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
AIC - No need for alternative to Red Tractor. Farmers Weekly article
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: 8159268" data-attributes="member: 23184"><p>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).</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. <strong>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. </strong>It's incredibly non consistent messages. Do what we say, not as we do.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1038873[/ATTACH]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Grass And Grain, post: 8159268, member: 23184"] 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. [B]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. [/B]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. [ATTACH type="full"]1038873[/ATTACH] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
AIC - No need for alternative to Red Tractor. Farmers Weekly article
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