Concerned about Red Tractor collapse.

Drillman

Member
Mixed Farmer
The red tractor brand and logo is worthless

it has no value as it doesn’t provide anyone with a premium.

therefore it cannot be a brand.

so any research they do about there ‘brand’ must be channelled to get the result they want.
 

Drillman

Member
Mixed Farmer
Probably for two reasons:

To use the RT trademark you probably have to pay the NFU for permission to use it.

Not only that but it has no value in the marketplace, not when compared to premium or deluxe type labels.
the end user paying red tractor to use the logo is pointless as there’s no need, cheaper to just stick a british flag on instead to get the same result.
 

DrWazzock

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lincolnshire
I don't go to Hereford Market, so I don't know what they have done before, but I've just seen this. anyone know the reasons.

I can’t see why a simple declaration along these lines can’t suffice for all produce.
For crops give agronomist name instead of vet name. Job done.
We always completed such a declaration when we took stock to Newark, even though we were RT.
I’m afraid that until somebody comes up with this simple alternative to displace RT across the board then all we are doing is recycling lots of hot air.
No declaration at all and just relying on it being basic legal standard by default isn’t good enough. We need a simple A4 declaration/certificate of conformity/consignment note and we need it soon.
 
By the sounds of it, arable farmers are the ones that need RT the least.

3 yearly sprayer MOTs- required by law.

Qualified or suitably trained persons required to make agronomy recommendations- already needed for insurance purposes.

Can only buy and use pesticides in a way permitted on the label- backed by law. Impossible to buy non-licensed pesticides anyway as no one will stock them.

Can only sell grain fit for purpose under existing trading standards legislation and sale of goods act- backed by law.


Tell me what the cronk the arable world needs red tractor for?


The above basically applies to dairy farmers as well in addition to the trading standards regulations when it comes to animal identification, animal movements and veterinary medicines. Also they have environmental health and food hygiene rules to abide by, all of which is enforced by real-world laws.
 
Last edited:

serf

Member
Location
warwickshire
I can’t see why a simple declaration along these lines can’t suffice for all produce
Wheres is the ' job for the boys ' going to be then though....

On a serious note though if this sort of self declaration can do the job for export ect and a few more products use this type of declaration Darwin will see them on their way and we can jog on without these hangers on !
 

Drillman

Member
Mixed Farmer
By the sounds of it, arable farmers are the ones that need RT the least.

3 yearly sprayer MOTs- required by law.

Qualified or suitably trained persons required to make agronomy recommendations- already needed for insurance purposes.

Can only buy and use pesticides in a way permitted on the label- backed by law. Impossible to buy non-licensed pesticides anyway as no one will stock them.

Can only sell grain fit for purpose under existing trading standards legislation and sale of goods act- backed by law.


Tell me what the cronk the arable world needs red tractor for?


The above basically applies to dairy farmers as well in addition to the trading standards regulations when it comes to animal identification, animal movements and veterinary medicines. Also they have environmental health and food hygiene rules to abide by, all of which is enforced by real-world laws.
Nailed it in one👍

and is why red tractor are nothing more than a bunch of crooks
 

neilo

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Montgomeryshire
I can’t see why a simple declaration along these lines can’t suffice for all produce.
For crops give agronomist name instead of vet name. Job done.
We always completed such a declaration when we took stock to Newark, even though we were RT.
I’m afraid that until somebody comes up with this simple alternative to displace RT across the board then all we are doing is recycling lots of hot air.
No declaration at all and just relying on it being basic legal standard by default isn’t good enough. We need a simple A4 declaration/certificate of conformity/consignment note and we need it soon.

The pertinent part of that form is clause 1, which is to comply with new export requirements (as previously posted). Nothing to do with RT or food safety.
The rest of it is already covered by ticking a box on the AML1 form. Worcester used to duplicate it with their own forms too, just for the sake of using paper presumably.

Why should we need to give an agronomist’s name to certify anything? It’s not a necessity, or a legal requirement, to use an agronomist to grow a crop, just to abide by the relevant legislation, as printed on every chem label. Use of an agronomist is optional, albeit probably a sensible one.

We need no certification or ‘scheme’, other than com0lying with the already extensive UK legislation. It really is as simple as that.
 

tullah

Member
Location
Linconshire
They should be asked..do they want something that's been through a tickbox machine which bears no relation to quality or do they want the real food with no lies and made up paperwork accompanying it that just serves the purpose of the gravy train. While their
Nailed it in one👍

and is why red tractor are nothing more than a bunch of crooks
Dont be confused. It's the owners of the woke Tick box Stuff second grade stuff who are the crooks.
No need to refer to tickbox as anything else other than the non farming union standard. The logo company name is deliberately meant to mislead farmers to push them to loathe the RT instead of the owners of the fraud, the Non FU
 

MrNoo

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Cirencester
They should be asked..do they want something that's been through a tickbox machine which bears no relation to quality or do they want the real food with no lies and made up paperwork accompanying it that just serves the purpose of the gravy train. While their

Dont be confused. It's the owners of the woke Tick box Stuff second grade stuff who are the crooks.
No need to refer to tickbox as anything else other than the non farming union standard. The logo company name is deliberately meant to mislead farmers to push them to loathe the RT instead of the owners of the fraud, the Non FU
Exactly and what exactly have the NFU done about it??? Zero, nadda, nothing, just ignore and hope it goes away, no statement nothing, in my eyes they are scum just like RT.
 

DrWazzock

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lincolnshire
The pertinent part of that form is clause 1, which is to comply with new export requirements (as previously posted). Nothing to do with RT or food safety.
The rest of it is already covered by ticking a box on the AML1 form. Worcester used to duplicate it with their own forms too, just for the sake of using paper presumably.

Why should we need to give an agronomist’s name to certify anything? It’s not a necessity, or a legal requirement, to use an agronomist to grow a crop, just to abide by the relevant legislation, as printed on every chem label. Use of an agronomist is optional, albeit probably a sensible one.

We need no certification or ‘scheme’, other than com0lying with the already extensive UK legislation. It really is as simple as that.
It’s not quite that simple. EU and also U.K. legislation requires buyers of food commodities to take due diligence to check the safety of their supplies. It’s not sufficient to stand up in court and say well we assumed Farmer Giles was complying with the law. The feed/food buyers, processors and retailers have to have the right hazard monitoring and control points in place to protect themselves from claims and prosecution in the event of a food safety issue.
In my view a simple declaration of conformity signed off by vet or agronomist would suffice. If there are issues on farm, these people are more likely to understand them than an RT inspector who visits one day per year and sits in the house going through forms.
It if it wasn’t for HACCP regulations, I’d agree we wouldn’t need additional assurance above basic legal minimum.
 

traineefarmer

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Mid Norfolk
Shouldn't we, when writing on here, be substituting the words Non Farming Union for RT.
The owners of Rt are the non farming union hiding behind some vague logo RT which they pretend to have nothing to do with. These people are RT, no ifs and buts about it.
It makes me laugh when non fu sing the praises of RT when in fact its them themselves.
Dont let them hide behind and fudge responsibility of their silly little red tractor.
These people are making fools of their membership.
A very good point. Now that AHDB have washed their hands of them, the NFU is the sole guarantor - owner in the eyes of the law and responsible for any liabilities. It's the NFU's fault that they gave away control to the likes of AIC and BRC against their member's interests.
 

Hindsight

Member
Location
Lincolnshire
It’s not quite that simple. EU and also U.K. legislation requires buyers of food commodities to take due diligence to check the safety of their supplies. It’s not sufficient to stand up in court and say well we assumed Farmer Giles was complying with the law. The feed/food buyers, processors and retailers have to have the right hazard monitoring and control points in place to protect themselves from claims and prosecution in the event of a food safety issue.
In my view a simple declaration of conformity signed off by vet or agronomist would suffice. If there are issues on farm, these people are more likely to understand them than an RT inspector who visits one day per year and sits in the house going through forms.
It if it wasn’t for HACCP regulations, I’d agree we wouldn’t need additional assurance above basic legal minimum.

Why would an agronomist wish to sign off your crops Dr W. What are the Professional Indemnity Insurance implications? I may advise and give you the farmer a recommendation for pesticide, and in the case of a distributor serviced agronomist supply the product. But I do not know you applied the chemical at the correct rate, correct timing, or at all, or substituted it for another product purchased from elsewhere. This shall is say glibly 'signing off' sounds ace. But comes with responsibilities. And with those responsibilities comes potential financial and legal consequences.
 

DrWazzock

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lincolnshire
Why would an agronomist wish to sign off your crops Dr W. What are the Professional Indemnity Insurance implications? I may advise and give you the farmer a recommendation for pesticide, and in the case of a distributor serviced agronomist supply the product. But I do not know you applied the chemical at the correct rate, correct timing, or at all, or substituted it for another product purchased from elsewhere. This shall is say glibly 'signing off' sounds ace. But comes with responsibilities. And with those responsibilities comes potential financial and legal consequences.
The RT inspector knows much less about how I actually go about the job yet I pay him £250 pa. I doubt he or RT is indemnified for a pesticide, fuel spillage incident etc here either.
I am not saying agronomists should take on liability or require additional indemnity as they need only sign in a “witnessing” capacity to verify the farmer is a bona fide operator and actually exists in much the same way as a witness signs a will, but might not agree or fully understand the content.
If it’s quite acceptable for the vicar to sign a firearms certificate then why can’t my agronomist sign off my assurance certificate. It’s not really about whether he’s monitored my every move and action. It’s about TRUST.
 

neilo

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Montgomeryshire
It’s not quite that simple. EU and also U.K. legislation requires buyers of food commodities to take due diligence to check the safety of their supplies. It’s not sufficient to stand up in court and say well we assumed Farmer Giles was complying with the law. The feed/food buyers, processors and retailers have to have the right hazard monitoring and control points in place to protect themselves from claims and prosecution in the event of a food safety issue.
In my view a simple declaration of conformity signed off by vet or agronomist would suffice. If there are issues on farm, these people are more likely to understand them than an RT inspector who visits one day per year and sits in the house going through forms.
It if it wasn’t for HACCP regulations, I’d agree we wouldn’t need additional assurance above basic legal minimum.

We are already checked by govt agencies like Trading Standards, etc. That’s all that’s needed, along with our own declaration that we are abiding by current legislation (which in itself makes us liable for any problems).
There is no need to get any ‘professional’ involved, which just adds unnecessary costs. No vet, or agronomist, can certify that we are complying to any regs on farm as they aren’t there to witness it. They might advise us but it’s ultimately only us that choose whether we comply or not.

Why add ANY complication and cost? It’s not required currently for non-FA produce, which still enters the food chain perfectly safely, and it isn’t required for imported product doing the same.
 

texelburger

Member
Location
Herefordshire
Very few people know what RT is. At BBQ a few months ago I asked everybody (about 30) what RT was and only a couple knew and even they weren’t bothered.
Same here,asked about the same number in our local one night and only a couple knew about it.This was a rural country pub so I'm at a loss as to how RT claimed,what was it,about 70 % were aware of the brand.I think a little manipulation of the figures or how/where the questions were asked came into play.
 

MrNoo

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Cirencester
Same here,asked about the same number in our local one night and only a couple knew about it.This was a rural country pub so I'm at a loss as to how RT claimed,what was it,about 70 % were aware of the brand.I think a little manipulation of the figures or how/where the questions were asked came into play.
On Twatter the other day they stated a Mori poll indicated that 4 out of 5, I did comment had they taken up comedy? Guess they phoned around their own offices for that that result!
 

Dave645

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
N Lincs
Why would an agronomist wish to sign off your crops Dr W. What are the Professional Indemnity Insurance implications? I may advise and give you the farmer a recommendation for pesticide, and in the case of a distributor serviced agronomist supply the product. But I do not know you applied the chemical at the correct rate, correct timing, or at all, or substituted it for another product purchased from elsewhere. This shall is say glibly 'signing off' sounds ace. But comes with responsibilities. And with those responsibilities comes potential financial and legal consequences.
We are by law are required to retain spray records, and if we were found in breach of not applying chemicals with regard to there label, then we will find our insurance will not cover us, we will alway leave a paper trail, and if we use the wrong product and it causes problems then it will be identifiable in the crop, so if it’s a food safety issue and we poison some people. The agronomist is not on the hook unless he made a mistake on his recommendation sheet.

It’s all relative it’s all checks and balances, we all know the system can be abused, but having an agronomist say he is giving you safe and recommended application sheets is simple you then have to do the application and record it, if you fib and fake the application and use something not recommended and it causes problems with your crop the farmer is the one on the hook, and his insurance will run a mile and it will cost the farmer his shirt.

agronamist have insurance cover, because mistakes can be made by anyone.
As long as the agronomist is following the label and his recommendations also do then he has no liability over what the farmers or spray operator actually do. The net result is always for them to stand it unless the recommendation sheet was wrong.
The only liability the agronomist has is to make sure his recommendations are legal, unless he is actually carrying out the spray operations.
Adding your name to a check box on a sheet adds no liability to you, it’s a declaration that the farmer is taking professional advise. We would also need a check box say we follow recommendations if we breach that it’s all on us.
 
Last edited:

Latest Poll on TFF

  • Yes

    Votes: 22 14.9%
  • No

    Votes: 126 85.1%

JCB launches Fastrac ‘iCon’

  • 180
  • 0
Written by Charlotte Cunningham from CPM Magazine

JCB has launched new Fastrac 4000 and 8000 Series tractors with an all-new electronics infrastructure which is claimed to deliver higher levels of performance. According to JCB, the new Fastrac iCon operator environment has three key features: iConfigure – creating a bespoke control experience for every operator iConnect – integrating advanced precision agriculture technology iControl – redefining operation through new driveline software The 175hp to 348hp (133kW to 260kW) Fastracs feature the new iCon armrest console and touch-screen display to provide flexibility in operator allocation and operator information, as well as a new transmission control strategy to enhance operator comfort and powertrain efficiency, says the manufacturer...
Top