Fair play to FW for tackling AIC issue head on.

[Steevo]

We wouldn’t need fancy offices though, an auld portacabin round the back of your yard be ample, Our local village shop has a photocopier so that the printing side of things sorted, And there’s a semi knackered fiesta sat in my yard we could use as company transport,

As long as we keep the sharp suits and shiny shoes out of the equation we should be able to run a scheme at pretty low cost imo.

Is it just me that had @Kevtherev and @Cab-over Pete spring to mind…?!

 

[Drillman]

Is it just me that had @Kevtherev and @Cab-over Pete spring to mind…?!

Nah there down right extravagant compared to the penny pinching and make do and mend attitude @Grass And Grain and myself can achieve

for a start I won’t touch tea or coffee with a long pole so there’s an instant saving on tea bags and mugs

 

[Cab-over Pete]

It’s a bit like the Dragons Den rivalry on here.

Great business minds.

 

[Grass And Grain]

My feeling on this is that the fastest way to take on the AIC is to create another farmer owned assurance company that just recreates in legal form for UK grain the same standards that apply to imported grain. Any UK grain producer could join (nominal fee) and apply the same tick box standard to their grain as it left the farm. Then AIC don't have a leg to stand on to refuse to accept it, because its 'assured' grain, just as the imported is (or rather they say it is).

This is the point of contention at the moment - the AIC only take 'assured' grain, and they are within their legal rights to demand that. We all know that the imported grain is assured in no real sense at all beyond ticking some boxes, but those boxes give the AIC a strong defence against any legal action. They can argue they aren't distorting the market, because they just want assured grain because thats what their customers want. For example if the AIC suddenly said that all grain used in UK mills had to be organic that would be perfectly legal, non-organic producers couldn't demand to sell them their grain. They are entitled to set the standard. What they are not entitled to do is discriminate between producers who meet the general standard.

So if 'UK Farm Assured Grain Ltd' existed, and its standard of assurance was a producer declaration that grain leaving their premises abided by all UK laws and standards, then the AIC would not be able to refuse to buy it, as it come from a legally constituted assurance scheme. If they did they'd be very likely to lose a court case for anti-competitive behaviour.

Just to say that someone approached AIC witth pretty much what you suggested.

AIC weren't entirely helpful imho. They just don't want it to happen. However, if all their requested hoops were jumped through, how could they refuse. Then RT has no farmers and no relevance.

I think, if no result, this will happen.

Just make the scheme basically equal to RT, we run it, farmer members own it, get one man one vote, RT consigned tp history.

Then we tear pages out of the rule book one by one. We have TOTAL control. only standard available to the trade is our standard.

No result from RT/AIC then I predict this will happen.

Big job, but pretty easy to achieve.

If RT, AHDB, AIC, NFU are reading this, be prepared because we'll launch it and blow their control out of the water.

Advertise it by text message pr whatsapp.

Receive the message, pass it on to all farmer mates in your address book. Total control by end of the week.

FA is boring, but we sub that work out to SAI or someone. I'm quite excited at the prospect, I'd love to take them on directly and implode their daft stranglehold.

Bring it on

RT/AIC if you won't give us what we want., we'll take you on in a fair fight for farmer customers, and good luck running a food brand with no farmer suppliers.

 

[texelburger]

My feeling on this is that the fastest way to take on the AIC is to create another farmer owned assurance company that just recreates in legal form for UK grain the same standards that apply to imported grain. Any UK grain producer could join (nominal fee) and apply the same tick box standard to their grain as it left the farm. Then AIC don't have a leg to stand on to refuse to accept it, because its 'assured' grain, just as the imported is (or rather they say it is).

This is the point of contention at the moment - the AIC only take 'assured' grain, and they are within their legal rights to demand that. We all know that the imported grain is assured in no real sense at all beyond ticking some boxes, but those boxes give the AIC a strong defence against any legal action. They can argue they aren't distorting the market, because they just want assured grain because thats what their customers want. For example if the AIC suddenly said that all grain used in UK mills had to be organic that would be perfectly legal, non-organic producers couldn't demand to sell them their grain. They are entitled to set the standard. What they are not entitled to do is discriminate between producers who meet the general standard.

So if 'UK Farm Assured Grain Ltd' existed, and its standard of assurance was a producer declaration that grain leaving their premises abided by all UK laws and standards, then the AIC would not be able to refuse to buy it, as it come from a legally constituted assurance scheme. If they did they'd be very likely to lose a court case for anti-competitive behaviour.

This sounds very feasible, just needs someone with a little time and nous.Would be great if it were to happen.

 

[snipe]

My feeling on this is that the fastest way to take on the AIC is to create another farmer owned assurance company that just recreates in legal form for UK grain the same standards that apply to imported grain. Any UK grain producer could join (nominal fee) and apply the same tick box standard to their grain as it left the farm. Then AIC don't have a leg to stand on to refuse to accept it, because its 'assured' grain, just as the imported is (or rather they say it is).

This is the point of contention at the moment - the AIC only take 'assured' grain, and they are within their legal rights to demand that. We all know that the imported grain is assured in no real sense at all beyond ticking some boxes, but those boxes give the AIC a strong defence against any legal action. They can argue they aren't distorting the market, because they just want assured grain because thats what their customers want. For example if the AIC suddenly said that all grain used in UK mills had to be organic that would be perfectly legal, non-organic producers couldn't demand to sell them their grain. They are entitled to set the standard. What they are not entitled to do is discriminate between producers who meet the general standard.

So if 'UK Farm Assured Grain Ltd' existed, and its standard of assurance was a producer declaration that grain leaving their premises abided by all UK laws and standards, then the AIC would not be able to refuse to buy it, as it come from a legally constituted assurance scheme. If they did they'd be very likely to lose a court case for anti-competitive behaviour.

This is the reply I got from AIC when I suggested creating a new scheme. Do know how true it is but a new scheme would need some sort of auditing to be accepted
Firstly, there is nothing to stop the UK adopting a different way of ‘checking’ that the arable supply chain is meeting all the standards required by all the relevant legislation. But this would, as you state clearly, involve a different form of assurance schemes which can be audited to ISO standards. i.e it would break with what we currently have at farm level (Red Tractor / SQC) to make a different version. The requirements that such a scheme would have to follow were laid out in Mr Williams’ email the other week, and the requirements are the same for all schemes AIC recognises.

 

[Grass And Grain]

We don't really need a brand for commodities do we? Quality sells itself.

Red Tractor and its lack of premium if evidence that they can't get a premium (or probably can't be bothered as they are comfortable enough watching the cash roll in with demands on results)

Guy Smith says competition is good, and he's correct.

There's no competition because the job is stitched up.

Farmer pesticide declaration accepted by feed mills would give RT competition. Then they'd have to work harder for farmwr members and a premium.

RT could coexist alongside farmer declaration.

Everyone happy.

They don't want to let it happen, because they're scared their ponzi scheme is just that, and it will wither.

They know they're a shambles, and only exist because we've been hamstrung into it.

 

[Grass And Grain]

RT say their on farm audit is essential to assure pesticide application is done correctly. I think their pesticide audit is pants. Some thoughts why...

RT would point out they have on-farm pesticide checks as part of their scheme, and promote the virtues of this. Let's examine the usefulness of those checks by an example. At audit, it's found farmer's sprayer NSTS test is out of date by 6 months beyond RT's NSTS frequency rules, that's a non-compliance, his whole heap of grain was sprayed whilst sprayer was out of test, assurance status revoked, farmer asked to get sprayer tested, farmer gets sprayer tested, farmer gets his assurance reinstated, can now sell his grain as assured. So that whole heap of grain, which didn't meet RT's pesticide audit rules, is now deemed to be assured.
RT's on-farm pesticide audit is of absolutely zero usefulness and assures absolutely nothing. That pesticide audit is a smoke screen, pulling the wool over the eyes of processors and consumers. If consumers Weetabix or Carling knew this, there would be outrage at the RT scheme which is positioning itself as providing an assurance of things such as pesticide adherence.

It isn't any better than a farmer declaration. The RT inspector only inspects the paperwork provided by the farmer. So that relies on the farmer declaring this correctly (exactly same as a passport self-declaration!!).

RT pesticide audit is not only not better than the farmer pesticide self-declaration, but it also lets farmers correct a known issue, so cons brands and consumers that the produce has genuinely passed an assurance audit. It's a fudge!

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

I had some Dursban in my shed for a couple of years after it was banned. ( Now disposed of legally).

RT inspector: "Can I have a look in your chem store? (Glances in) That all looks fine, can you give me a mapp number of one of those cans please? Any can will do." End of conversation.

 

[tullah]

Just to say that someone approached AIC witth pretty much what you suggested.

AIC weren't entirely helpful imho. They just don't want it to happen. However, if all their requested hoops were jumped through, how could they refuse. Then RT has no farmers and no relevance.

I think, if no result, this will happen.

Just make the scheme basically equal to RT, we run it, farmer members own it, get one man one vote, RT consigned tp history.

Then we tear pages out of the rule book one by one. We have TOTAL control. only standard available to the trade is our standard.

No result from RT/AIC then I predict this will happen.

Big job, but pretty easy to achieve.

If RT, AHDB, AIC, NFU are reading this, be prepared because we'll launch it and blow their control out of the water.

Advertise it by text message pr whatsapp.

Receive the message, pass it on to all farmer mates in your address book. Total control by end of the week.

FA is boring, but we sub that work out to SAI or someone. I'm quite excited at the prospect, I'd love to take them on directly and implode their daft stranglehold.

Bring it on

RT/AIC if you won't give us what we want., we'll take you on in a fair fight for farmer customers, and good luck running a food brand with no farmer suppliers.

We really ought to ask the no f..king use lot if they would mind being our gaurantor.

 

[tullah]

I had some Dursban in my shed for a couple of years after it was banned. ( Now disposed of legally).

RT inspector: "Can I have a look in your chem store? (Glances in) That all looks fine, can you give me a mapp number of one of those cans please? Any can will do." End of conversation.

So that's why you left the the cobwebs in the shed.

 

[MrNoo]

I had some Dursban in my shed for a couple of years after it was banned. ( Now disposed of legally).

RT inspector: "Can I have a look in your chem store? (Glances in) That all looks fine, can you give me a mapp number of one of those cans please? Any can will do." End of conversation.

Almost every farmer I know has an official store and then a 2nd store!!! Wonder how much CTL is still lurking about, Atrazine was another, one chap I know had a lot of dynamite from the 60/70's in his store, it turned to fluid and then re-crystallized, eventually some bods came and removed it. Bet the inspector never saw that!

 

[Steevo]

Just to say that someone approached AIC witth pretty much what you suggested.

AIC weren't entirely helpful imho. They just don't want it to happen. However, if all their requested hoops were jumped through, how could they refuse. Then RT has no farmers and no relevance.

I think, if no result, this will happen.

Just make the scheme basically equal to RT, we run it, farmer members own it, get one man one vote, RT consigned tp history.

Then we tear pages out of the rule book one by one. We have TOTAL control. only standard available to the trade is our standard.

No result from RT/AIC then I predict this will happen.

Big job, but pretty easy to achieve.

If RT, AHDB, AIC, NFU are reading this, be prepared because we'll launch it and blow their control out of the water.

Advertise it by text message pr whatsapp.

Receive the message, pass it on to all farmer mates in your address book. Total control by end of the week.

FA is boring, but we sub that work out to SAI or someone. I'm quite excited at the prospect, I'd love to take them on directly and implode their daft stranglehold.

Bring it on

RT/AIC if you won't give us what we want., we'll take you on in a fair fight for farmer customers, and good luck running a food brand with no farmer suppliers.

Whilst reading that I started to get a mental image of you in 12 months time stroking a cat from your HQ underneath a mountain.....

 

[AM_Arable]

@AM_Arable - see what happens when you print farmer centric content !

more of the same please

We print plenty of it every week you scamp

Thank you (and Mark Lea if he's on here?) for your help with the living mulch article - thought Louise did a cracking job with that.

 

[Clive]

We print plenty of it every week you scamp

Thank you (and Mark Lea if he's on here?) for your help with the living mulch article - thought Louise did a cracking job with that.

looking forward to reading this article explaining the incestuous relationship between NFU, RT, AHDB, and AIC that demands a public flogging for the gravy train

.............. go on, I dare you

 

[Clive]

Just to say that someone approached AIC witth pretty much what you suggested.

AIC weren't entirely helpful imho. They just don't want it to happen. However, if all their requested hoops were jumped through, how could they refuse. Then RT has no farmers and no relevance.

I think, if no result, this will happen.

Just make the scheme basically equal to RT, we run it, farmer members own it, get one man one vote, RT consigned tp history.

Then we tear pages out of the rule book one by one. We have TOTAL control. only standard available to the trade is our standard.

No result from RT/AIC then I predict this will happen.

Big job, but pretty easy to achieve.

If RT, AHDB, AIC, NFU are reading this, be prepared because we'll launch it and blow their control out of the water.

Advertise it by text message pr whatsapp.

Receive the message, pass it on to all farmer mates in your address book. Total control by end of the week.

FA is boring, but we sub that work out to SAI or someone. I'm quite excited at the prospect, I'd love to take them on directly and implode their daft stranglehold.

Bring it on

RT/AIC if you won't give us what we want., we'll take you on in a fair fight for farmer customers, and good luck running a food brand with no farmer suppliers.

They made a big mistake underestimating the power of social media once ................

 

[Clive]

My feeling on this is that the fastest way to take on the AIC is to create another farmer owned assurance company that just recreates in legal form for UK grain the same standards that apply to imported grain. Any UK grain producer could join (nominal fee) and apply the same tick box standard to their grain as it left the farm. Then AIC don't have a leg to stand on to refuse to accept it, because its 'assured' grain, just as the imported is (or rather they say it is).

This is the point of contention at the moment - the AIC only take 'assured' grain, and they are within their legal rights to demand that. We all know that the imported grain is assured in no real sense at all beyond ticking some boxes, but those boxes give the AIC a strong defence against any legal action. They can argue they aren't distorting the market, because they just want assured grain because thats what their customers want. For example if the AIC suddenly said that all grain used in UK mills had to be organic that would be perfectly legal, non-organic producers couldn't demand to sell them their grain. They are entitled to set the standard. What they are not entitled to do is discriminate between producers who meet the general standard.

So if 'UK Farm Assured Grain Ltd' existed, and its standard of assurance was a producer declaration that grain leaving their premises abided by all UK laws and standards, then the AIC would not be able to refuse to buy it, as it come from a legally constituted assurance scheme. If they did they'd be very likely to lose a court case for anti-competitive behaviour.

key difference is there is no FARM level assurance on these import - its "assured" at merchant level

ANY level of FARM assurance at any cost put us at a disadvantage to those imports

Setting up alternatives as you suggest has been considered, AIC made it clear they would make doing that as hards as they possibly could and I'm not sure its the solutions as you just end up with another red tractor really

Also, who will do this ............... for free ?

 

[Steevo]

key difference is there is no FARM level assurance on these import - its "assured" at merchant level

ANY level of FARM assurance at any cost put us at a disadvantage to those imports

Setting up alternatives as you suggest has been considered, AIC made it clear they would make doing that as hards as they possibly could and I'm not sure its the solutions as you just end up with another red tractor really

Also, who will do this ............... for free ?

The obvious choice would be Openfield....!

As a merchant and apparently "member owned co-operative", they would surely be able to do exactly as per imports and assure the grain at "merchant level".

 

[steveR]

They made a big mistake underestimating the power of social media once ................

I had the pleasure today of pointing out to my local NFU chap ( a very decent guy, who I have a lot of time for) that the only reason that the NFU has changed their stance at the upper levels, is purely because of "grass roots" pressure, much led by social media....

 

[Clive]

The obvious choice would be Openfield....!

As a merchant and apparently "member owned co-operative", they would surely be able to do exactly as per imports and assure the grain at "merchant level".

I think central stores could easily do as imports do as well - just ask members for a "UK legal standard declaration" at intake then test the bulk to the same standard as an import (although what tests are some sort of secret no one will answer !)


CS and co-op members should be demanding this of their stores as it would recoup them some of their membership/storage fees improving the value proposition @ajd132