Farm assurance cost

Drillman

Member
Mixed Farmer
I honestly think the last few posts raise some very valid points that we as members of red tractor schemes are entitled to full and detailed answers and justifiable reasons.

Red tractor are currently biting the hand that feeds them. And it isn’t going to end well imo.

@Guy Smith please keep posting I agree that you do provide a balanced view and are keen to see the right thing done by the farming industry.
 
@Guy Smith
While the red tractor, is not a terrible idea, it’s execution is diabolical.
The reality is, very few people rush into the farm house the minute they do something that needs recording on paper, the paper evidence based system is a Stone Age solution, to a modern age problem.
especially when the majority of people have mobile phones in their pockets, it seems a missed trick for making the system more user friendly, which can include reminders and suggestions. To help the scheme be a more natural part of the day to day operations on farm.

The next bug bare for me and reading this thread a lot of others is the creep of extra rules every year, I would suggest 50% of the scheme is now stupid stuff that has nothing, or a very tenuous connection to assurance of quality.
Eg Sampling and testing every load of corn coming off the combine and keeping a sample, to show we did it?
certification of fertiliser we buy, seed bag tickets, explain how that is helpful to the end user of the corn?
bare in mind unless I was treating corn somehow myself all corn I can buy and dress is either treated buy suppliers or treated by mobile seed dressers, or it’s taken as is off the heap.
Same for fert, what possible supply of fert can I be getting that means I need what I buy to be, a known type, or I need records to prove what it was, and where it was from. And how much I used, on what field, so that the end users is so concerned he needs me to record it?

I am very interested to have the reason for every rule explained in detail so the reason behind it inclusion is clear and who requested it and why?

I think the red tractor scheme needs an audit. . .

it needs to justify the existence of every rule showing the benifit to the farmer and the end user.

I find like many farmers the end user while happy to take my assured produce is also happy to take imported produce. Which does not, so why require it from me, as a red tractor buyer they either only buy red tractor feed or they don’t require red tractor assurance it’s a two way street. Not one of convenience, red tractor is not a convenance for the farmer it’s a costly burden.


so I would request that red tractor police the end user of our red tractor produce, what ever that maybe, just as hard if not far harder, than they do us, so that they use zero non assured produce, that includes imported. So that they are complying, and not making our time and costs a joke, as that end of the food chain seems more important to the end user.
I as an assured member would like to see those records made available, the visits, the recoding, the end users, ability to use the red tractor logo has got to be won by compliance and we as members paying for the scheme to exist need to see the assurance that our money is not funding a joke on us.

To the end user of the farm assured scheme it’s a way of adding value to a product they sell to the consumer, so they need policing to make sure they are holding up there end of this devils bargain as much as we are, if not more so.

So to summarise.

The option of apps for recording the data red tractor requires.
An audit on those requirements to explain why they exist and who actualy requested them and why. And what value they actual have.

I would like to ask what body is requesting these added requirements is it coming from the actual end users of our farming produce, or is it coming from inside red tractor?

Then explain how the red tractor scheme is protecting farmers from the supply chain, from there exploiting the scheme with using imported products, non assured products, that they also use in their products, and what red tractor is doing to stop this, while not offering the farmers True added value. Red tractor should be protecting farmers from the suppliers using non assured products at the same time requiring them from them us, double standards should not exist, or this scheme is a joke, we should not be paying for, the end user should be, not farmers.

while your not a dictator only one of the captains, all these request are reasonable of any voluntary membership scheme, especially when the members themselves are the ones paying for it all, we demand an audit of the scheme please.
As captain we are asking you to ask for it, or your membership may chose to withhold payments. Until they get it.
Top post @Dave645 ,very valid points will we get (honest) answers to many of them. Doubt it, not in the Mafia's nature.
 

Clive

Staff Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lichfield
@Guy Smith
While the red tractor, is not a terrible idea, it’s execution is diabolical.
The reality is, very few people rush into the farm house the minute they do something that needs recording on paper, the paper evidence based system is a Stone Age solution, to a modern age problem.
especially when the majority of people have mobile phones in their pockets, it seems a missed trick for making the system more user friendly, which can include reminders and suggestions. To help the scheme be a more natural part of the day to day operations on farm.

The next bug bare for me and reading this thread a lot of others is the creep of extra rules every year, I would suggest 50% of the scheme is now stupid stuff that has nothing, or a very tenuous connection to assurance of quality.
Eg Sampling and testing every load of corn coming off the combine and keeping a sample, to show we did it?
certification of fertiliser we buy, seed bag tickets, explain how that is helpful to the end user of the corn?
bare in mind unless I was treating corn somehow myself all corn I can buy and dress is either treated buy suppliers or treated by mobile seed dressers, or it’s taken as is off the heap.
Same for fert, what possible supply of fert can I be getting that means I need what I buy to be, a known type, or I need records to prove what it was, and where it was from. And how much I used, on what field, so that the end users is so concerned he needs me to record it?

I am very interested to have the reason for every rule explained in detail so the reason behind it inclusion is clear and who requested it and why?

I think the red tractor scheme needs an audit. . .

it needs to justify the existence of every rule showing the benifit to the farmer and the end user.

I find like many farmers the end user while happy to take my assured produce is also happy to take imported produce. Which does not, so why require it from me, as a red tractor buyer they either only buy red tractor feed or they don’t require red tractor assurance it’s a two way street. Not one of convenience, red tractor is not a convenance for the farmer it’s a costly burden.


so I would request that red tractor police the end user of our red tractor produce, what ever that maybe, just as hard if not far harder, than they do us, so that they use zero non assured produce, that includes imported. So that they are complying, and not making our time and costs a joke, as that end of the food chain seems more important to the end user.
I as an assured member would like to see those records made available, the visits, the recoding, the end users, ability to use the red tractor logo has got to be won by compliance and we as members paying for the scheme to exist need to see the assurance that our money is not funding a joke on us.

To the end user of the farm assured scheme it’s a way of adding value to a product they sell to the consumer, so they need policing to make sure they are holding up there end of this devils bargain as much as we are, if not more so.

So to summarise.

The option of apps for recording the data red tractor requires.
An audit on those requirements to explain why they exist and who actualy requested them and why. And what value they actual have.

I would like to ask what body is requesting these added requirements is it coming from the actual end users of our farming produce, or is it coming from inside red tractor?

Then explain how the red tractor scheme is protecting farmers from the supply chain, from there exploiting the scheme with using imported products, non assured products, that they also use in their products, and what red tractor is doing to stop this, while not offering the farmers True added value. Red tractor should be protecting farmers from the suppliers using non assured products at the same time requiring them from them us, double standards should not exist, or this scheme is a joke, we should not be paying for, the end user should be, not farmers.

while your not a dictator only one of the captains, all these request are reasonable of any voluntary membership scheme, especially when the members themselves are the ones paying for it all, we demand an audit of the scheme please.
As captain we are asking you to ask for it, or your membership may chose to withhold payments. Until they get it.


a good post - i hope @Guy Smith remembers where his £400/day wage is coming from and who is ultimately paying it and actually listens to and represents us .... for a change

imo if red tractor doesn’t completely reform and reinvent itself to become relevant and honest within the next 2 yrs it will be history
 

DeeGee

Member
Location
North East Wales
Anyone who knows me knows I’m a genuine combine driving arable farmer with a diversified business who has done a fair bit off farm over the years. I’ve been in RT for over 20 years. The annual inspection isn’t my favourite day of the year and I think some of the rules could do with some changes but generally I don’t find it too burdensome or expensive and in many cases it’s incentivised me to improve my farm management. Like most farmers I prefer to be outside working rather than doing office jobs ( not sure in the world of handheld devices that phraseology still works) but I recognise that good management means good record keeping. I don’t think assurance schemes are going to end anytime soon so in my smug way I hope I’ve got something to contribute. But I will be just one small bit player in a large organisation and will have to work as a team player not some sort of tin-pot dictator.

I’ve noted that over the years I’m one of the very few people who occupy ‘positions’ that contribute to TFF which has its downsides but I’m happy to continue to do so. I’ve always believed that if you take these positions you should be transparent to your peers or the people you claim to represent.

Firstly, fair play to you Guy for still posting on here: I doubt that anyone has any animosity towards you, I certainly don’t.

However, one comment you make perhaps sums up the whole gravy train which you are about to join; and that is your admission that you are ‘just one small bit player in a large organisation.........’
So if just one small bit player is trousering ten grand per annum God knows what all the other players are pocketing every year, especially the fattest cats and the greediest pigs on the train.

What if we all flatly refused to fuel the engine pulling your train Guy, and we left en masse?? How long would buyers hold out for ‘only take farm assured’ if there was none available because every farmer had resigned from it?
Don’t worry Guy, it will never happen. There will always be plenty ready to break ranks, destroy a union, and sell their souls for a couple of quid.
 

Humble Village Farmer

Member
BASE UK Member
Location
Essex
@Guy Smith
While the red tractor, is not a terrible idea, it’s execution is diabolical.
The reality is, very few people rush into the farm house the minute they do something that needs recording on paper, the paper evidence based system is a Stone Age solution, to a modern age problem.
especially when the majority of people have mobile phones in their pockets, it seems a missed trick for making the system more user friendly, which can include reminders and suggestions. To help the scheme be a more natural part of the day to day operations on farm.

The next bug bare for me and reading this thread a lot of others is the creep of extra rules every year, I would suggest 50% of the scheme is now stupid stuff that has nothing, or a very tenuous connection to assurance of quality.
Eg Sampling and testing every load of corn coming off the combine and keeping a sample, to show we did it?
certification of fertiliser we buy, seed bag tickets, explain how that is helpful to the end user of the corn?
bare in mind unless I was treating corn somehow myself all corn I can buy and dress is either treated buy suppliers or treated by mobile seed dressers, or it’s taken as is off the heap.
Same for fert, what possible supply of fert can I be getting that means I need what I buy to be, a known type, or I need records to prove what it was, and where it was from. And how much I used, on what field, so that the end users is so concerned he needs me to record it?

I am very interested to have the reason for every rule explained in detail so the reason behind it inclusion is clear and who requested it and why?

I think the red tractor scheme needs an audit. . .

it needs to justify the existence of every rule showing the benifit to the farmer and the end user.

I find like many farmers the end user while happy to take my assured produce is also happy to take imported produce. Which does not, so why require it from me, as a red tractor buyer they either only buy red tractor feed or they don’t require red tractor assurance it’s a two way street. Not one of convenience, red tractor is not a convenance for the farmer it’s a costly burden.


so I would request that red tractor police the end user of our red tractor produce, what ever that maybe, just as hard if not far harder, than they do us, so that they use zero non assured produce, that includes imported. So that they are complying, and not making our time and costs a joke, as that end of the food chain seems more important to the end user.
I as an assured member would like to see those records made available, the visits, the recoding, the end users, ability to use the red tractor logo has got to be won by compliance and we as members paying for the scheme to exist need to see the assurance that our money is not funding a joke on us.

To the end user of the farm assured scheme it’s a way of adding value to a product they sell to the consumer, so they need policing to make sure they are holding up there end of this devils bargain as much as we are, if not more so.

So to summarise.

The option of apps for recording the data red tractor requires.
An audit on those requirements to explain why they exist and who actualy requested them and why. And what value they actual have.

I would like to ask what body is requesting these added requirements is it coming from the actual end users of our farming produce, or is it coming from inside red tractor?

Then explain how the red tractor scheme is protecting farmers from the supply chain, from there exploiting the scheme with using imported products, non assured products, that they also use in their products, and what red tractor is doing to stop this, while not offering the farmers True added value. Red tractor should be protecting farmers from the suppliers using non assured products at the same time requiring them from them us, double standards should not exist, or this scheme is a joke, we should not be paying for, the end user should be, not farmers.

while your not a dictator only one of the captains, all these request are reasonable of any voluntary membership scheme, especially when the members themselves are the ones paying for it all, we demand an audit of the scheme please.
As captain we are asking you to ask for it, or your membership may chose to withhold payments. Until they get it.
I think you are dead on. Farmers are paying (as usual) for the rest of the food sector to add value, by virtue of due diligence and proven good practice by said farmers. You forgot to mention horse meat. Was that farm assured as well? But the farmgate price is still lowest common denominator commodity grade.
 

tullah

Member
Location
Linconshire
I would not apply for a job with that lot out of principle, no matter what my remuneration would be. The whole thing is corrupt. Reminds me of Bliar on the gravy train, saying we are better being part of the EU so we can have some say from within...
what a lot of rubbish.
 

Grass And Grain

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Yorks
And that is the total hypocrisy of it all and why it’s no more than a tool to control us and the market.
Mill demands FA wheat or barley but happily buys in foreign none farm assured maize to control the price of domestic cereals. It is, quite simply a charade at best and a protection racket at worst.
@Guy Smith The point An Gof raises about mills stipulating UK grain is assured (but imported grain is not assured), upsets the farmer members.

What do you think about this? What should RT do about the situation? Surely it's untenable, as at the moment it makes the RT scheme look shambolic. I think these rules need to be changed ASAP.
 

tullah

Member
Location
Linconshire
I know someone who has to go round his hedgerows counting hazel, chestnut, walnut and conker. He then has to plot them all on a map assuring the fellow with the clipboard nothing has fallen into the crop. That and counting insects and rat droppings shows how daft the whole thing is. We've all got better things to do than fiddling around doing crazy projects the like of which seven year olds do at school to keep them busy.
 

Daniel

Member
And just to end the Sabbath, a split water pressure diaphragm triggered an alarm, dragging me off the sofa and into the truck for a 6 mile round trip to change it.

20200802_213613.jpg
20200802_213159.jpg


@Guy Smith Can you put in a good word for me at Red Tractor? I could do with a lucrative little number, just Monday- Friday, ideally 6 weeks holiday a year, wielding a clipboard and telling other farmers how to run their business...
 

DeeGee

Member
Location
North East Wales
From my perspective the final straw with farm assured was as follows.
It was an incident with an inspector of the Welsh livestock assurance scheme, whatever it was called some five years ago, WQLBGT or whatever.

The box ticker and his clipboard told me that I should really have a disinfectant foot bath In which he might bathe his boots before inspecting the farm, but on this occasion he would overlook it. Such largesse had me weeping at his feet with gratitude.

So the next time he was due I had dutifully got ready a foot bath filled with an iodine solution suitably placed for his inspection, approval and of course, his usage. As he passed by the said feature I pointed it out to him as being an essential bio security measure as he had recommended on his previous visit.

His response was “oh yes, very good,” before he walked on straight past it to resume his inspection.

That to me, summed up the farce that the scheme was, and I forthwith cancelled by membership. Best thing I have done and I would never go back into it. The whole thing is an utter farce
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 79 42.0%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 66 35.1%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 16.0%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 7 3.7%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,291
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top