Farm assurance premium

[DrWazzock]

Personally I can’t see why the grain passport alone isn’t good enough as a self certification of the product. It’s a signed declaration.

 

[Steevo]

Semantics maybe but a premium can only be achieved where the product or service is uncommon.. as soon as something becomes dominant in the marketplace it becomes the standard and at which point there is a penalty for not meeting the standard rather than any premium for meeting the standard. For a farm assured product to have a premium in the market more than 50% of comparable goods would need to be not farm assured. With farm assured being the dominate position in the industry we are wrong to discuss what premium it offers, we should be farming it in the terms of what the financial penalty is for not being farm assured. As much as I despise it and would love to drop FA I would need to be confident that none FA grain can be sold with less than £2/t penalty over FA grain... unfortunately for that to happen we need a mass exit from FA will sufficient mills coming along with us. At our current low stocking rates sheep I put at 7-10p/kg, I kid myself its less than that in real terms as it is a tax deductible expense....

I think you are correct with the start of your post.

The issue is that there is no choice. The market is not able to function correctly with farmers choosing to be members, or not be members.

Added to this, taking your comment "For a farm assured product to have a premium in the market more than 50% of comparable goods would need to be not farm assured.". Imported cereals are not FA in the same way that domestic production is. I would certainly suggest therefore that on a global scale less than 50% of comparable goods are FA. The problem is that there are different rules for imported vs. domestic.

 

[DrWazzock]

Well no, but it’s not particularly onerous, or expensive, compared to some of the tosh dreamt up for combinables.

Ours was actually very little to do with how to physically inject, and lots of discussion about reduction in antibiotic usage. Considering the number of sheep farmers round here that have still been jabbing every ewe with Oxytet in mid-pregnancy, and who didn’t even know about a vaccine against EAE, then maybe such discussion is needed?

So tell me then, if poor practice is still going on, 30 years after RT was started then what has it actually achieved?
Why are vets selling antibiotics that aren’t needed?
Is it because anybody can sit in a pub and inject an orange , tick a box in the house with the RT inspector then go outside when he’s gone and inject every lamb with penicillin with a rusty needle when he’s gone? It’s just a smoke screen. If in instead vets and Animal Health, etc had a look at what’s actually going on in real life and said you shouldn’t be doing that then maybe progress would be made. In my view, professionals and agencies who could help, have stood back “because everything must be OK because they are quality assured” when clearly it isn’t.

 

[Henarar]

It don't make any odds to store animals so that just leaves cull cows, I would want 40p/kg before I would think about it and that is ten times what the difference is now and even then I wouldn't do it because I don't like paying parasites

 

[dave mountain]

From a lamb point of view i dont think there is any benefit attached to being farm assured. Quality lambs will fetch top prices at market regardless, and for numerous other avenues there is also no premium (light lambs etc). Yes sometimes people will get penalized, but that is only if they (unadvisedly) choose a particular way to sell. There is many outlets for any given type of lamb, and you just need to choose the right one.

 

[DrWazzock]

The other thing is the bloke who jabs everything with antibiotic with a bent needle gets just as much for his lambs anyway in the market so what are assured producers paying for?
I’d almost go as far as to say if you are not assured you can’t sell anything or scrap it entirely. The way it is, those who try to follow the rules and pay the sub are penalised.

 

[dave mountain]

The other thing is the bloke who jabs everything with antibiotic with a bent needle gets just as much for his lambs anyway in the market so what are assured producers paying for?
I’d almost go as far as to say if you are not assured you can’t sell anything or scrap it entirely. The way it is, those who try to follow the rules and pay the sub are penalised.

That is basically saying that farm assurance should be the new minimum animal welfare standards by law. Which is pretty much the case anyway, but currently the massive red tape burden to prove compliance is a choice, not compulsory.

 

[DrWazzock]

And the only way you will improve antibiotic usage is make prescription and administration permissible by trained professionals only in law, in much the same way as plant protection products. It surprises me that anybody can inject an animal but you need a certificate to drive a sprayer by law.
It’s all a mess quite frankly and RT helps no one.

 

[DrWazzock]

We need to back to proper standards enforced by law, policed by government agencies out of taxation, not this sort of half way house expensive amateur muddle.

 

[DrWazzock]

If you are using or administering animal protection products you should need a certificate of competence by law in my view. Let’s get the basics right. It’s not really anything to do with RT, it’s basic public and animal health.

 

[dave mountain]

And the only way you will improve antibiotic usage is make prescription and administration permissible by trained professionals only in law, in much the same way as plant protection products. It surprises me that anybody can inject an animal but you need a certificate to drive a sprayer by law.
It’s all a mess quite frankly and RT helps no one.

IMO the antibiotics situation has been improving reasonably quickly over the last 15 years with more education about antibiotics coming through, and the younger farmers taking over from the "we always done it like this" types. I dont think your idea of even more red tape will help anybody, education would be better IMO. If these farmers understood they were basically chucking money down the drain they almost certainly wouldn't continue with it.

 

[Kidds]

We need to back to proper standards enforced by law, policed by government agencies out of taxation, not this sort of half way house expensive amateur muddle.

This is the biggest reason we got RT, the Government privatised it so farmers pay for it directly rather than the Government having to fund/organise it. And why you think any government agency is going to be better just completely baffles me.

I think the wrong question was asked in the first place, may as well ask when someone kicks you in the knackers do you prefer them to smile or not.

 

[DrWazzock]

I have seen so much bad practice with animal health still going on it would make your hair stand on end. RT is completely ineffectual. It’s a halfway house fudge on the stuff that really matters and which should apply to every livestock producer in land, RT or not.

 

[DrWazzock]

There are still plenty of people keeping farm animals who just shouldn’t be keeping them, sadly, either through age or stupidity. They are never weeded out. They make no effort whatsoever on health but continue trading. All the agencies need to do is just inspect a few of these producers now and again but it never happens. All that happens is decent producers get the nth degree on the paperwork front from RT and everybody thinks that’s fine. Reminds me of the halal slaughterhouse that ran for months in a disused bank in the middle of Halifax. How can this happen if RT is effective? It’s not worth the paper it’s written on my view. What’s needed is more proactive approach from government agencies not a chat in the house over coffee and biscuits with a retired farmer.
It’s all nonsense.

 

[Drillman]

Red tractors failing is the fact they have never bothered to negotiate premiums for the member, They have said on social media that any premium is between grower and buyer. Totally the wrong stance and attitude for a thriving business.

like others have said it’s just more cost for the same product!

long term rt will only ever lose customers as small farms disappear or decide it’s not worth the hassle.
bigger farms may well sidestep the pointlessness of it all as other outlets are found.

Not sure the red tractor management have cottoned onto this yet though! Short sighted view of keeping themselves and employees in a job if im right though.

 

[dave mountain]

There are still plenty of people keeping farm animals who just shouldn’t be keeping them, sadly, either through age or stupidity. They are never weeded out. They make no effort whatsoever on health but continue trading. All the agencies need to do is just inspect a few of these producers now and again but it never happens. All that happens is decent producers get the nth degree on the paperwork front from RT and everybody thinks that’s fine. Reminds me of the halal slaughterhouse that ran for months in a disused bank in the middle of Halifax. How can this happen if RT is effective? It’s not worth the paper it’s written on my view. What’s needed is more proactive approach from government agencies not a chat in the house over coffee and biscuits with a retired farmer.
It’s all nonsense.

I really dont understand why you think more red tape is going to help anything. The people who are carrying out bad practice will continue to do so regardless. Are you wanting there to be government inspectors there every time i want to drench a couple dozen lambs? Maybe there should have to be government inspectors there before you are allowed to fertilize a field, just to make sure there is no bad practice?

 

[neilo]

If you are using or administering animal protection products you should need a certificate of competence by law in my view. Let’s get the basics right. It’s not really anything to do with RT, it’s basic public and animal health.

That requirement is already in place, through the vets’ prescribing system. Animals have to be ‘under their care’ and they have to be administered by people considered competent.

It would achieve nothing but an extra level of admin to have a system like pesticides have. The short course required by RT is to provide a Certificate of Competence, much the same as PA’s.

 

[farmerm]

I think you are correct with the start of your post.

The issue is that there is no choice. The market is not able to function correctly with farmers choosing to be members, or not be members.

Added to this, taking your comment "For a farm assured product to have a premium in the market more than 50% of comparable goods would need to be not farm assured.". Imported cereals are not FA in the same way that domestic production is. I would certainly suggest therefore that on a global scale less than 50% of comparable goods are FA. The problem is that there are different rules for imported vs. domestic.

I agree. The classification of imported cereals is the real problem in the market. Imports should be classified the same as none farm assured grain, ie a legally acceptable product for UK consumption but a lower standard product to that which has UK farm assurance. Take away the supply of fake farm assured imports, because that is what they in effect are, to upstream industries who are unwilling to buy grain of a none FA standard and they will have to pay a premium to secure FA supplies or change their buying policies and value none FA gain as being at the same level as imports.

 

[Jackov Altraids]

View attachment 982699

Could you please explain.
As an industry, we need to sort assurance out and as the NFU are being part of the problem rather than the solution, we need to come up with a plan ourselves.
I would hope you would continue as part of that discussion.

 

[tullah]

I agree. The classification of imported cereals is the real problem in the market. Imports should be classified the same as none farm assured grain, ie a legally acceptable product for UK consumption but a lower standard product to that which has UK farm assurance. Take away the supply of fake farm assured imports, because that is what they in effect are, to upstream industries who are unwilling to buy grain of a none FA standard and they will have to pay a premium to secure FA supplies or change their buying policies and value none FA gain as being at the same level as imports.

But imports are not "a legally acceptable product for Uk consumption" when they do not abide by our government pesticide laws...eg nionics on rape for starters?