AIC - No need for alternative to Red Tractor. Farmers Weekly article

[warksfarmer]

Actually that makes a lot of sense, I'll post on the other chat

2 things to think about: £1 is probably enough, certainly no less. We should start higher.

And can we trust ahdb to be on our side

For the sheer hassle of RT I want £10/t premium.

 

[SilliamWhale]

What is the legal mechanism whereby the AIC must compel their members to buy only assured grain from the UK? How testable is this?

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

What is the legal mechanism whereby the AIC must compel their members to buy only assured grain from the UK? How testable is this?

That's quite an interesting question because it's clearly illegal, so to have it in the rules of engagement is quite bold to say the least. Brazen might be a better word.

It's the individual member companies who are laying themselves open to prosecution. "He told me to" is not a valid defence.

 

[Grass And Grain]

What is the legal mechanism whereby the AIC must compel their members to buy only assured grain from the UK? How testable is this?

Doesn't sit right does it. "Mr UFAS assured mill, as part of your UFAS accreditation, you must only purchase grain which is considered safe (fair enough thinks Mr Mill). You must only purchase either Standard 'X' or Standard "Y" grain, and you can get it from any country in the world. Oh, forgot to say, if it's from UK or Eire you cannot purchase Standard 'X' grain, you must tell those chaps they're not allowed to use Standard 'X', and they've only to supply Standard 'Y'."

"Why?"

"Because it would be too expensive for the Brits to adhere to Standard 'X'."

"But the other countries manage to use Standard 'X or Standard 'Y'', and you don't ban them from using Standard 'X' just because it's expensive"

"Hmm, no, that's true. Yea, but we couldn't think of any other reason to not allow Standard 'X' for the Brits".

"Why don't you want them to use Standard 'X' when you allow it for every other farmer in the world?"

"Erm, erm,..........erm. Don't want to say why".

 

[Grass And Grain]

Been thinking, AIC position is maybe a "balls back in your court" response. They did say they were ope to different/new assurance scheme.

I think they're very very wrong to reject allowing UK grain to use exact same system as they allow for imports, but let's think about it....

Although asking for exact equivalence should have been an easy goal, it wasn't necessarily helpful in practical terms. Illogically, AIC did seem to look at UK Gatekeeper costs in terms of an individual farm, whereas import GK is done on large blended bulks, with the obvious economies of scale. So I stand by the view that AIC were obstructive with poor reasoning.

Anyway, where do we go now.

When conversing with NFU and AHDB, we never said imports style GK was much use for UK grain. Imports GK is designed to work for large shipments, or large merchant bulks.

We suggested using the necessary bits of UK assurance, but none of the superfluous fluff, and look how we can negate the need for GK lab tests...

• We don't need pesticide lab tests if we've got verifies trained operators, verified NSTS tested sprayers, UK approved pesticides, H&S Executive registered and checked chemical stores.
• We don't need mycotoxin Don and Zon lab tests if we have mycotoxin risk assessment
• We don't need dioxin or PCB lab tests if we have indirect grain drying or have serviced our gas burners, and haven't got bitumen in floor joints
• etc.

So we cherry pick the necessary bits. Think of imports as Bronze standard, hybrid system as Silver, and Red Tractor as Gold (with environmental and H&S compliance checking).

AIC were open to looking at possibility of remote auditing, or technology auditing (and the real time advantages it could bring to provide better assurance of some parameters), or how often an existing store needs audit checking.

So let's knock on AIC's open door, with suggestions of the Silver model, with all of the necessary feed assurance requirements, but none of the unecessary fluff for which we've been getting no price premium.

 

[roscoe erf]

What a surprise. The Cartel has discussed the matter amongst themselves and made the decision to "stop as we are"...

it beggars belief that they release that statement in all seriousness

 

[DrWazzock]

Been thinking, AIC position is maybe a "balls back in your court" response. They did say they were ope to different/new assurance scheme.

I think they're very very wrong to reject allowing UK grain to use exact same system as they allow for imports, but let's think about it....

Although asking for exact equivalence should have been an easy goal, it wasn't necessarily helpful in practical terms. Illogically, AIC did seem to look at UK Gatekeeper costs in terms of an individual farm, whereas import GK is done on large blended bulks, with the obvious economies of scale. So I stand by the view that AIC were obstructive with poor reasoning.

Anyway, where do we go now.

When conversing with NFU and AHDB, we never said imports style GK was much use for UK grain. Imports GK is designed to work for large shipments, or large merchant bulks.

We suggested using the necessary bits of UK assurance, but none of the superfluous fluff, and look how we can negate the need for GK lab tests...

• We don't need pesticide lab tests if we've got verifies trained operators, verified NSTS tested sprayers, UK approved pesticides, H&S Executive registered and checked chemical stores.
• We don't need mycotoxin Don and Zon lab tests if we have mycotoxin risk assessment
• We don't need dioxin or PCB lab tests if we have indirect grain drying or have serviced our gas burners, and haven't got bitumen in floor joints
• etc.

So we cherry pick the necessary bits. Think of imports as Bronze standard, hybrid system as Silver, and Red Tractor as Gold (with environmental and H&S compliance checking).

AIC were open to looking at possibility of remote auditing, or technology auditing (and the real time advantages it could bring to provide better assurance of some parameters), or how often an existing store needs audit checking.

So let's knock on AIC's open door, with suggestions of the Silver model, with all of the necessary feed assurance requirements, but none of the unecessary fluff for which we've been getting no price premium.

That’s pragmatic and spot on in my view and the best way forward.
The simple criteria you suggest would seem adequate to me. With a few tweaks to a farm software package they could even be audited or checked in real time by anybody who needed to know.
Leave all the extras to RT, the gold standard.

 

[wanton dwarf]

So let's knock on AIC's open door, with suggestions of the Silver model, with all of the necessary feed assurance requirements, but none of the unecessary fluff for which we've been getting no price premium.

You can try and it does help us reduce our costs.

However I don't think AIC will get it until a cost is put on invoices that AIC pay for the privilage of what AIC has created.

All goods leaving the farm gate should have an invoice cost for Red Tractor or any other so called "Assurance" (Waste of time & productivity).

 

[DrWazzock]

We will never get away with zero assurance in this day and age. That’s my view.
The aim should be to keep it proportionate. A basic assurance scheme need not add much to systems most of us already have in place.
A basic assurance scheme report could be a simple automatically generated add on to any decent farm software package in my view. Make present systems work for us and deliver basic (silver) farm assurance without needing RT.
No need to reinvent the wheel.

 

[DrWazzock]

We won’t get there with confrontation. We will get there if we come up with a credible equivalent to imports hybrid scheme as suggested by @Grass And Grain .

 

[Grass And Grain]

You can try and it does help us reduce our costs.

However I don't think AIC will get it until a cost is put on invoices that AIC pay for the privilage of what AIC has created.

All goods leaving the farm gate should have an invoice cost for Red Tractor or any other so called "Assurance" (Waste of time & productivity).

We produce Silver as standard. If the buyer wants RT gold (that's fine), but we send them a separate invoice for it.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

We wouldn't be discussing this if the buyers really wanted farm assured grains. They don't.

It's all treated the same, imports with the magic sticker and UK grown; with no incentive or reward for going the extra mile and writing in a book when you swept the yard.

If they really wanted it, there would be an automatic premium and everyone would be happy.

 

[tullah]

We wouldn't be discussing this if the buyers really wanted farm assured grains. They don't.

It's all treated the same, imports with the magic sticker and UK grown; with no incentive or reward for going the extra mile and writing in a book when you swept the yard.

If they really wanted it, there would be an automatic premium and everyone would be happy.

Yes the buyers clearly don't want assured as otherwise they wouldn't be buying unassured imports. Assurance above import standards is a waste of precious time and money to all involved. I wonder how poor Ukraine will manage to tick any boxes after all this.

 

[Grass And Grain]

We won’t get there with confrontation. We will get there if we come up with a credible equivalent to imports hybrid scheme as suggested by @Grass And Grain .

Yes, let's do this.

 

[Grass And Grain]

Yes the buyers clearly don't want assured as otherwise they wouldn't be buying unassured imports. Assurance above import standards is a waste of precious time and money to all involved. I wonder how poor Ukraine will manage to tick any boxes after all this.

They need the non-assured feedstuffs, as do the livestock farmers.

They only ask for RT grain because (a) AIC have made it mandatory (b) NFU and AHDB have been so keen to make RT a success, essentially made it mandatory, then we can't get a premium price for it.

Will be up to BFU members, but I suspect they'll have a different policy.