for us all generally because they clearly don't. They've been found out and they have to go...ALL OF THEM and NOW.
It needs big media coverage. Where would farming be without Tff. We would be left reading biased propaganda in all the journals praising these thieves for doing what is not good for us all.
 
Last edited:

texelburger

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Herefordshire
I think it's because they've given a couple of million £££ to RT (to get RT out of a defecit situation imho). So now they don't want to see that money wasted by giving farmers an alternative which would reduce RT members and have different assurance schemes.

Now if AHDB ONLY give sub to RT does that stifle competition in the FA marketplace? I think it must have an effect. Remember, RT is a private company.
So,in effect,the money that farmers give ADHB through levies is being used to work against the majority of levy payers.I don't think I've ever come across a situation like this in my 46 years of farming.
AHDB "Thank you non assured levy payers for your levies,we're now going to use this to screw the f##k out of you.There you go Mr. RT have this levy money to increase burden and regulation on your members and to screw non assured ones"
 

Steevo

Member
Location
Gloucestershire
We pay a compulsory levy.....

To a company who then give a sub.....

To a company (part owned by the NFU).....

That is supposed to be voluntary, but is infact defacto mandatory.....

That we pay to be members of.....

That allows us to access the same markets that imports do without the cost. And imply we should be pleased we don't have the same regulatory burden as third countries do.

That's then kept in place by the NFU, aic, ahdb all refusing to engage with farmers.

That's the Ahdb who's stated aims are to develop access to markets and increase your efficiency. That's by a group who are attempting to "improv[e] transparency, efficiency and accountability." By the way, they're doing that by paying external consultants to engage with stakeholders.

Broken record
Broken aims
Broken ahdb

You need to wake up and smell the corporate junket free coffee. These organisations are intertwined like tentacles. They won't change from inside. When you get asked to consider their future, you should consider if they have a future.

#adhdballot

Have you also not missed the fact that they are waving through the imported product without standards or tests….just a veil that they might/could/are able to be tested?
 

tullah

Member
Location
Linconshire
So,in effect,the money that farmers give ADHB through levies is being used to work against the majority of levy payers.I don't think I've ever come across a situation like this in my 46 years of farming.
AHDB "Thank you non assured levy payers for your levies,we're now going to use this to screw the f##k out of you.There you go Mr. RT have this levy money to increase burden and regulation on your members and to screw non assured ones"
What a wicked immoral lot.
 

Grass And Grain

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Yorks
This↓↓↓

We pay a compulsory levy.....

To a company who then give a sub.....

To a company (part owned by the NFU).....

That is supposed to be voluntary, but is infact defacto mandatory.....

That we pay to be members of.....

That allows us to access the same markets that imports do without the cost. And imply we should be pleased we don't have the same regulatory burden as third countries do.

That's then kept in place by the NFU, aic, ahdb all refusing to engage with farmers.

That's the Ahdb who's stated aims are to develop access to markets and increase your efficiency. That's by a group who are attempting to "improv[e] transparency, efficiency and accountability." By the way, they're doing that by paying external consultants to engage with stakeholders.

Broken record
Broken aims
Broken ahdb

You need to wake up and smell the corporate junket free coffee. These organisations are intertwined like tentacles. They won't change from inside. When you get asked to consider their future, you should consider if they have a future.

#adhdballot

So,in effect,the money that farmers give ADHB through levies is being used to work against the majority of levy payers.I don't think I've ever come across a situation like this in my 46 years of farming.
AHDB "Thank you non assured levy payers for your levies,we're now going to use this to screw the f##k out of you.There you go Mr. RT have this levy money to increase burden and regulation on your members and to screw non assured ones"
 

Grass And Grain

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Yorks
It's alright lads, UK Flour Millers say...

"The lack of a universal farm assurance scheme means that imported wheat is subject to a much more rigorous system of checks and tests than home-grown. In addition to checks on technical specification, a sample will be taken on each lot of 200 tonnes and tested for a full suite of pesticide residues, mycotoxins, and other potential contaminants at the seller’s expense."

Of course they sample each load for HFN, protein etc, but my man says he got one assurance lab test result per 60,000t. Not one every 200t.

The GAFTA sampling rules say take a 1kg sample every 50 to 100t onboarded, put all those samples in a bucket and mix them up, take a sub sample and send it to the lab. So on a 60,000t cargo the final analysis is 1/600 dilution of all the original samples.

So the blending/dilution means it's never going to fail.
 

graham mc

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
East Yorkshire
can we keep the pressure on ahdb by calling a vote before they get the legislation changed. This shows we cant trust them and knowing them there working behind the scenes to change the voting system. if we can pick them off one by one we will keep heading the right direction. They have power in strength by working together and no matter what picture they try to paint you can be sure from what weve scene they are working together.

Pick the easy prey first and as we get the weaker out of the way the stronger wont be as strong and it will be easier to get somewhere

Its nothing personal against the staff its the top men who need sorting out
 

graham mc

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
East Yorkshire
It's alright lads, UK Flour Millers say...

"The lack of a universal farm assurance scheme means that imported wheat is subject to a much more rigorous system of checks and tests than home-grown. In addition to checks on technical specification, a sample will be taken on each lot of 200 tonnes and tested for a full suite of pesticide residues, mycotoxins, and other potential contaminants at the seller’s expense."

Of course they sample each load for HFN, protein etc, but my man says he got one assurance lab test result per 60,000t. Not one every 200t.

The GAFTA sampling rules say take a 1kg sample every 50 to 100t onboarded, put all those samples in a bucket and mix them up, take a sub sample and send it to the lab. So on a 60,000t cargo the final analysis is 1/600 dilution of all the original samples.

So the blending/dilution means it's never going to fail.

wonder if the same applies to cam grain etc one test per 60000t
 

tullah

Member
Location
Linconshire
It's alright lads, UK Flour Millers say...

"The lack of a universal farm assurance scheme means that imported wheat is subject to a much more rigorous system of checks and tests than home-grown. In addition to checks on technical specification, a sample will be taken on each lot of 200 tonnes and tested for a full suite of pesticide residues, mycotoxins, and other potential contaminants at the seller’s expense."

Of course they sample each load for HFN, protein etc, but my man says he got one assurance lab test result per 60,000t. Not one every 200t.

The GAFTA sampling rules say take a 1kg sample every 50 to 100t onboarded, put all those samples in a bucket and mix them up, take a sub sample and send it to the lab. So on a 60,000t cargo the final analysis is 1/600 dilution of all the original samples.

So the blending/dilution means it's never going to fail.
I'd be quite happy if mine was blended like that. Nobody fails.
 

tullah

Member
Location
Linconshire
can we keep the pressure on ahdb by calling a vote before they get the legislation changed. This shows we cant trust them and knowing them there working behind the scenes to change the voting system. if we can pick them off one by one we will keep heading the right direction. They have power in strength by working together and no matter what picture they try to paint you can be sure from what weve scene they are working together.

Pick the easy prey first and as we get the weaker out of the way the stronger wont be as strong and it will be easier to get somewhere

Its nothing personal against the staff its the top men who need sorting out
Yes it's more the innocent staff and their families who will carry the financial penalty once we finally do away with the corruption. I wonder if they will prod their bosses about this.
 

Steevo

Member
Location
Gloucestershire
It's alright lads, UK Flour Millers say...

"The lack of a universal farm assurance scheme means that imported wheat is subject to a much more rigorous system of checks and tests than home-grown. In addition to checks on technical specification, a sample will be taken on each lot of 200 tonnes and tested for a full suite of pesticide residues, mycotoxins, and other potential contaminants at the seller’s expense."

Of course they sample each load for HFN, protein etc, but my man says he got one assurance lab test result per 60,000t. Not one every 200t.

The GAFTA sampling rules say take a 1kg sample every 50 to 100t onboarded, put all those samples in a bucket and mix them up, take a sub sample and send it to the lab. So on a 60,000t cargo the final analysis is 1/600 dilution of all the original samples.

So the blending/dilution means it's never going to fail.

Surely all lorry loads should be individually tested prior to loading on the boat…..as in theory every lorry load going into Camgrain is at harvest.

But again, is pesticide testing a red herring given we don’t use any banned product?
 

Dave645

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
N Lincs
i would say it seem to be so purposely complicated that it would make it very difficult for any consignment to be rejected. Taking an average price for every test listed totals £930. ship containing 5000t = 18p per ton
20000t = 4.5p
60,000 tonnes is often the case with imports traveling any distance that’s £1 approx for every 60 tonnes so far less than the levy we have to pay.
don’t forget half the expensive tests are for things banned from use in the uk, the only reason they test for them is because they are imported from locations that still use them, and the fact crops can be contaminated during transport, I doubt a boat is as clear as a lorry. A boat that’s carried coal then cleaned to carry wheat, now that is a heavy metals risk, and I doubt they ever test the sweepings up.
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 79 42.9%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 63 34.2%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 16.3%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

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

    Votes: 6 3.3%

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

  • 1,287
  • 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