AHDB cereals poll and Red Tractor

[Drillman]

They wouldn't even be employed in the first place! Another part of the massive flaws

Red Tractor-

Providing jobs for the otherwise unemployable since 2001

 

[stroller]

They basically positioned themselves as a go between between the farmer and the marketplace but for no gain beyond self interest.

It's a great business model and yet farming leaders are stupid enough to support it. It's always perplexed me and always will.

A friend is battling the woodsure scheme, the small log sellers are where we were 20 odd years ago, he often points out to people on the wood forums what has happened to red tractor and the parasite that it has become.

 

[Brisel]

I'm one of the 3 people who have voted No in this poll.

I believe that AHDB do good work in the Cereals sector and apart from my NIAB TAG subscription, no one else does independent trials work. Their loss would be a big blow to independent information & trials work IMO. I'm with @An Gof on this.

It has nothing to do with any dislike for the arrangement with Red Tractor. What is really sad is that I cannot see AHDB severing the link with RT and it may well cost AHDB dearly if every sector votes out of the levy because of RT.

 

[Grass And Grain]

I'm one of the 3 people who have voted No in this poll.

I believe that AHDB do good work in the Cereals sector and apart from my NIAB TAG subscription, no one else does independent trials work. Their loss would be a big blow to independent information & trials work IMO. I'm with @An Gof on this.

It has nothing to do with any dislike for the arrangement with Red Tractor. What is really sad is that I cannot see AHDB severing the link with RT and it may well cost AHDB dearly if every sector votes out of the levy because of RT.

I agree with you about AHDB doing good work in the cereals sector, and I too would like to see it flourish.

As you say, if AHDB don't sever the link with RT, then it might cost them dearly. The answer is obviously for AHDB to vociferously challengee RT and AIC and get the change we need, then they'll come out as heroes, farmers will be happy, AHDB cereals will go from strength to strength, UK farmers will be able to compete on an equal footing to imports and benefit from future efficiencies researched and disseminated by AHDB.

RT can continue to exist and justify their cost by creating markets with premium prices. If RT do a bad job then they lose members, but they equally have the opportunity to create a successful brand. Farmers and end users can choose to be/use RT if they want. Everyone happy.

Ball is going to be in the court of AHDB and NFU.

 

[An Gof]

Why would it be a tragedy?

Because in “my” opinion for “my” business I think AHDB Cereals and Oilseeds provides outstanding value for money. You may think otherwise. If you fully engage with AHDB and use all the data and resources available it is incredible what value it delivers.

 

[Grass And Grain]

Look at structure of the Voluntary Initiative.


The Voluntary Initiative is a Community Interest Company (CIC).

The eight industry organisations that sponsor the VI are also Directors of the VI-CIC: Agricultural Engineers Association Agricultural Industries Confederation Country Land and Busines Association Crop Protection Association UK Ltd National Association of Agricultural Contractors National Farmers Union of England and Wales National Farmers Union of Scotland Ulster Farmers Union

 

[texelburger]

So we pay levy to AHDB, then they give it to rt? so we are paying for rt twice

Yes

 

[texelburger]

What do people want AHDB to do?

I suppose withholding the cash gives them sone bargaining power. So withhold the cash until RT/AIC fix the issue?

And what if RT/AIC won't budge?

I would like AHDB to withdraw their payment to RT and then set up an alternative assure scheme that is basic,accepted by all and easy to administer.We farmers must simply be allowed to have a choice.
RT was OK ish at its inception but has,in recent times ,become uncontrollable like a raging Rhinoceros with people at the helm inspiring to be Gordon Gekko.It has to stop,plain and simple.We no longer want to hear all this bull##it that the consumer knows the value of RT and looks for the logo etc.We all know this is simply not true.
Let's just have a basic scheme and I am absolutely 100 % convinced this would be accepted by all and sundry provided we presented it correctly.

 

[SilliamWhale]

Because in “my” opinion for “my” business I think AHDB Cereals and Oilseeds provides outstanding value for money. You may think otherwise. If you fully engage with AHDB and use all the data and resources available it is incredible what value it delivers.

I'm not sure how strong my opinion is at the moment. I'm just wondering aloud. A levy of circa 50p a tonne would give them a substantial income and it is not too huge a burden on the grower however we are all asked to get more efficient so its a reasonable thing to speculate on

The only area I really feel I always look out for is maybe the latest fungicide research once a year for cereals (ie johnathan blake/ fiona burnett) which certainly I value. The Rec list is pretty good resource too - maybe not as useful as trumpeted in practical terms with the turnover of varieties and the marginal gains which don't always translate to field scale.

Which other areas do you get a lot from? I must confess I scarely look at their website.

p.s, the growth guides are good as is the crop storage guide but these are both relatively mature documents

 

[Clive]

I'm one of the 3 people who have voted No in this poll.

I believe that AHDB do good work in the Cereals sector and apart from my NIAB TAG subscription, no one else does independent trials work. Their loss would be a big blow to independent information & trials work IMO. I'm with @An Gof on this.

It has nothing to do with any dislike for the arrangement with Red Tractor. What is really sad is that I cannot see AHDB severing the link with RT and it may well cost AHDB dearly if every sector votes out of the levy because of RT.

i agree - but am torn asi can’t support anything that doesn’t do all it can to support us

i hope they will at the very least end the 250k payment and hopefully will go further and add the “produced to UK legal standards” declaration to passports

 

[spin cycle]

most of you lads arn't hardcore enough to be rid of RT.....once you start on about 'replacing RT' or what ever .... you're loosing....RT has to go...OR....you put up with it

AHDB is co owner of RT....it has a weakness in that a vote could be raised agin the levy.....if you want to get at RT you have to go for EVERY weakness

 

[warksfarmer]

@warksfarmer I get quite a lot of value from AHDB, but I do hope they can help convince RT and AIC to make market access fair.

We can't possibly have a situation where it's easier for imports to access our markets than it is for ourselves.

I think it's currently the most important and fundamental issue to to get sorted out.

I don’t get any . Never use the website and any new seed varietal info I get from the breeders or on a forum like this. I’d vote to abolish the levy today.

 

[warksfarmer]

AHDB chair is on RT board.

NFU crops board member on RT cereals board.

Ex FW editor now at AHDB.

2 x AIC people on RT cereals board.

AIC are one of the owners of SQC.

RT cereals chair was deputy pres of NFU.

Voluntary Initiative features as well. Google it.

Every so often someone presses a button, and everyone shifts over to a new role.

etc.

You can see how we've got into the current situation. Seemingly the current cross posting of positions is arguably dissfunctional for the interests of farmers on the ground.

I've nothing against these people as individuals. Far from it. In fact I've spoken to some of them and they've been very knowledgeable, bright, well intentioned and generally had agriculture at heart. And arguably they're the best individuals for the jobs, or at least who is better qualified?

In fact, imho some NFU and AHDB people really do want to get some change at RT and AIC. AHDB have tried to be helpful by getting a discussion going between the interested parties, to be told by RT they 'saw no value in that discussion'. I believe AHDB might since have been a slightly more forceful in their language, so they are trying to enter into meaningful discussion. It's going to be frustratingly slow progress, but Paul Temple and Martin GS at AHDB have been good.

Thing is, what to do if they get nowhere? They can't make RT or AIC change their rules. All they can do is lean on them, withdraw funding etc.

If we reach a point where RT/AIC won't shift, then I think we need to ask AHDB to put levy payers interests first, that might mean withdrawing RT funding and using it to better effect. That would probably be schemes to rival RT and AIC. I see very little other course of action, unless NFU get firm and suggest we all leave.

Unfortunately AHDB are going to find themselves stuck in the middle of all this. They are the best people to help us get fair market access arrangements, I would imagine it's within their remit to do so, and hope they can sort it out for us.

Another thought. As far as AHDB livestock goes, can they trust AIC to run the UFAS scheme when they differentiate on acceptable cereals standards based on country of origin. Surely something is safe under a certain set of rules or it isn't. AIC requiring RT for feed mills is increasing costs for our industry, both for the cereal farmer and then resultantly for the livestock farmer.

And there you have it. The gravy train of shafting farmers. It’s all a set up con much like the NFU.

 

[snipe]

Going to send AHDB a letter suggesting a new scheme they should consider setting up. Let me know you opinions if things should be added or left out. Got to get the ball rolling

Uk Farm Standards

pass port same as in use now with a few more boxes to tick

a) All pesticides used pre and post-harvest are approved for use in the Uk and EU
b) All pesticides used pre and post-harvest have been applied both singly and cumulatively at levels approved for use in the Uk and EU
c) All pesticides applied by an operator with a NRoSo certificate
d)All pesticides applied using equipment with a NSTS certificate
e) All storage and handling equipment used (beginning at the point of first collection or storage) meets the standards
required by HACCP protocols followed for grain drying, handling and storage

Do we need a sticker for any reason???
should EU be dropped?
constructive criticism welcome

 

[stroller]

No stickers, don't need them.

 

[homefarm]

I have found studying the existing passport most enlightening.

Most of the assurance required is already covered, perhaps the post harvest declaration could include all pesticides. It already far exceeds imported by miles giving tracability back to the farm it was grown on.
We even sign that the lorry is clean even though the haulier is also a member of his compulsory/voluntary scheme.
Perhaps driver could sign that the store he collected from was up to standard just to keep the box ticker's happy.

 

[Grass And Grain]

Going to send AHDB a letter suggesting a new scheme they should consider setting up. Let me know you opinions if things should be added or left out. Got to get the ball rolling

Uk Farm Standards

pass port same as in use now with a few more boxes to tick

a) All pesticides used pre and post-harvest are approved for use in the Uk and EU
b) All pesticides used pre and post-harvest have been applied both singly and cumulatively at levels approved for use in the Uk and EU
c) All pesticides applied by an operator with a NRoSo certificate
d)All pesticides applied using equipment with a NSTS certificate
e) All storage and handling equipment used (beginning at the point of first collection or storage) meets the standards
required by the AIC TASCC Stores Scheme relating to hygiene and cleaning, pest control and prevention of contamination"

Do we need a sticker for any reason???
should EU be dropped?
constructive criticism welcome

Good man Snipe.

No need for 'EU', just 'UK'. That helps protect our markets, and we now have our own pesticide regulator.

Personally I'd drop the paragraph about AIC TASCC stores. That would be beyond the farm gate??, so beyond our control and beyond what we can declare on the passport. Trading standards inspections check to see if we have a HACCP plan for drying and storage. Therefore, replace the AIC TASCC paragraph with "HACCP protocols followed for grain drying, handling and storage".

I'd also drop the (c) NRoSO bit. It's not a legal requirement. The imported grain sprayer operators won't have it or equivalent of. Or did you mean 'Certificate of Competence'? i.e. PA1, PA2, etc.

Steve.

 

[homefarm]

Going to send AHDB a letter suggesting a new scheme they should consider setting up. Let me know you opinions if things should be added or left out. Got to get the ball rolling

Uk Farm Standards

pass port same as in use now with a few more boxes to tick

a) All pesticides used pre and post-harvest are approved for use in the Uk and EU
b) All pesticides used pre and post-harvest have been applied both singly and cumulatively at levels approved for use in the Uk and EU
c) All pesticides applied by an operator with a NRoSo certificate
d)All pesticides applied using equipment with a NSTS certificate
e) All storage and handling equipment used (beginning at the point of first collection or storage) meets the standards
required by the AIC TASCC Stores Scheme relating to hygiene and cleaning, pest control and prevention of contamination"

Do we need a sticker for any reason???
should EU be dropped?
constructive criticism welcome

I would keep the existing passport format with the standard logo, "UK self assured grain" preprinted in the sticker box. Other schemes then can place their sticker over it.

Then tweak the pesticide box and add as few simple declarations as we can get away with to get it accepted by everyone.
ie negotiate.
I see no reason to include EU but if that was required by the trade then why not, if that was all that was needed to achieve our goal.
From their point of view something like that might help with exports so lets keep an open mind an be flexible to achieve our goal.

 

[D14]

Going to send AHDB a letter suggesting a new scheme they should consider setting up. Let me know you opinions if things should be added or left out. Got to get the ball rolling

Uk Farm Standards

pass port same as in use now with a few more boxes to tick

a) All pesticides used pre and post-harvest are approved for use in the Uk and EU
b) All pesticides used pre and post-harvest have been applied both singly and cumulatively at levels approved for use in the Uk and EU
c) All pesticides applied by an operator with a NRoSo certificate
d)All pesticides applied using equipment with a NSTS certificate
e) All storage and handling equipment used (beginning at the point of first collection or storage) meets the standards
required by the AIC TASCC Stores Scheme relating to hygiene and cleaning, pest control and prevention of contamination"

Do we need a sticker for any reason???
should EU be dropped?
constructive criticism welcome

Don’t use the word ‘tascc’ with anything to do with farm stuff.

 

[Old apprentice]

When you guys have worked out the best pasport designed print it then we all can copy ,keep working at it.