Alternative to Red Tractor

[SilliamWhale]

The resolution of such testing is so low that a single test per many thousands of T's of UK grain would be equivalent but when suggested and subjected to review by Tom Bradshaw (who just weeks later was given a AFS board position ......coincidentally) and AIC neither with any conflict of interest of course !! ) they decided UK farmers would have to do every 29t truck load ........... ie they set out to make it an unviable alternative

what these test actually test for or any results of such tests has yet to be seen by anyone despite numerous request via AHDB or otherwise .............. i'm not totally convinced they exist personally and no one certainly seems to have ever heard of a ship being sent away or rejected so the pass rate is 100% it appears

Also the stuff they are testing for aren't really a risk in the UK with our regulations. You test things based on perception of risk, not just for the f**k of it.

 

[SilliamWhale]

@levybeliever went as far as saying they would although slightly backtracked when I pushed him on it

I think he's left now.

Got his pay raise on behalf of the AHDB so he's done his job now

 

[farmerm]

As a non farmer I'm trying to wrap my head around this. I get that RT are a 'gate keeper' but from what I've read imported grain has to be lab tested and RT doesn't which saves farmers money ie they can supply grain if they have a lab test they pay for themselves. But that's from the 'industry'

Is that true on the part of RT ie; is imported grain tested here in the UK and can farmers supply via that route (paying for lab tests). Definitely wouldn't be happy if we're bringing in stuff totally unregulated into the food chain.

Imported grain is lab tested on "a risk basis".... now consider this..

The risk assessment is carried out by the company that
a) has to pay for any tests the risk assessment deems necessary
b) has the headache, costs and losses involved in the event that the imported grain fails on testing...

So how much lab testing of imported grain do you suppose really happens, fk all, that is how much!

You we bring in stuff that is totally unregulated but it instantly becomes acceptable with the wave of a magic pen at the dockside.

 

[farmerm]

The lab test on imports are paid for by the merchant

to be a member of Rt we have to pay an annual fee, plus Rt are trying to add on various regulations that only benefit the super markets at the farmer expense. When Rt was introduced farmers were told we would be paid a premium for Rt grain. That has never happened

No premium just discounts for those not members under the penalty became so great one didn't have a choice. Those early adopters should hang your heads in shame for being so easily duped!!

 

[robs1]

My reply was to the discussion about inspecting lorry before loading.
I'm not really missing the point.
There are assumptions being made that Government are going to be happy for our industry to be exempted from CPD requirements, that seem now to apply to all other industries, and I don't see it happening.
We are pretty much left alone and trusted to apply approved chemicals to potential food ingredients entering the human food chain, so to think that Nroso, NSTS is going anywhere is dreaming.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that nroso or sprayer testing be scrapped, they are law, well PA is a requirement so in nroso is required and sprayer testing every three years is so if the form says the grain is grown according to law that covers both of those, and therefore cpd

 

[Clive]

I think he's left now.

Got his pay raise on behalf of the AHDB so he's done his job now

does feel a bit that way - engaging while you have agenda then disappear

disappointing

 

[farmerm]

Also the stuff they are testing for aren't really a risk in the UK with our regulations. You test things based on perception of risk, not just for the f**k of it.

What stuff are the testing for... I will put money on it that loads being exported get more testing applied than to imports!!

The cartel claim the following tests are applied on both imports and exports but then they claim the cost of a moisture test or a specific weight test do be £10-15 per sample, its all lies!!

How grain is imported into the UK | AHDB

Find out about assurance schemes and combinable crop imports.

ahdb.org.uk

 

[Barleymow]

As been said before ergot is allowed in imports

 

[Barleymow]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that nroso or sprayer testing be scrapped, they are law, well PA is a requirement so in nroso is required and sprayer testing every three years is so if the form says the grain is grown according to law that covers both of those, and therefore cpd

Noroso is a complete waste of time, the points collection game at cereals is pathetic

 

[robs1]

Noroso is a complete waste of time, the points collection game at cereals is pathetic

Totally agree but the same can be said for most cpd , my wife works in the NHS and it's no better from what she tells me. They are all just another job creation scheme and take useless idiots off the dole, of course some trainers/ examiners are very good but too many are failures in their chosen sphere

 

[SilliamWhale]

What stuff are the testing for... I will put money on it that loads being exported get more testing applied than to imports!!

The cartel claim the following tests are applied on both imports and exports but then they claim the cost of a moisture test or a specific weight test do be £10-15 per sample, its all lies!!

How grain is imported into the UK | AHDB

Find out about assurance schemes and combinable crop imports.

ahdb.org.uk

Well that is a whole can of worms in itself as there is no real protocol for testing

 

[SilliamWhale]

does feel a bit that way - engaging while you have agenda then disappear

disappointing

Expected. Had the same with the Red Tractor Crop guy with the criminal record

 

[David.]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that nroso or sprayer testing be scrapped, they are law, well PA is a requirement so in nroso is required and sprayer testing every three years is so if the form says the grain is grown according to law that covers both of those, and therefore cpd

I have said plenty of times that I have no real problem with an annual RT check. It is a relatively benign audit, done by appointment, and with plenty of opportunity to be visit ready.
*Provided always* that it brings us some value.
This could be a RT premium, as was originally intended, it could be earned recognition with the other statutory bodies, who's work is being done by the RT auditor.
It should also be the basis of the minimum requirement for all produce that is imported to compete with ours.
On that basis, I'd be happy for a stripped down to bare legislative requirements version of RT to continue.
And we don't need our paid representatives dishonestly conspiring with our customers, to give away within RT any "nice to have" add ons, as freebies.

 

[Interested in farming]

The resolution of such testing is so low that a single test per many thousands of T's of UK grain would be equivalent but when suggested and subjected to review by Tom Bradshaw (who just weeks later was given a AFS board position ......coincidentally) and AIC neither with any conflict of interest of course !! ) they decided UK farmers would have to do every 29t truck load ........... ie they set out to make it an unviable alternative

what these test actually test for or any results of such tests has yet to be seen by anyone despite numerous request via AHDB or otherwise .............. i'm not totally convinced they exist personally and no one certainly seems to have ever heard of a ship being sent away or rejected so the pass rate is 100% it appears

Thanks to you and the others for replying. the consensus is that you have little faith in the testing and it's not a level playing field. Definitely concerning that unregulated product is getting into the food chain and that it's not a level playing field.

Definitely an opportunity for farmers to raise awareness of this with the wider public, I'd say there would be a lot of support for it. People (rightly or wrongly) trust brands and food to be safe when they buy it, I think you would get a fair bit of support if people realised.

 

[snipe]

Unfortunately most people just shop on price. Sainsburys insist on their suppliers been RT assured but don’t pay to use the logo on their packaging as they say it confuses the customer.

 

[Dog]

Yes from me. Anything that gives choice is a good thing, if something like this got accepted and you don’t like it stick with RT

 

[Grass And Grain]

I have said plenty of times that I have no real problem with an annual RT check. It is a relatively benign audit, done by appointment, and with plenty of opportunity to be visit ready.
*Provided always* that it brings us some value.
This could be a RT premium, as was originally intended, it could be earned recognition with the other statutory bodies, who's work is being done by the RT auditor.
It should also be the basis of the minimum requirement for all produce that is imported to compete with ours.
On that basis, I'd be happy for a stripped down to bare legislative requirements version of RT to continue.
And we don't need our paid representatives dishonestly conspiring with our customers, to give away within RT any "nice to have" add ons, as freebies.

If we flip this on it's head, we could just let the statutory body do it's stuff, then we wouldn't need the Red Tractor inspection, as RT's work is being done by the local authority inspector.

Edit. And it would be free!

 

[David.]

Then be careful what you wish for, is all I will say.
Let's be honest, a RT audit only scratches the surface of most of the stuff the statutory bodies would gleefully take the opportunity to examine in forensic detail, when they are in your yard. Particularly if they can start charging by the hour if a non-compliance is found.
Perhaps every UK farm really is 365/24/7 "visitor ready" then.
My take is that if an industry agreed and pragmatic RT audit ticks most of the boxes, to keep most other authorities content that things are working okay at farm level, then happy days.
They can still respond to concerns, or do random checks, that is their statutory role.
But I bet none of them particularly want to, nor do they have have the funding to, visit every farm annually.
Sorry, I may be a lone voice, but I believe we had the basics of a decent, largely self policing system, before it was hijacked.

Maybe we could again.

 

[snarling bee]

Then be careful what you wish for, is all I will say.
Let's be honest, a RT audit only scratches the surface of most of the stuff the statutory bodies would gleefully take the opportunity to examine in forensic detail, when they are in your yard. Particularly if they can start charging by the hour if a non-compliance is found.
Perhaps every UK farm really is 365/24/7 "visitor ready" then.
My take is that if an industry agreed and pragmatic RT audit ticks most of the boxes, to keep most other authorities content that things are working okay at farm level, then happy days.
They can still respond to concerns, or do random checks, that is their statutory role.
But I bet none of them particularly want to, nor do they have have the funding to, visit every farm annually.
Sorry, I may be a lone voice, but I believe we had the basics of a decent, largely self policing system, before it was hijacked.

Maybe we could again.

You are not a lone voice, but many don't want to agree with you publicly on this forum.
TBH I've had enough of the OTT BS that permeates through some of these threads, when reasoned debate will make far more progress.

 

[Bury the Trash]

I have said plenty of times that I have no real problem with an annual RT check. It is a relatively benign audit, done by appointment, and with plenty of opportunity to be visit ready.
*Provided always* that it brings us some value.
This could be a RT premium, as was originally intended, it could be earned recognition with the other statutory bodies, who's work is being done by the RT auditor.

Ive had inspection by trading standards before , no problem at all, checking the required statutory /legal obligations as long as they are in place ,all fine and they are always helpful ime.
putting fear into people to make them be part RT is very wrong imo. and the nfu council /people at the top are part of that unfortunately