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

Grass And Grain

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Yorks

Good article by Philip Case of FW.

I think what they (AIC) mean is...

AIC services run the UFAS mill assurance scheme, but most of the mills are AIC members. So AIC aren't really independent. Their internal committees say there's no call for a Red Tractor or SQC alternative.

Well they would say that, because their members are getting RT/SQC grain for no price premium. So why change it? Indeed, they haven't.

We're still in the situation where AIC insist UK grain is farm assured, but non-assured imports are allowed access to their feed mills. The unlevel playing field.

The whole Gatekeeper charade is just a smoke screen to make it look like imports are assured, when they're not. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with those feedstuffs, just like our non-assured grain grown to UK legislative standards is also just fine. Of course we've...

  1. Only got access to UK approved pesticides
  2. Our sprayers are tested every 3 years
  3. We've trained operators
  4. We've trading standards checking our grain storage and drying facilities
  5. We've trading standards checking we've got written HACCP grain handling protocols
  6. We've got UK TASCC approved merchants invited to take samples from our stores
  7. We've got H&S Executive and RPA checking our chemical stores
...so we don't even need Gatekeeper schemes. But no account taken of any of this

And they say it would be too expensive to have a UK Gatekeeper system, but it hasn't stopped AIC allowing non-assured imports to use Gatekeeper access. So why one rule for imports, and another for UK grain. One set of rules for any grain from any country, I don't care if the requirement is FA, or non-assured, but not one set of rules for every country in the world except the UK, who are required to have different rules.

And AIC say feed safety is their main concern and remit. But they're quite happy only requiring lab tests for imports on a 1 in 20 lorry load basis - and that's without an independent sampling superintendent, the merchant can do the sampling!. And ship lab testing frequency? well don't get me started on that one!

So, are AIC content with only one in twenty of us having RT assurance? That's the same ratio.

But AIC are happy with RT grain, even though we've pointed out if grain is in a central store, and a farmer fails RT audit for a serious non-conformance (1 in 14 do!), then that whole bulk store is now not assured. We've told AIC this. But this fact gets ignored, the whole bulk still gets loaded out as assured. That must be close to falling foul of trade description of goods.

Net result. We've to keep on paying the farm assurance fees.

I propose the British Farming Union stand up to this one way or another. Be that exposing these truths, or by starting a new grain assurance scheme where farmers get a say in the standards, but no processors or mills on the committees. Farmers do not like current assurance schemes, let's have a farmer controlled one, and only farmers involved in its operation. We'll decimate the membership of existing schemes.
 
Last edited:

steveR

Member
Mixed Farmer

Wombat

Member
BASIS
Location
East yorks
What a surprise. The Cartel has discussed the matter amongst themselves and made the decision to "stop as we are"...
Haha yeah as they don’t have to pay for it they see no reason or demand to change it 😂😂 now I would never have thought an internal discussion by their own members would come up with that while allowing imports through with no change or restrictions. Fancy that
 

Grass And Grain

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Yorks
So we now get the AHDB to implement a £1 a tonne levy payable back to the producer of all UK farm assured produce
Is this even possible ? they want it they pay for it
That's a really good idea. Or seen as though they want RT/SQC, and won't give us equivalence, growers levy is reduced to £0.01/t and mills pay instead. AHDB could facilitate this.

Why not?

To be fair to AIC, they've tried to look after their members. Why wouldn't they.

So let's now work through the British Farming Union https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?forums/bfu/ and ask for them (mills) to pay for it.

If they won't allow us equivalence, and make us supply FA grain, then it's only fair they pay. AHDB have pumped cash into RT, and imho contributed to this situation, so they should think of ways to help out the growers.
 

teslacoils

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lincolnshire
Personally I find the UK miller refusing to take grain grown here to already existing legal requirements to be in bad taste.

The AIC are clearly not going to help us. Access to markets is the ahdb remit. I suggest we *tell* then that we expect them to get us this, or we rally the small number of people needed to vote them out of existence, starting with oilseeds first.

I suggest this may become bfu policy in time, or that they will back me if I set up the required mechanism to gather angry levy payers, and do so in time for me to stand next to the ahdb stand at cereals distributing fliers to gather more troops to the cause.
 

Grass And Grain

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Yorks
Personally I find the UK miller refusing to take grain grown here to already existing legal requirements to be in bad taste.

The AIC are clearly not going to help us. Access to markets is the ahdb remit. I suggest we *tell* then that we expect them to get us this, or we rally the small number of people needed to vote them out of existence, starting with oilseeds first.

I suggest this may become bfu policy in time, or that they will back me if I set up the required mechanism to gather angry levy payers, and do so in time for me to stand next to the ahdb stand at cereals distributing fliers to gather more troops to the cause.
Well so far they've failed to get at least equivalent market access.

Whenever I've asked anyone from RT, AHDB, NFU etc if non-assured UK grain is safe, they've basically said "yes, it's safe". Chairman of RT Combinables Guy Smith said it was safe. But we can't even sell to a simple feed mill without paying up to a private company to assure our grain, which the RT chairman admitted was already perfectly safe.

So AHDB have achieved precisely zero results. We're no further forward. We've still to be assured, whilst non-assured imports get access.

It's not endearing me to keep them. If they can't get us equal market access, and feed mills want RT for free, then maybe a reassessment of levy rates is a sensible suggestion, or AHDB should fund legal advice. AIC admitted they'd had conflicting advice iirc. If something was illegal, and it blocks our markets, then I'd expect AHDB to look at it and fund it.

BFU should ask AHDB to get to work. If they won't, and we're not going to wait another year, then call a ballot, because imho they've failed the levy payers.

Think only need 600 to call a ballot on oilseeds.
 
AHDB should be taking AIC to court for this behaviour on behalf of their levy payers. At the very least reporting to them competition comission.

NFU admit to being owners of Red Tractor (Minette Batters denied last year) and they have done is added red tape and less level playing field and extra costs and on all farmers for no reason and all the while RT undermines producers with their "mingling".

It's about job protection.
 
RT should be gone. If I set up my own private company and told all you lot you will have to pay ME so much an acre just to sell your produce(and get nothing but COST, hassle, dictatorial rules ect)... Think I may get so unprintable answers,
this is what rt does. needs to be gone, is it even legal?

RT is not legal, nor is what the AHDB do. RT is basically in a monopoly position and should be binned as all it does it cost producers money. It does not protect the consumer, it does not interest the retailers nor the customer and at the end of the day, it has no value in the marketplace and has no legal basis to exist.

AHDB should be binned and certainly not funded by the tax payer nor by mandatory levies. There is no place for these kinds of organisations in the food chain any longer in the post-subsidy world. The potato boys ditched their board. Time for the rest of the industry to do the same. You don't need other people taking your money and spending it on your behalf.

We need a sleek, cost minded but wholly market-orientated industry that doesn't try to hamstring itself in knots with meaningless regulations and cost for no gain. The industry will change, radically in the coming years and needs to adopt the same mindset of farmers internationally who won't do anything except where it 'pencils' with a very sharp pencil. High time for the hitch-hikers to get off the bus.
 
Last edited:

Good article by Philip Case of FW.

I think what they (AIC) mean is...

AIC services run the UFAS mill assurance scheme, but most of the mills are AIC members. So AIC aren't really independent. Their internal committees say there's no call for a Red Tractor or SQC alternative.

Well they would say that, because their members are getting RT/SQC grain for no price premium. So why change it? Indeed, they haven't.

We're still in the situation where AIC insist UK grain is farm assured, but non-assured imports are allowed access to their feed mills. The unlevel playing field.

The whole Gatekeeper charade is just a smoke screen to make it look like imports are assured, when they're not. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with those feedstuffs, just like our non-assured grain grown to UK legislative standards is also just fine. Of course we've...

  1. Only got access to UK approved pesticides
  2. Our sprayers are tested every 3 years
  3. We've trained operators
  4. We've trading standards checking our grain storage and drying facilities
  5. We've trading standards checking we've got written HACCP grain handling protocols
  6. We've got UK TASCC approved merchants invited to take samples from our stores
  7. We've got H&S Executive and RPA checking our chemical stores
...so we don't even need Gatekeeper schemes. But no account taken of any of this

And they say it would be too expensive to have a UK Gatekeeper system, but it hasn't stopped AIC allowing non-assured imports to use Gatekeeper access. So why one rule for imports, and another for UK grain. One set of rules for any grain from any country, I don't care if the requirement is FA, or non-assured, but not one set of rules for every country in the world except the UK, who are required to have different rules.

And AIC say feed safety is their main concern and remit. But they're quite happy only requiring lab tests for imports on a 1 in 20 lorry load basis - and that's without an independent sampling superintendent, the merchant can do the sampling!. And ship lab testing frequency? well don't get me started on that one!

So, are AIC content with only one in twenty of us having RT assurance? That's the same ratio.

But AIC are happy with RT grain, even though we've pointed out if grain is in a central store, and a farmer fails RT audit for a serious non-conformance (1 in 14 do!), then that whole bulk store is now not assured. We've told AIC this. But this fact gets ignored, the whole bulk still gets loaded out as assured. That must be close to falling foul of trade description of goods.

Net result. We've to keep on paying the farm assurance fees.

I propose the British Farming Union stand up to this one way or another. Be that exposing these truths, or by starting a new grain assurance scheme where farmers get a say in the standards, but no processors or mills on the committees. Farmers do not like current assurance schemes, let's have a farmer controlled one, and only farmers involved in its operation. We'll decimate the membership of existing schemes.

You are being to kind. This now proves that AIC is corrupt to the core just like the NFU, Red Tractor and AHDB.

They have all colluded behind the scenes as the freedom of info emails prove yet they carry on doing it.

They are all so far into this corruption they dare not get off the train because they are all liable for 30 years of stealing off farmers.
 

Jackov Altraids

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Devon
The AIC are doing what they should be;

AIC Members represent the agrisupply industry which provides inputs into the agricultural and farming sectors. The sectors and % representation is shown below:

  • Animal Feed 90 %
  • Crops Protection and Agronomy 90 %
  • Distributors Fertilisers 95 %
  • Grain and Oilseeds 90 %
  • Seed 80 %

It is basically their job to extract as much money out of farmers as possible.

The horrendous manipulation of the market and extortion of farmers is what the NFU and AHDB are meant to prevent.
This should be a call to all arable farmers to join BFU and ask them to campaign in your interests.
 

Grass And Grain

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Yorks
The AIC are doing what they should be;

AIC Members represent the agrisupply industry which provides inputs into the agricultural and farming sectors.
The sectors and % representation is shown below:

  • Animal Feed 90 %
  • Crops Protection and Agronomy 90 %
  • Distributors Fertilisers 95 %
  • Grain and Oilseeds 90 %
  • Seed 80 %

It is basically their job to extract as much money out of farmers as possible.

The horrendous manipulation of the market and extortion of farmers is what the NFU and AHDB are meant to prevent.
This should be a call to all arable farmers to join BFU and ask them to campaign in your interests.
This is the thing. AIC represent the agrisulpply industry. AIC services run the assurance schemes. (Don't know the ins and outs of it all).

Their rules mean UK farmers must be farm assured, but as everyone must essentially be assured, there's no need for mils to pay a premium - RT/SQC is the base standard.

They haven't taken the gatekeeper/RT decision based on feed safety. We know they accept gatekeeper for imports. The cost of complying with gatekeeper or RT is not their business, just a red herring. If they were worried about farmers' costs, they wouldn't insist on RT, but allow supply of perfectly safe, legal standard grain.

imho they've made a decision which affects the way farmers can access, what are supposed to be free markets, for their member's own self gain. It's a biased interest. It's not independent. It's not a decision based on feed safety, and people will make their own minds up if it is specifically prejudice against UK and Eire farmers. They allow gatekeeper for every other country in the world, so why not UK?

In the short term they've probably safeguarded RT membership, but probably not in the long term. Our only alternative is to develop a new assurance scheme, which AIC have said they will readily consider. That's a welcome opening from AIC.

Mills can't say they're not interested in UK gatekeeper style grain, and wouldn't buy it, because they already purchase non-assured imports! They haven't a moral leg to stand on.

Below is the detail from one of the AIC approved "trade assurance" schemes. The merchants can sample themselves, and only need to lab test once per 20 truck loads. And they can skip/reduce testing frequency for dioxins and PCB's if there's a written statement. i.e. a declaration. We've suggested a feed warranty declaration, but we're told that's not good enough, it's got to be audited assurance, yet they are allowing a declaration for some import parameters. It's incredibly non consistent messages. Do what we say, not as we do.

AIC did say they'd consider the possibility of remote audits, use of technology to reduce audit frequency, etc. So that was positive. Maybe there's a compromise to be found.

Screenshot_20220526-232342.png
 

Dave645

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
N Lincs
If we really wanted the £1/t premium we are supposed to be getting if not more then just make mills pay it like they do via the levy system the AHDB use, on all crops they use imports and domestic.
That way we can be sure that we are getting it, if it was a payment on just domestic they would just cut what they pay to us by that amount because imports could just undercut uk farms on price by that premium, every time.

We then get the AHDB to use that to fund farm assurance at a base level and give them the ability to cut their mandatory levy they charge us, so we end up with little to know AHDB levy to pay and a free basic assurance scheme.
I say basic as it should be a slim and simple as possible. That leaves RT where it claims to be, a premium product that for the producers that enter it, will get a premium they can see, or all farmers will dump it.

we all know the RT premium doesn’t exist so I don’t give it long if alternatives exist.
 

Humble Village Farmer

Member
BASE UK Member
Location
Essex
If we really wanted the £1/t premium we are supposed to be getting if not more then just make mills pay it like they do via the levy system the AHDB use, on all crops they use imports and domestic.
That way we can be sure that we are getting it, if it was a payment on just domestic they would just cut what they pay to us by that amount because imports could just undercut uk farms on price by that premium, every time.

We then get the AHDB to use that to fund farm assurance at a base level and give them the ability to cut their mandatory levy they charge us, so we end up with little to know AHDB levy to pay and a free basic assurance scheme.
I say basic as it should be a slim and simple as possible. That leaves RT where it claims to be, a premium product that for the producers that enter it, will get a premium they can see, or all farmers will dump it.

we all know the RT premium doesn’t exist so I don’t give it long if alternatives exist.
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
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 75 43.6%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 61 35.5%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 27 15.7%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 3 1.7%

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

  • 1,284
  • 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