BFU meeting with AHDB over combinables assurance

[Grass And Grain]

I presume there are tests, but seems to be a secret what they are, what sampling methodology and frequency.

We just want to know. Can't get anywhere until we know what the parameters are.

 

[Drillman]

No, they may have their own lab on site to do basic quality checks before they mill and mix the stuff. They aren't thick. Nothing will be loaded into a ship damp anyway as it would rot in days and be unsalable though it would be covered by insurance and dumped in the sea anyway probably. I know they don't like loading ships in the rain and will shut the doors and wait until dry weather. I doubt much else happens beyond that. I mean all the various countries around the world use varying chemicals on their crops and in their grain stores, short of testing for literally everything you can think of, what can they realistically do?

No one is gonna drive a grain boat 1/2 way round the world with all the costs involved for it to park up at the dock and a bloke in a lab coat takes a sample and says sorry chaps it’s no good take it back Are they?

And you’re not telling me that half these countries who export are that persnickety about making sure it’s perfect before waving it off. Moisture, bushell, hagbergs etc that are done by every intake but little more

 

[SilliamWhale]

Surely one of our tame grain traders on here can tell us what tests are done on imported grain?

@crazy_bull ?

 

[Drillman]

I presume there are tests, but seems to be a secret what they are, what sampling methodology and frequency.

We just want to know. Can't get anywhere until we know what the parameters are.

And if/once it’s discovered that these lab tests aren’t as comprehensive as we’re been led to believe a lot of people are gonna look very silly.

 

[milkloss]

If they won’t disclose what tests and how often then the simple answer is that they don’t do it at all. If they’re not transparent then they’re hiding something.
Well done doing all of this @Grass And Grain but keep them to a tight deadline or else we’ll all be retired or bankrupt waiting.

 

[ollie989898]

No one is gonna drive a grain boat 1/2 way round the world with all the costs involved for it to park up at the dock and a bloke in a lab coat takes a sample and says sorry chaps it’s no good take it back Are they?

And you’re not telling me that half these countries who export are that persnickety about making sure it’s perfect before waving it off. Moisture, bushell, hagbergs etc that are done by every intake but little more

The moisture will be the main driver and in reality much corn is grown in dry climates anyway so it won't really be an issue. The bushel weight, hagbergs, protein etc- you'd be having a laugh trying to stipulate any quality parameters on it. The wheat from a region will be what it is based on the weather that season. If you're an Egyptian wheat buyer they won't have a choice, it'll be down to who has product and who can get it on a boat and deliver it.

 

[Farmer_Joe]

BFU representatives had a meeting with AHDB Directors on 23/04/2023.

It was interesting, and I think we made a little bit of progress. Here's my take on how it went.....

We suggested a single assurance scheme offering wasn't helpful, particularly as the standards are relatively high for it, it tries to be all things to all markets, and non-assured imports (purchased by the same mills) immediately undermine the concept.

Was also pointed out growers for some markets are jumping through all the gold plated Red Tractor standards, and then just selling feed grains.

BFU suggested there should be different assurance options for both buyers and sellers. Currently no-one has any choice but of a single offering. We asked if the AHDB staff would go to the Sector Council and ask for certain things to be considered.

1. Find out what lab tests are done on imported grains. Actual results. Frequency of testing. Sampling methods employed.
2. Negotiate a lab test standard for UK grain which takes into account the legislative standards of UK produced gain, hence do we need some of the tests required of imports, could some tests be negated by use of mycotoxin risk assessment for example, and there may be different requirements for different markets.
3. Explore the concept of offering assurance declarations on the passport, possibly backed up by a system of verification (e.g. document uploads).
4. Consider introduction of a more basic food assurance option than currently available to English, Scottish and Welsh growers (not dissimilar to the Northern Ireland scheme, which is accepted by the AIC).
5. Retention of existing premium schemes such as RT/SQC to satisfy requirements of processors who are prepared to pay the price premium for such a standard.

^^^^Create a new structure which offers choice and differentiation of standards. This means there are no accusations of a monopoly situation in grain assurance provision, and facilitates more likelihood of price premiums if growers choose higher tier assurance.

AHDB made the good suggestion of looking at other assurance schemes and how that might help the thought process. BFU followed this train of thought, and pointed to the Northern Ireland Assured Combinable Crops Scheme, which has far fewer burdensome standards compared to RT/SQC, but is readily accepted by AIC for their feed mills. Hence, there is currently space for a more basic assurance method for levy payers, and that provision does not currently exist.

BFU also pointed out that RT/SQC is basically a farmer declaration, and inspector just ticks a box to witness the declaration has occured. Hence those declarations could be made on the passport, and they are there for the buyers to see first hand - the effect is the same. And that the inspectors look at the same grain stores they inspected last year, which calls into question the frequency of inspections and membership fees.

AHDB did find the impetus to undertake some work which they wouldn't do previously. AHDB Directors Will Jackson and David Eudall previously told us all they could do was gather information and inform the debate, and they couldn't run assurance schemes etc.

We showed them Schedule 1 (below). So then they had to admit it was within their functions to operate such schemes. This doesn't appear all too satisfactory.

View attachment 1107671

^^^^^ I'm not certain why they didn't offer this information previously. A suspicious mind might think it is influence of NFU, RT, AIC, UK Flour Millers and AHDB themselves and their connections to RT. AHDB clearly listen to the influences of NFU as a representation of what farmers and levy payers think (they said so), but of course NFU own the RT brand name and logo, so AHDB must understand NFU opinion possibly might not be independent. What a coincidence it would be if an organisation says it's in best interest of farmers if there is only a single assurance scheme, and do you know what, it just so happens that organisation owns the brand logo (afaik).

Competition is important, and there are laws about ensuring monopolies aren't orchestrated to exist.

A suspicious mind might also think it is because AHDB can't be bothered to do the work involved, and would rather take the easy route of letting RT do it. AHDB have gifted circa £250,000/annum to RT for a number of years.

We asked if AHDB could gather information about the lab tests undertaken on imports. What tests result are actually there? What frequency? Which parameters?

AHDB said they would endeavour to collate the information, on understanding they couldn't guarantee success, but would try. It's beauricratic at AHDB. No-one can make a decision because they've to OK it with the sector Council, have meetings, etc. I understand the reasons why, but result is snail pace decisions and progress, to point it makes it almost makes it inefficient. Not sure what the solution is to that one.

We also asked if they could, whilst collecting the lab test data, take it a step further and start the process of consulting with the mills about the lab tests which might be required for UK grain so we can access markets by similar lab test method as imports can use. AHDB''s Ken Boynes wouldn't commit to that. I don't know why he wouldn't. It's a market access method available to imports, so it's an accepted intake standard of those mills, but not currently available for UK produced grains, and surely we could have it as an option available for UK grain. So why couldn't AHDB commit to taking that simple step of finding out what might be an agreeable lab test method for UK grain? The mind boggles. It's not rocket science. Is there something they're not telling us? Are they intent on keeping RT as the ONLY assurance method? I don't know, but I do know it doesn't make any sense to not investigate/ negotiate this option.

Even if AHDB did research / negotiate a lab test method for UK growers, could we be sure the bar wouldn't be set at an unreasonably high point?.....just to discourage the use of it, and send us towards retaining RT membership. With historic connections to RT, I'm not certain how we trust AHDB's independence and resolve to work solely in interests of levy payers.

AHDB did make the valid point that if a large central store chose to assure grain via the lab test method, and the grain failed the tests, that caused a big problem. It would be for individual businesses to choose which assurance standard/method they wished to use.

Conclusion.
Sow progress, but seemed to be a renewed helpfulness, maybe because we made AHDB aware some BFU members are prepared to pay to take out farming press adverts to investigate if farmers might wish to trigger a ballot on continuation of AHDB Cereals & Oilseeds.

Have AHDB achieved anything for us over past two years? I haven't seen much evidence of achievement, or at least, they haven't informed us of any.

Steve Ridsdale

British Farming Union

British Farming Union – …securing a better future for farmers

Well done,

you work is highly appreciated by me and im sure everyone on this forum

 

[Drillman]

If they won’t disclose what tests and how often then the simple answer is that they don’t do it at all. If they’re not transparent then they’re hiding something.

This is the key to it all.

 

[Grass And Grain]

Well done,

you work is highly appreciated by me and im sure everyone on this forum

Thanks.

Feels like banging head against brick wall, but we've to keep fighting against the injustice.

We must not give in. They must not get away with it.

It might mean organising a ballot on future of AHDB. NFU/RT are throwing AHDB under the bus imho. Hopefully AHDB will be decisive enough to save themselves. Personally I like some of what AHDB does, but this assurance issue is a red line and we're getting sick of waiting.

It might mean getting all farmers to sign up to email list so we can coordinate assurance negotiation. Strength in numbers, assurance schemes have no value without farmers members, etc. Ultimately we have the power if we can organise everyone together. We'll endeavour to do that if necessary, and that move is getting ever closer.

We can start our equivalent assurance scheme, promise farmers change if they jump ship, then when we've got the numbers we're in control of the standards.

We've also got no win no fee competition lawyers available. Won't cost us a penny. People ask why not let them loose? but it's not the way to work really, these organisations should have an opportunity to make the necessary changes, but patience is running low.

So we've 4 cards up our sleeves. We can play them one by one.

 

[crazy_bull]

The moisture will be the main driver and in reality much corn is grown in dry climates anyway so it won't really be an issue. The bushel weight, hagbergs, protein etc- you'd be having a laugh trying to stipulate any quality parameters on it. The wheat from a region will be what it is based on the weather that season. If you're an Egyptian wheat buyer they won't have a choice, it'll be down to who has product and who can get it on a boat and deliver it.

You are joking right?

the Egyptians have very strict requirements for quality intake, they can’t afford to have another ‘Arab Spring’!

contractual quality tests are done on loading of a vessel, You tend to have an independentmonitor on the intake who is ‘employed’ by the buyer to check that’s that specs are met, (the correct term for this person escapes me at the moment), as someone rightly said you don’t just move a ship on a hope it ‘goes in’.

they will take a sample of grain from each lorry and at a predetermined amount check the average to ensure spec of the boat is correct, and retain that sample.

I have not been involved with the importing of grain so I am not sure what tests they do on offloading, although I will try and find out. Assuming the use of an independent monitor at loading I imagine it will be less testing than a blind loaded vessel, but would expect a degree of periodic testing to check its correct.

C B

 

[crazy_bull]

Granted this is many years out of date, but I can’t find a complete contract in English for more recently quickly.
This shows the level of contractual requirements on a GASC (Egypt) wheat purchase, I believe parameters have got stricter since then.

https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/report/downloadreportbyfilename?filename=New%20Wheat%20Tendering%20Requirements%20_Cairo_Egypt_12-16-2009.pdf

C B

 

[Andy Nash]

You are joking right?

the Egyptians have very strict requirements for quality intake, they can’t afford to have another ‘Arab Spring’!

contractual quality tests are done on loading of a vessel, You tend to have an independentmonitor on the intake who is ‘employed’ by the buyer to check that’s that specs are met, (the correct term for this person escapes me at the moment), as someone rightly said you don’t just move a ship on a hope it ‘goes in’.

they will take a sample of grain from each lorry and at a predetermined amount check the average to ensure spec of the boat is correct, and retain that sample.

I have not been involved with the importing of grain so I am not sure what tests they do on offloading, although I will try and find out. Assuming the use of an independent monitor at loading I imagine it will be less testing than a blind loaded vessel, but would expect a degree of periodic testing to check its correct.

C B

Interesting thanks.
Assuming that imported grain to this country has a similar methodology to exported, we perhaps should be trying to find out what checks are done prior to loading the ship. Possibly more important than the unloading checks.

 

[Barleymow]

Someone must know someone who works at the docks who can state clearly and with no BS what testing is done for inbound cargoes. My gut feel is not a lot- other than moisture being tested as the ship is loaded (no one wants a cargo going foul on the voyage over).

Trucks go into some mills first thing ,only weighed in

 

[tullah]

Interesting thanks.
Assuming that imported grain to this country has a similar methodology to exported, we perhaps should be trying to find out what checks are done prior to loading the ship. Possibly more important than the unloading checks.

I wonder what sort of farm audits they have out there.

 

[crazy_bull]

Someone must know someone who works at the docks who can state clearly and with no BS what testing is done for inbound cargoes. My gut feel is not a lot- other than moisture being tested as the ship is loaded (no one wants a cargo going foul on the voyage over).

You do talk some nonsense on this!!

have a look at that GASC tender document from 2009, it has more perameters on it than our standard ex farm grain contracts do now and I believe it’s got tighter since then. Globally shipped grain is not done on a whim and a prayer when talking about multi millions of £/€/$ on a vessel, it still has to do the job it’s intended to do.
Globally boats can and do get rejected, often before they get to the intended port but not always. They might not be able to meet the spec of the buyer so an alternate home must be found.

I guess you could liken it to the ‘vendor assured’ grain that I believe Camgrain does, as they know the quality of grain on each lorry going to the mill as the tests are done on loading. The source and relationship with the loading company being the key factor here.

C B

 

[An Gof]

You are joking right?

the Egyptians have very strict requirements for quality intake, they can’t afford to have another ‘Arab Spring’!

contractual quality tests are done on loading of a vessel, You tend to have an independentmonitor on the intake who is ‘employed’ by the buyer to check that’s that specs are met, (the correct term for this person escapes me at the moment), as someone rightly said you don’t just move a ship on a hope it ‘goes in’.

they will take a sample of grain from each lorry and at a predetermined amount check the average to ensure spec of the boat is correct, and retain that sample.

I have not been involved with the importing of grain so I am not sure what tests they do on offloading, although I will try and find out. Assuming the use of an independent monitor at loading I imagine it will be less testing than a blind loaded vessel, but would expect a degree of periodic testing to check its correct.

C B

Cargo Superintendent is the name you are looking for

 

[crazy_bull]

Cargo Superintendent is the name you are looking for

Thank you kind sir!! Brain not got enough caffeine in it yet it seems!!!

 

[An Gof]

Granted this is many years out of date, but I can’t find a complete contract in English for more recently quickly.
This shows the level of contractual requirements on a GASC (Egypt) wheat purchase, I believe parameters have got stricter since then.

https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/report/downloadreportbyfilename?filename=New%20Wheat%20Tendering%20Requirements%20_Cairo_Egypt_12-16-2009.pdf

C B

All good info @crazy_bull but you have forgotten the alleged “brown envelope” that assists in transactions and shipments in some countries particularly once it reaches dockside

 

[ajd132]

You do talk some nonsense on this!!

have a look at that GASC tender document from 2009, it has more perameters on it than our standard ex farm grain contracts do now and I believe it’s got tighter since then. Globally shipped grain is not done on a whim and a prayer when talking about multi millions of £/€/$ on a vessel, it still has to do the job it’s intended to do.
Globally boats can and do get rejected, often before they get to the intended port but not always. They might not be able to meet the spec of the buyer so an alternate home must be found.

I guess you could liken it to the ‘vendor assured’ grain that I believe Camgrain does, as they know the quality of grain on each lorry going to the mill as the tests are done on loading. The source and relationship with the loading company being the key factor here.

C B

Correct camgrain do ‘vendor assured’ on some of the long term contracts.

 

[crazy_bull]

All good info @crazy_bull but you have forgotten the alleged “brown envelope” that assists in transactions and shipments in some countries particularly once it reaches dockside

No doubt that goes on in some parts of the world, heard of a grower who has his own lorry offering the weigh bridge lady a few years ago at a large flour mill £20 to ignore the readings of his wheat sample!
Made for some interesting conversations all round!

C B