Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
AHDB Article: Assurance of imported grain
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Grass And Grain" data-source="post: 7873647" data-attributes="member: 23184"><p>I really don't know what they think of us. Not certain if they believe everything they've written, or think we're straw chewers and we'll believe every word of it. That article is purposefully slanted isn't it?</p><p></p><p>It's fair enough to investigate and get an understanding of what happens with imports. Fine.</p><p></p><p>However, we've pointed out that we don't need to test our grain because our grain is grown to UK legislative standards. Exactly same reason no-one is suggesting a need to test RT grain.</p><p></p><p>It's sort of reasonable to test imports because they're grown outside of our legislation, and potentially with pesticides that aren't licensed here. But what does pesticide tested mean? Are they testing ALL pesticides? Or just the odd one or two.</p><p></p><p>We explained to AHDB how RT was completely junk, because it lets food safety failings be retrospectively corrected, assurance status reinstated as though nothing was ever wrong. We explained how the industry overlooks a failed RT inspection when the grain is mixed in a 4,000 tonne co-op store. We explained how awfully bad GAFTA sampling procedures are, blending and diluting the samples together before a subsample gets sent to the lab. No mention that 27,000 growers are non-assured and that grain is used.</p><p></p><p><strong>Then there's this little beauty...</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>"Farmer obligation from an AIC 1/21 contract:</strong></p><p><strong>Farm Assurance: The Seller is responsible for ensuring the goods supplied against the contract meet the requirements of a recognised crop assurance scheme"</strong></p><p></p><p>So what are AHDB going to do about the above paragraph? Is that in the standard AIC farm to merchant contract? Are AIC dictating that all grain must be farm assured? I hope I've somehow misunderstood this.</p><p></p><p>If you ask me, I'm inclined to say the brief was "write a report on how good imported grain assurance is, and make it look better (and more expensive) than Red Tractor"...."then we can justify our £250k per annum subsidy we've been giving to RT, RT will survive, and it won't be wasted money, and assurance is great, and we don't want to let levy payers have any other workable option other than RT, otherwise assurance will get fragmented and we've given RT a couple of million £££ so that it stays all under one recognised brand and we don't want that to change. We gave the cash to one single private company, and if we hadn't then they might have failed financially. We didn't give any cash to any other assurance schemes, but then we're guarantors to RT, so we're sort of in the ownership structure and if RT had failed financially then we might have had to pay up anyway with levy payers' money. So best to give RT a bung, but don't really tell levy payers we are doing this, let's not advertise the fact, we'll lump it in to 'advertising' when we produce a nice little pie chart of levy expenditure"</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Grass And Grain, post: 7873647, member: 23184"] I really don't know what they think of us. Not certain if they believe everything they've written, or think we're straw chewers and we'll believe every word of it. That article is purposefully slanted isn't it? It's fair enough to investigate and get an understanding of what happens with imports. Fine. However, we've pointed out that we don't need to test our grain because our grain is grown to UK legislative standards. Exactly same reason no-one is suggesting a need to test RT grain. It's sort of reasonable to test imports because they're grown outside of our legislation, and potentially with pesticides that aren't licensed here. But what does pesticide tested mean? Are they testing ALL pesticides? Or just the odd one or two. We explained to AHDB how RT was completely junk, because it lets food safety failings be retrospectively corrected, assurance status reinstated as though nothing was ever wrong. We explained how the industry overlooks a failed RT inspection when the grain is mixed in a 4,000 tonne co-op store. We explained how awfully bad GAFTA sampling procedures are, blending and diluting the samples together before a subsample gets sent to the lab. No mention that 27,000 growers are non-assured and that grain is used. [B]Then there's this little beauty... "Farmer obligation from an AIC 1/21 contract: Farm Assurance: The Seller is responsible for ensuring the goods supplied against the contract meet the requirements of a recognised crop assurance scheme"[/B] So what are AHDB going to do about the above paragraph? Is that in the standard AIC farm to merchant contract? Are AIC dictating that all grain must be farm assured? I hope I've somehow misunderstood this. If you ask me, I'm inclined to say the brief was "write a report on how good imported grain assurance is, and make it look better (and more expensive) than Red Tractor"...."then we can justify our £250k per annum subsidy we've been giving to RT, RT will survive, and it won't be wasted money, and assurance is great, and we don't want to let levy payers have any other workable option other than RT, otherwise assurance will get fragmented and we've given RT a couple of million £££ so that it stays all under one recognised brand and we don't want that to change. We gave the cash to one single private company, and if we hadn't then they might have failed financially. We didn't give any cash to any other assurance schemes, but then we're guarantors to RT, so we're sort of in the ownership structure and if RT had failed financially then we might have had to pay up anyway with levy payers' money. So best to give RT a bung, but don't really tell levy payers we are doing this, let's not advertise the fact, we'll lump it in to 'advertising' when we produce a nice little pie chart of levy expenditure" [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
AHDB Article: Assurance of imported grain
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top