Barmyfarmer
Member
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 exerciseAsked 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.