Arla

[Barmyfarmer]

Asked at my district meeting yesterday about arlas view of the red tractor review and what we need going forwards.

Not sure I got a great answer and also not sure arla will give feedback but don't we need their view to help respond with ours.

I'm no luddite I know we need farm assurance. I also understand that the supermarkets legally need our climate data to simply report their scope 3 emissions.

However if ever there was a time to re establish the farm assurance field it's now.

Why can't arla garden be our assurance rather than the duplication of red tractor.

I don't need a greener farm commitment because arla are already collecting that data and starting to monetise this.

A national GFC just sets to give the data a way free and undermine what many dairy businesses have done so far. Though beef sheep and arable have a long way to go to catch up with what the supermarkets need access to to meet their obligations.

So I want to respond to the red tractor review that as an arla farmer I don't need red tractor any more. But that claim is no good at all unless arla is also behind the farmers position and agrees it's dairy farmers no longer need red tractor because it's just a base and we are ahead of that base anyhow.

We have a once in 10-20 year option to impact how farm assurance affects us going forward.

If red tractor is simply left unchallenged we will be tied to it's duplication for a decade or more.

I 100% agree with this, I felt like arla garden is exactly what red tractor should be, more about the cows rather than a paperwork exercise

 

[Farmer Keith]

Some good points there, I think you’re quite right from arla perspective it’s no longer necessary, will the supermarkets play hardball and not buy certain products of us if they’re not red tractor? Or want them at a discount? You’d hope not but I wouldn’t put it past them.

We’re also in beef and lamb and there’s not a hope of the supermarkets or any other large business being able to report their scope 3 emissions by 2025 on those category’s. The sectors are far too disjointed and the vilification of ruminants in the media has left farmers with very little appetite to get involved IMO. First and foremost there needs to be a mechanism in place to financially reward farmers for the information. As arla farmers we’re lucky to be well ahead of the curve here.

 

[nonemouse]

Asked at my district meeting yesterday about arlas view of the red tractor review and what we need going forwards.

Not sure I got a great answer and also not sure arla will give feedback but don't we need their view to help respond with ours.

I'm no luddite I know we need farm assurance. I also understand that the supermarkets legally need our climate data to simply report their scope 3 emissions.

However if ever there was a time to re establish the farm assurance field it's now.

Why can't arla garden be our assurance rather than the duplication of red tractor.

If red tractor is simply left unchallenged we will be tied to it's duplication for a decade or more.

I have raised similar points with our local representative, and he agreed and said the conversation had been brought up frequently this winter.

 

[Purbeck]

Asked at my district meeting yesterday about arlas view of the red tractor review and what we need going forwards.

Not sure I got a great answer and also not sure arla will give feedback but don't we need their view to help respond with ours.

I'm no luddite I know we need farm assurance. I also understand that the supermarkets legally need our climate data to simply report their scope 3 emissions.

However if ever there was a time to re establish the farm assurance field it's now.

Why can't arla garden be our assurance rather than the duplication of red tractor.

I don't need a greener farm commitment because arla are already collecting that data and starting to monetise this.

A national GFC just sets to give the data a way free and undermine what many dairy businesses have done so far. Though beef sheep and arable have a long way to go to catch up with what the supermarkets need access to to meet their obligations.

So I want to respond to the red tractor review that as an arla farmer I don't need red tractor any more. But that claim is no good at all unless arla is also behind the farmers position and agrees it's dairy farmers no longer need red tractor because it's just a base and we are ahead of that base anyhow.

We have a once in 10-20 year option to impact how farm assurance affects us going forward.

If red tractor is simply left unchallenged we will be tied to it's duplication for a decade or more.

I completely agree with this and have been met with the same response/lack of response when I've questioned Arla on this in the past.

Our district meeting is upcoming, so the point surrounding why we need red tractor when we have Arla garden will have to be asked again. A position from Arla too on the red tractor review will also be requested!

 

[Nathan818]

Asked at my district meeting yesterday about arlas view of the red tractor review and what we need going forwards.

Not sure I got a great answer and also not sure arla will give feedback but don't we need their view to help respond with ours.

I'm no luddite I know we need farm assurance. I also understand that the supermarkets legally need our climate data to simply report their scope 3 emissions.

However if ever there was a time to re establish the farm assurance field it's now.

Why can't arla garden be our assurance rather than the duplication of red tractor.

I don't need a greener farm commitment because arla are already collecting that data and starting to monetise this.

A national GFC just sets to give the data a way free and undermine what many dairy businesses have done so far. Though beef sheep and arable have a long way to go to catch up with what the supermarkets need access to to meet their obligations.

So I want to respond to the red tractor review that as an arla farmer I don't need red tractor any more. But that claim is no good at all unless arla is also behind the farmers position and agrees it's dairy farmers no longer need red tractor because it's just a base and we are ahead of that base anyhow.

We have a once in 10-20 year option to impact how farm assurance affects us going forward.

If red tractor is simply left unchallenged we will be tied to it's duplication for a decade or more.

Not an arla farmer nor an expert on assurance schemes. I understand that arla garden fulfills this basic level of assurance that is required. But if the industry accepts that arla garden farmers don't need red tractor then doesn't that just muddy the waters and undermine the value of any national assurance scheme?
Surely some national scheme is a better solution for the basic level of assurance required to market our national produce, and any processor can have their own higher standards for a select pool of milk above that? A basic national scheme just makes most sense once you think about carbon footprinting because then at least we'll all be using the same carbon calculator and processors can compare to each other rather than every processor having different data which makes it all meaningless. If arla garden is just going over the same stuff as the national scheme (red tractor) then isn't that arlas own fault for duplicating it?
Curious as to how you all think arla garden fits into this.

 

[frederick]

Not an arla farmer nor an expert on assurance schemes. I understand that arla garden fulfills this basic level of assurance that is required. But if the industry accepts that arla garden farmers don't need red tractor then doesn't that just muddy the waters and undermine the value of any national assurance scheme?
Surely some national scheme is a better solution for the basic level of assurance required to market our national produce, and any processor can have their own higher standards for a select pool of milk above that? A basic national scheme just makes most sense once you think about carbon footprinting because then at least we'll all be using the same carbon calculator and processors can compare to each other rather than every processor having different data which makes it all meaningless. If arla garden is just going over the same stuff as the national scheme (red tractor) then isn't that arlas own fault for duplicating it?
Curious as to how you all think arla garden fits into this.

That logic is fine if the assurance scheme is working for you.

However red tractor seems far more interested in working for itself and the supermarkets and it is time that balance is readdressed and now maybe that opportunity.

 

[Cows 'n grass]

What is happening in Denmark and Sweden with regards to certifications other Arla Garden?

 

[Fergieman]

What is happening in Denmark and Sweden with regards to certifications other Arla Garden?

No other Red Tractor/farm assurance inspections in Denmark & Sweden. Not sure on government inspections.

 

[Homesy]

Some good points there, I think you’re quite right from arla perspective it’s no longer necessary, will the supermarkets play hardball and not buy certain products of us if they’re not red tractor? Or want them at a discount? You’d hope not but I wouldn’t put it past them.

We’re also in beef and lamb and there’s not a hope of the supermarkets or any other large business being able to report their scope 3 emissions by 2025 on those category’s. The sectors are far too disjointed and the vilification of ruminants in the media has left farmers with very little appetite to get involved IMO. First and foremost there needs to be a mechanism in place to financially reward farmers for the information. As arla farmers we’re lucky to be well ahead of the curve here.

If Arla and the other companies had any sense they could stick together and collectively abandon Red Tractor. The supermarkets would then have no choice but to accept the demise of Red Tractor.

 

[Farmer Keith]

If Arla and the other companies had any sense they could stick together and collectively abandon Red Tractor. The supermarkets would then have no choice but to accept the demise of Red Tractor.

As far as I’m aware Arla is the only processor with its own in house assurance scheme capable of replacing RT. There’s always going to be a requirement for a basic FA scheme, we’ve all seen the panorama documentary from a few years back as a case in point. The issue right now is RT has overstepped its remit. In general I believe Arla members want to leave as we have duplicate inspections not because we think we should be unregulated.

 

[Homesy]

As far as I’m aware Arla is the only processor with its own in house assurance scheme capable of replacing RT. There’s always going to be a requirement for a basic FA scheme, we’ve all seen the panorama documentary from a few years back as a case in point. The issue right now is RT has overstepped its remit. In general I believe Arla members want to leave as we have duplicate inspections not because we think we should be unregulated.

Saputo have their own as do several other companies. Parkham up the road have an RSPCA audit. The notion that we are unregulated is nonsense. We already have higher legal minimum standards than most of the world. FSA, EA, CTS etc are all there to monitor this. If you think we should farm to pacify the BBC and Panorama then you'd better stock up on tofu.

 

[In the pit]

Saputo have their own as do several other companies. Parkham up the road have an RSPCA audit. The notion that we are unregulated is nonsense. We already have higher legal minimum standards than most of the world. FSA, EA, CTS etc are all there to monitor this. If you think we should farm to pacify the BBC and Panorama then you'd better stock up on tofu.

I’ll think you’ll find most companies just use red tractor

 

[crashbox]

I’ll think you’ll find most companies just use red tractor

I think you are right.

Most processors just want to buy milk, process, and sell for a profit. And good on them, that's their business, and we need them like they need us.

Most buyers want a single scheme, which farmers comply with, that gives them confidence that a producer's product is legally compliant and safe.

 

[Homesy]

I’ll think you’ll find most companies just use red tractor

---

Maybe but Red Tractor states in it’s mandate it is to provide a premium. There is no premium. Last time I went into a supermarket both Kerrygold and President butter were more expensive than Countrylife. Our legal standards are already high. NO PREMIUM NO ASSURANCE is what we should be demanding. The supermarkets are marketing all food home produced and imported on the back of our higher standards. There is no labelling for imported food produced with lower standards.

 

[frederick]

I think you are right.

Most processors just want to buy milk, process, and sell for a profit. And good on them, that's their business, and we need them like they need us.

Most buyers want a single scheme, which farmers comply with, that gives them confidence that a producer's product is legally compliant and safe.

But do you believe red tractor works for you to achieve the above. And subsequently do you want red tractor to take responsibility for supplying your carbon footprint information to your processor and are you happy to supply that for free if not how are you expecting to be rewarded for the gift of this data.

 

[ollie989898]

I completely agree with this and have been met with the same response/lack of response when I've questioned Arla on this in the past.

Our district meeting is upcoming, so the point surrounding why we need red tractor when we have Arla garden will have to be asked again. A position from Arla too on the red tractor review will also be requested!

I've said this for sometime- the hurdles required by some of the dairies are pretty onerous (and they pay a bonus for them), making red tractor totally redundant. Arla, being member owned, should drop the requirement for Red tractor after examining anything it might leave behind that might need to be added to their standards.

The beef and sheep sector don't really need RT at all, leaving just cereals which is basically a light touch anyway and a complete waste of time given how buyers just buy imported grain without a second thought.

 

[frederick]

I've said this for sometime- the hurdles required by some of the dairies are pretty onerous (and they pay a bonus for them), making red tractor totally redundant. Arla, being member owned, should drop the requirement for Red tractor after examining anything it might leave behind that might need to be added to their standards.

The beef and sheep sector don't really need RT at all, leaving just cereals which is basically a light touch anyway and a complete waste of time given how buyers just buy imported grain without a second thought.

Why don't beef and sheep need red tractor. What else do they have to show that their business has been audited.

Much as I may have an issue with red tractor I think any business that supplies food for human consumption must have some level of third party auditing.

 

[sidjon]

Why don't beef and sheep need red tractor. What else do they have to show that their business has been audited.

Much as I may have an issue with red tractor I think any business that supplies food for human consumption must have some level of third party auditing.

Van ? Only odd few beef and sheep guys locally RT , most sell suck calves and lamb makes no difference in value

 

[ollie989898]

Why don't beef and sheep need red tractor. What else do they have to show that their business has been audited.

Much as I may have an issue with red tractor I think any business that supplies food for human consumption must have some level of third party auditing.

A lot of them sell live and the price for non-assured is basically the same as assured? All they have to do is comply with trading standards laws which most farms do anyway and have done for years.

 

[crashbox]

But do you believe red tractor works for you to achieve the above. And subsequently do you want red tractor to take responsibility for supplying your carbon footprint information to your processor and are you happy to supply that for free if not how are you expecting to be rewarded for the gift of this data.

Red tractor, kind of works. Painful though it is.

Green tractor no, I agree that we should not give away environmental improvements for free.