AHDB Article: Assurance of imported grain

[tullah]

Seems with imports they just do a test on a sample from 60000 tonnes and what ever the result gets nodded through as assured. I have no problem with them testing mine exactly the same to get assured status like the boat.
Whats all this other nonsense got to do with the quality grain. All that should matter is that it's passed the various tests so there's nothing untoward going into the food chain.
Im quite happy with that and the end user is quite happy with it as that's how the end user gets his imports delivered,
Why won't the devious fools answer the question... because they are corrupt to the core.

 

[teslacoils]

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.

Media coverage for farming readers means farmers weekly or farmers guardian. Question is, why run a genuine story when you can run a "puff piece" by one of your advertisers?

Let's see which farming publication dares run this story.

 

[B'o'B]

Going through this in a bit more detail.

First thing that pops out is the statement:
"There is also a minimum requirement for full supply chain traceability, farm-gate to plate, to adhere to domestic, and global, food and feed safety standards."

I'm not convinced that all boat loads imported grain can be traced back to the farm gate.


Next is the disparity between the wording of the wholesale grain contract AIC 2/21:
“Assurance: The Seller must be assured at the date of delivery under TASCC or an AIC recognised equivalent assurance scheme. All Goods supplied must be from a source assured under an approved Assurance Scheme, unless otherwise agreed.”

There is a massive loophole here, because of the inclusion of "unless otherwise agreed". Under this a merchant can buy up any amount of non-assured grain and then agree resell it into any AIC end user (as long as the end user agrees).

However the grower contract AIC 1/21 says:
“Farm Assurance: The Seller is responsible for ensuring the goods supplied against the contract meet therequirements of a recognised crop assurance scheme and membership of such scheme remains valid through the movement period."

An AIC end user cannot agree to buy unassured grain from from a non-assured grower, but could buy that very same grain wholesale from a merchant. This is not equitable.

I like the way they brush over the average testing cost per tonne and instead focus on potential worst case costs and leaving the reader no clearer on how much it may cost in testing to bring in a tonne.

The table of testing costs is a joke £10-15 each test for Protein, Moister and Spec Weight! Potentially £45 for those 3 tests! I simple don't believe that. Are any of the other costs also inflated, who knows?

Getting to the end of the article, I come away with impression there are costs to load and unload a ship, who would have guessed that?
The buyer appears to be largely free to decide how much testing they actually want to happen, not surprisingly the more testing they ask for, the higher the the cost of testing.

 

[Clive]

Basically they've created a story to enable Red Tractor to pretend to continue to be respectable. A farmer could be red Tractor assured and still use these mythical illegal pesticides, they're hardly going to declare anything are they?

It's a bit of a shame to say it in one way but we really would be better off without the AHDB and their compromised ways. They may have some good staff but the organisation isn't really any good at a fundamental level if they can't support their own levy payers with fair market access.

Does it really cost £10-15 to do a moisture test?

sadly i think you are right

AHDB seem to have chosen a side snd it is not the farmers side

this will be the end of them imo …….. shame, they could have really helped farmers here

 

[Clive]

UK Assurance IS self certification - all standards depend upon a farmer certifying actions

AIC have a self declared authority supported by NFU, AHDB and served by Dead Tractor that has declared our self declaration must be witnessed by a paid commercial company ………. they don’t trust us basically (despite their checking being flawed) ……. ironic given the levels of corruption and conflict of interest being uncovered almost daily

it has no authority or legal power whatsoever to demand this - its a smoke and mirrors story created by people who benefit personally from this

 

[Dave645]

Going through this in a bit more detail.

First thing that pops out is the statement:
"There is also a minimum requirement for full supply chain traceability, farm-gate to plate, to adhere to domestic, and global, food and feed safety standards."

I'm not convinced that all boat loads imported grain can be traced back to the farm gate.


Next is the disparity between the wording of the wholesale grain contract AIC 2/21:
“Assurance: The Seller must be assured at the date of delivery under TASCC or an AIC recognised equivalent assurance scheme. All Goods supplied must be from a source assured under an approved Assurance Scheme, unless otherwise agreed.”

There is a massive loophole here, because of the inclusion of "unless otherwise agreed". Under this a merchant can buy up any amount of non-assured grain and then agree resell it into any AIC end user (as long as the end user agrees).

However the grower contract AIC 1/21 says:
“Farm Assurance: The Seller is responsible for ensuring the goods supplied against the contract meet therequirements of a recognised crop assurance scheme and membership of such scheme remains valid through the movement period."

An AIC end user cannot agree to buy unassured grain from from a non-assured grower, but could buy that very same grain wholesale from a merchant. This is not equitable.

I like the way they brush over the average testing cost per tonne and instead focus on potential worst case costs and leaving the reader no clearer on how much it may cost in testing to bring in a tonne.

The table of testing costs is a joke £10-15 each test for Protein, Moister and Spec Weight! I simple don't believe that. Are any of the other costs also inflated, who knows?

Getting to the end of the article, I come away with impression there are costs to load and unload a ship, who would have guessed that?
The buyer appears to be largely free to decide how much testing they actually want to happen, not surprisingly the more testing they ask for, the higher the the cost of testing.

I think this is why they fear us, we actually read the fine print.
They already know what they are doing doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
The AIC can come up with any old junk of a requirement for assurance, and RT implement it, all the while ensuring minimal costs for imports.
The more I read the more I wonder who is actually to blame for the situation we are in.
Is it the NFU for creating RT.
Is it the AIC for taking advantage of RT, and it’s managements stupidity.

But the more I here, the more I think it’s all of them. that includes the AHDB they all have interests in the management of assurance and it’s not for the benefit of uk farmers, more like their jobs.

I am starting to think we need to nail down a plan one with fixed goals, at the moment we have been fumbling around the red tape and working out who is doing what, and who is talking to who, It would not shock me if we discover they stopped using emails to communicate because we were asking for freedom of information requests for them.
They just move to phone calls and they can chat all they want. It could be why they stopped mid September.

I do think Jeremy Clarkson has not been bought, while I am sure he was flattered by his award he was given, with the facts of this case I am sure he would consider making comment.
I do know he has his farm close to the guy producing these YouTube videos,

He has mentioned JC farms neighbours one of his, he maybe able to contact JC even if it’s only over the farm gate so to speak. I have no clue if Harry is himself a TFF member or not if he is he maybe able to let us if he can contact JC or not..

 

[Grass And Grain]

Going through this in a bit more detail.

First thing that pops out is the statement:
"There is also a minimum requirement for full supply chain traceability, farm-gate to plate, to adhere to domestic, and global, food and feed safety standards."

I'm not convinced that all boat loads imported grain can be traced back to the farm gate.


Next is the disparity between the wording of the wholesale grain contract AIC 2/21:
“Assurance: The Seller must be assured at the date of delivery under TASCC or an AIC recognised equivalent assurance scheme. All Goods supplied must be from a source assured under an approved Assurance Scheme, unless otherwise agreed.”

There is a massive loophole here, because of the inclusion of "unless otherwise agreed". Under this a merchant can buy up any amount of non-assured grain and then agree resell it into any AIC end user (as long as the end user agrees).

However the grower contract AIC 1/21 says:
“Farm Assurance: The Seller is responsible for ensuring the goods supplied against the contract meet therequirements of a recognised crop assurance scheme and membership of such scheme remains valid through the movement period."

An AIC end user cannot agree to buy unassured grain from from a non-assured grower, but could buy that very same grain wholesale from a merchant. This is not equitable.

I like the way they brush over the average testing cost per tonne and instead focus on potential worst case costs and leaving the reader no clearer on how much it may cost in testing to bring in a tonne.

The table of testing costs is a joke £10-15 each test for Protein, Moister and Spec Weight! Potentially £45 for those 3 tests! I simple don't believe that. Are any of the other costs also inflated, who knows?

Getting to the end of the article, I come away with impression there are costs to load and unload a ship, who would have guessed that?
The buyer appears to be largely free to decide how much testing they actually want to happen, not surprisingly the more testing they ask for, the higher the the cost of testing.

"unless otherwise agreed"

Agreed between whom? Buyer and seller? Or agreed with (consent of) AIC?

As for testing. Wonder who offers the service. Let's ring them up and ask how much.

 

[B'o'B]

"unless otherwise agreed"

Agreed between whom? Buyer and seller? Or agreed with (consent of) AIC?

As for testing. Wonder who offers the service. Let's ring them up and ask how much.

It's a contract between buyer and seller only. The wholesale contract does have a pesticide declaration in Para 13. It seems that that is all the AIC really require for intake into their members mills.

If you add all the worst case costs up in their table you get £990. As you point out it is likely to only 1 test per 60,000t vessel, which works out at 1.65 pence per tonne. I wonder why the AHDB didn't put that in their report?

I know someone who runs a lab, I might ask them for a quote for the listed tests.

 

[White rabbit]

The comments being posted leave little doubt that the ahdb are losing support, but they will not make the same mistake they made in our sectors, the chances of a yes/no vote are pretty slim, also we had only around 4,000 levy payers to contact and galvanise support, there is around 140,000 in the remaining sectors some of which will think they cannot farm without the ahdb so I think they are fairly guaranteed to survive.

 

[ollie989898]

Abolish the lot. The only way to be sure. NFU to have no involvement in any other organisation that is formed instead. No mandatory levies.

 

[B'o'B]

Just to follow up on my last post, I got my quote back to compare the AHDB table testing costs against:

Organochlorine Pesticides - £139 AHDB £130-£150

Heavy Metals - £85 AHDB £100-£120

Dioxin/PCB - £500 AHDB £500-£550

Aflatoxin B1 - £75 AHDB £100-£110

Salmonella - £13. AHDB £10-£15

Protein - £11. AHDB £10-£15

Moisture - £6.50 AHDB £10-£15

Spec. Weight - £5.50. AHDB £10-£15


Total cost - £835. AHDB £870-990

All prices quoted to spec required for import/export of wheat. The reason the Protein, Moisture and Spec Weight costs are higher than expected is because they must be "wet process" tests to meet the standards. Conclusion, the AHDB figures are not a million miles out, if a little generous in some areas.

 

[Dave645]

Just to follow up on my last post, I got my quote back to compare the AHDB table testing costs against:

Organochlorine Pesticides - £139 AHDB £130-£150

Heavy Metals - £85 AHDB £100-£120

Dioxin/PCB - £500 AHDB £500-£550

Aflatoxin B1 - £75 AHDB £100-£110

Salmonella - £13. AHDB £10-£15

Protein - £11. AHDB £10-£15

Moisture - £6.50 AHDB £10-£15

Spec. Weight - £5.50. AHDB £10-£15


Total cost - £835. AHDB £870-990

All prices quoted to spec required for import/export of wheat. The reason the Protein, Moisture and Spec Weight costs are higher than expected is because they must be "wet process" tests to meet the standards. Conclusion, the AHDB figures are not a million miles out, if a little generous in some areas.

The best way to deal with these test costs is find a system to avoid the need, at the moment no RT assured farm needs to pay for any test, that needs to remain true, for any system we come up with to replace RT.

 

[neilo]

The best way to deal with these test costs is find a system to avoid the need, at the moment no RT assured farm needs to pay for any test, that needs to remain true, for any system we come up with to replace RT.

You don’t need a system to replace RT. RT doesn’t ensure grain is ok for heavy metals or dioxins any more than farming with uk legal legislation does.
Moisture, specific weight and/or protein are tested now, whether RT or not, and would continue to be.

Assurance is just not necessary or valued by the processors, as is shown by their willingness to buy imported product. Just scrap it.

 

[B'o'B]

The best way to deal with these test costs is find a system to avoid the need, at the moment no RT assured farm needs to pay for any test, that needs to remain true, for any system we come up with to replace RT.

I just did it to truth test the AHDB costs in the article. My quote would bring the cost/t on a 60,000t vessel down to 1.39pence/t as opposed to the AHDB figures of 1.45p/t -1.65p/t.

None of those costs are significant, which is why the AHDB article avoids talking about cost per tonne for tests.

 

[Flat 10]

Just to follow up on my last post, I got my quote back to compare the AHDB table testing costs against:

Organochlorine Pesticides - £139 AHDB £130-£150

Heavy Metals - £85 AHDB £100-£120

Dioxin/PCB - £500 AHDB £500-£550

Aflatoxin B1 - £75 AHDB £100-£110

Salmonella - £13. AHDB £10-£15

Protein - £11. AHDB £10-£15

Moisture - £6.50 AHDB £10-£15

Spec. Weight - £5.50. AHDB £10-£15


Total cost - £835. AHDB £870-990

All prices quoted to spec required for import/export of wheat. The reason the Protein, Moisture and Spec Weight costs are higher than expected is because they must be "wet process" tests to meet the standards. Conclusion, the AHDB figures are not a million miles out, if a little generous in some areas.

Good effort.

 

[SilliamWhale]

I love the way that bloke in the AHDB report pretended that a single test for Dioxins/ PCB for a 60,000 ton load of imports is in any way comparable to farmer's needing to do this for each 30 ton.

What a bunch of corrupt old thieves the AHDB are!