Farm Assurance - Poll

[gone up the hill]

The six farmers shown on the leaflet saying positive things about RT, complete with names and pictures, have actually done something for their industry. Even if you disagree. Whereas this thread has, in the main, been one enormous whinge-athon. Confirming that there exists a group of people within the industry who like nothing better than to complain without offering any real alternative. Fortunately, other than me and a few other die hards, nobody is listening.

Rubbish and it just shows how out of touch you are with real farmers!

Every farmer that I know of and speak to at market have the same views as the majority on this thread.

And without doubt the RT quango/ NFU will be taking a great intrest on the views that people have posted on this thread and both organizations will be reading/ following this thread.

Plenty of us have offered/ suggested on many threads on TFF what needs to change to get the majority of farmers on side.

But you Stu only seem intrested in yourself and getting more and more red tape/ costs placed on farmers so it will keep you in a job inspecting those farmers.

 

[FarmyStu]

Rubbish and it just shows how out of touch you are with real farmers!

Every farmer that I know of and speak to at market have the same views as the majority on this thread.

And without doubt the RT quango/ NFU will be taking a great intrest on the views that people have posted on this thread and both organizations will be reading/ following this thread.

Plenty of us have offered/ suggested on many threads on TFF what needs to change to get the majority of farmers on side.

But you Stu only seem intrested in yourself and getting more and more red tape/ costs placed on farmers so it will keep you in a job inspecting those farmers.

Just to confirm, I have never inspected farmers to Red Tractor standards. I'm currently very busy driving my tractor.

I'm afraid we just disagree @gone up the hill . It really is that simple.

 

[Henarar]

@gone up the hill , do you have anything positive to say about the industry you work in? Something to encourage people to buy British farm produce? Have you ever done anything positive for British farming?

You didn't answer my question

 

[FarmyStu]

You didn't answer my question

Which was?

 

[Tarw Coch]

The six farmers shown on the leaflet saying positive things about RT, complete with names and pictures, have actually done something for their industry. Even if you disagree. Whereas this thread has, in the main, been one enormous whinge-athon. Confirming that there exists a group of people within the industry who like nothing better than to complain without offering any real alternative. Fortunately, other than me and a few other die hards, nobody is listening.

Hmmmm, you and a few other die hards??are you all farmers who make all or the majority of your income from farming?

 

[chipchap]

The problem with selling agricultural produce profitably lies in making your produce different and distinguishable from run of the mill produce, and therefore achieving a premium.
Having a scheme that makes all production systems fit into a one size fits all standard makes this very difficult, and is therefore a flawed marketing tool.
The only benefit of the red tractor scheme is to make compliance issues much easier for the food industry, loading all the cost onto the farmers supplying the commodity raw material.
Those who attempt to make the red tractor a criterion of consumer choice are simply deluded. Simply putting the Union Jack on British produce would prove far more effective.

 

[gone up the hill]

Which was?

Here we go again

Funny how you never see any questions put directly to you @FarmyStu

 

[orchard]

@gone up the hill [...] Have you ever done anything positive for British farming?

I'm under the impression he considers that his critique of RT leading to its reform or removal is a good thing for farmer's that he's fighting for, no?

 

[Henarar]

Which was?

I asked what advantage as a producer of 10 month old store cattle would joining RT [ I would have to if they brought in WLA if I wanted to keep my customers] give me over how things are now, given that RT stores of that age don't make any more money than none RT stores

 

[milkloss]

I asked what advantage as a producer of 10 month old store cattle would joining RT [ I would have to if they brought in WLA if I wanted to keep my customers] give me over how things are now, given that RT stores of that age don't make any more money than none RT stores

I'll answer if that's ok because it's the only reason I'm a member: cull cows.

 

[Henarar]

I'll answer if that's ok because it's the only reason I'm a member: cull cows.

I said as a seller of store cattle
we worked it out and for the extra bit we MAY get on culls it wouldn't pay

but that is nothing to do with the question

 

[matthew]

I asked what advantage as a producer of 10 month old store cattle would joining RT [ I would have to if they brought in WLA if I wanted to keep my customers] give me over how things are now, given that RT stores of that age don't make any more money than none RT stores

If the recommendation attached to our paperwork last week is implemented, I.e that FA farms only buy from FA farms, then that's WLA by the back door. (That applies to both feed of any sort and stock )
They're sneaky like that.
At the moment, as you say, the 60 or 90 day holding period covers nonFA cattle.

 

[Condi]

The only benefit of the red tractor scheme is to make compliance issues much easier for the food industry, loading all the cost onto the farmers supplying the commodity raw material.

Haha. You're incredibly naive.

The benefit of RT is to prove, you have fulfilled as much as possible the legal obligations placed on YOU, for producing YOUR produce. Granted, not so much for feed wheat, but certainly for something which will end up in food.

The food industry shoulders all their own compliance costs for their own manufacturing and processing, and then the retailers shoulder their costs too. It is not unreasonable that you provide assurances to your customer that the food products you produce are done so in line with the legal requirements and best practice. RT is by far the easiest, and cheapest, way to do so.

Remember, these people are your customers, if they require RT certification, you have a choice to be RT certified, or not supply them.

I sometimes think some farmers should find a job in a different industry for a few months to see how much paperwork and compliance costs there are elsewhere, and then RT might not seem anywhere near as bad! Of course, Im a heathen for saying such a thing on here, but for gods sake, many of you are living either under rocks, or in the 1950s.

 

[milkloss]

Haha. You're incredibly naive.

The benefit of RT is to prove, you have fulfilled as much as possible the legal obligations placed on YOU, for producing YOUR produce. Granted, not so much for feed wheat, but certainly for something which will end up in food.

The food industry shoulders all their own compliance costs for their own manufacturing and processing, and then the retailers shoulder their costs too. It is not unreasonable that you provide assurances to your customer that the food products you produce are done so in line with the legal requirements and best practice. RT is by far the easiest, and cheapest, way to do so.

Remember, these people are your customers, if they require RT certification, you have a choice to be RT certified, or not supply them.

I sometimes think some farmers should find a job in a different industry for a few months to see how much paperwork and compliance costs there are elsewhere, and then RT might not seem anywhere near as bad! Of course, Im a heathen for saying such a thing on here, but for gods sake, many of you are living either under rocks, or in the 1950s.

I think the point is that most industries employ a team whose role is solely to make sure the boxes are ticked. Farmers are not very often in a position to do this.

 

[Henarar]

I think the point is that most industries employ a team whose role is solely to make sure the boxes are ticked. Farmers are not very often in a position to do this.

do it ourselves and sign to say we have, much cheaper than employing parasites

 

[Condi]

do it ourselves and sign to say we have, much cheaper than employing parasites

OK, you can send a bit of paper which says so. Then a banned pesticide residue is found in a batch of bread. On further analysis of samples retained by the mill its come from your wheat. How can you prove you took the steps required to prevent contamination?

Thats exactly the sort of situation RT is there for, and if you were certified you could say that you took all reasonable measures to prevent an issue, here is the paperwork to prove it and Ive been inspected to ensure the steps written down were being carried out.

Otherwise you've got nothing to stand on and the whole process falls apart. The costs of a recall all land at your door and the insurance company refuses to pay out because you've not taken reasonable measures.

Thats the sort of world we live in.

 

[Tarw Coch]

OK, you can send a bit of paper which says so. Then a banned pesticide residue is found in a batch of bread. On further analysis of samples retained by the mill its come from your wheat. How can you prove you took the steps required to prevent contamination?

Thats exactly the sort of situation RT is there for, and if you were certified you could say that you took all reasonable measures to prevent an issue, here is the paperwork to prove it and Ive been inspected to ensure the steps written down were being carried out.

Otherwise you've got nothing to stand on and the whole process falls apart. The costs of a recall all land at your door and the insurance company refuses to pay out because you've not taken reasonable measures.

Thats the sort of world we live in.

Assuming you buy your pesticides from a reputable agronomist, what are the chances of this actually happening?
For example, what little sprays that are bought here come from Hutchinsons, if they were selling dodgy chemical I quite honestly wouldn't have a clue but if they were and it was detected it would be unlikely to be just on my farm it would be widespread and when that caught up with them they'd be finished, I just don't see it happening.

 

[Tarw Coch]

Haha. You're incredibly naive.

The benefit of RT is to prove, you have fulfilled as much as possible the legal obligations placed on YOU, for producing YOUR produce. Granted, not so much for feed wheat, but certainly for something which will end up in food.

The food industry shoulders all their own compliance costs for their own manufacturing and processing, and then the retailers shoulder their costs too. It is not unreasonable that you provide assurances to your customer that the food products you produce are done so in line with the legal requirements and best practice. RT is by far the easiest, and cheapest, way to do so.

Remember, these people are your customers, if they require RT certification, you have a choice to be RT certified, or not supply them.

I sometimes think some farmers should find a job in a different industry for a few months to see how much paperwork and compliance costs there are elsewhere, and then RT might not seem anywhere near as bad! Of course, Im a heathen for saying such a thing on here, but for gods sake, many of you are living either under rocks, or in the 1950s.

The trouble is, our customers, the supermarkets only want FA when it suits them, not one of them sells FA produce only.

 

[chipchap]

Haha. You're incredibly naive.

The benefit of RT is to prove, you have fulfilled as much as possible the legal obligations placed on YOU, for producing YOUR produce. Granted, not so much for feed wheat, but certainly for something which will end up in food.

The food industry shoulders all their own compliance costs for their own manufacturing and processing, and then the retailers shoulder their costs too. It is not unreasonable that you provide assurances to your customer that the food products you produce are done so in line with the legal requirements and best practice. RT is by far the easiest, and cheapest, way to do so.

Remember, these people are your customers, if they require RT certification, you have a choice to be RT certified, or not supply them.

I sometimes think some farmers should find a job in a different industry for a few months to see how much paperwork and compliance costs there are elsewhere, and then RT might not seem anywhere near as bad! Of course, Im a heathen for saying such a thing on here, but for gods sake, many of you are living either under rocks, or in the 1950s.

I broadly agree with a lot you say, what I disagree with is farmers being sold assurance schemes on the back of the red tractor logo, which is a completely useless concept.
Where farmers chose to use assurance schemes as a method of meeting their customers requirement for compliance to basic production standards, that could in my opinion be a sensible way to go forward for them.
I think you should read my initial post again.

 

[Steevo]

You walk into a shop...

Two identical products side by side. Same price. One has RT logo, the other doesn't. Which would you choose? Probably RT because it's something "free" for nothing. It doesn't mean you value it though, or necessarily feel reassured by it.

Look at the safety stats for cars. Some of the most expensive have the worst safety ratings. But because they're a posh brand, or the price is high, it creates perceived quality.



Next time you're in the supermarket....see if you can spot any other assurance marques that are of the same "level" as RT but from other countries. (note I'm not talking about organic, freedom foods, etc. as these are higher standards for a premium market. This should really be what RT is about - a premium above imported goods produced to different standards).