Farm assurance premium

[texelburger]

Many years ago I went to college,I did sheep husbandry and we had lectures by a Vet who also gave us practical lessons in injecting and drenching livestock.I gained an OND after 3 years.Do I still have to participate in a short course to educate us how to inject animals ? I have already done it.
Do Doctors and Vets attend courses to show them how to inject animals even though they have a veterinary degree ?
If asked I will refuse.

 

[traineefarmer]

We can't properly discuss what premiums RT assurance do or do not offer members while the majority of the market is closed of to non RT.

Aside from niche outlets, the premium buyers are closed off from non RT produce thanks to collusion by the AIC, BRC, RT and NFU.

If producers had access to a genuinely open and free marketplace, then we could make a proper informed decision whether the "premium" was worth the costs of membership.

 

[farmerm]

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?

but then by the same logic, any product that is produced in such a way that doesn't align with our other UK laws such as employment laws... eg UK min wage, health and safety, working time directive would also not be legally acceptable.... I accept there does have to be some concessions else any international trade would be simply impossible and lets not forget we are a nation of both importers and exporters.. Even lowering the grading of imports to parity with none FA grain may not be going far enough but certainly far better than this inexcusable automatic granting of parity with farm assurance grain that is currently the case.

 

[DrWazzock]

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?

In my view the only rules that should apply to us are those that are legal requirements and we should be free to sell our produce without hindrance on that basis.
It shouldn’t be the case as happens now that RT make up some rule and apply it to their membership only.
So in the case of injecting animals then either we all should have to have a certificate of competence or nobody should have to have a certificate of competence. Level playing field.
It shouldn’t be down to who is “considered” competent, they should have done formal training and assessment as sprayer drivers have had to do.
In my view it’s either legal or it isn’t, yet so much is added on by private assurance firms who are by their nature incentivised to add bureaucracy but which in actual fact is only applied to their own membership and isn’t a legal requirement such as annual sprayer MOT, when 3 years is legal requirement. It’s a muddle and a mess, and has created a 2 tier system.

 

[Courier]

We can't properly discuss what premiums RT assurance do or do not offer members while the majority of the market is closed of to non RT.

Aside from niche outlets, the premium buyers are closed off from non RT produce thanks to collusion by the AIC, BRC, RT and NFU.

If producers had access to a genuinely open and free marketplace, then we could make a proper informed decision whether the "premium" was worth the costs of membership.

History has shown that whatever rule or standard a body can come up with to differentiate within a commodity then that will in due course become the norm.

 

[tullah]

but then by the same logic, any product that is produced in such a way that doesn't align with our other UK laws such as employment laws... eg UK min wage, health and safety, working time directive would also not be legally acceptable.... I accept there does have to be some concessions else any international trade would be simply impossible and lets not forget we are a nation of both importers and exporters.. Even lowering the grading of imports to parity with none FA grain may not be going far enough but certainly far better than this inexcusable automatic granting of parity with farm assurance grain that is currently the case.

But those directives you are talking about , min wage and HSE can't be compared with allowing
food imports in that have been treated with banned pesticides.

 

[Grass And Grain]

One thing seems to be clear.

RT (and others in the assurance racket) isn't working very well or very fairly.

 

[nick...]

One thing seems to be clear.

RT (and others in the assurance racket) isn't working very well or very fairly.

I’d agree 100% but as much as I despise it all I can’t see anything changing.its impossible to get farmers to agree to tell em to go do one.
nick...

 

[farmerm]

But those directives you are talking about , min wage and HSE can't be compared with allowing
food imports in that have been treated with banned pesticides.

I think they can be compared, I am talking about leveling the playing field were possible. Your neonic example is a case in point, that is not an issue regards food safety but a difference in environmental standards. If you are talking about pesticides from a food safety point then residue testing and appropriate maximum residue limits can demonstrate imports are on par with domestic product and UK. Ideally I don't want imported product to be able to come in and compete with my products but I accept we have to accept some imports and we have to have other countries accept our exports. There will never be a level playing field but granting imports on par with none farm assured grain is far preferable to the current situation or putting them on par with farm assured grain.

 

[Henarar]

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.

If you had to have a vet every time you want to jab an animal the animal welfare will suffer.
Education will improve antibiotic usage and this is available from any decent vet for free, without increasing red tape and cost which will help nobody but yet more parasites.
Trouble is some see the vet as the enemy only out to swindle you but you can say that about some machinery dealers, find a decent one and talk to them its not difficult

 

[Grass And Grain]

I’d agree 100% but as much as I despise it all I can’t see anything changing.its impossible to get farmers to agree to tell em to go do one.
nick...

I think although what we've done has probably contributed to the scrapping of vast majority of proposed new RT rules (in the consultation), we're not done yet. Far from it.

On the grain side of things, we'll keep on pressing for equivalent standards.

If we don't get what we want, then I think @Jackov Altraids understands what needa to be done. New, competing scheme, run by farmers for farmers. Everyone bins RT, joins the new farmer owned scheme. Then we slowly tear out the pages of the rule book one by one. We take control.

Big job, but no reason why it's not achievable.

 

[An Gof]

Many years ago I went to college,I did sheep husbandry and we had lectures by a Vet who also gave us practical lessons in injecting and drenching livestock.I gained an OND after 3 years.Do I still have to participate in a short course to educate us how to inject animals ? I have already done it.
Do Doctors and Vets attend courses to show them how to inject animals even though they have a veterinary degree ?
If asked I will refuse.

I feel your frustration. I completed all the ATB sheep Handling and husbandry courses, which included vaccination and drenching training and subsequently achieved my AWB Craftsman certificate. I also have a degree in Agriculture and also, whilst working in the trade, undertook the AMTRA course which was two weeks of residential training. That meant I was competent to advise handle and store PML products. On top of that I have 40 years practical experience of “doing the job” and the RT nupties that haven’t a Scooby do still insist I do the course on injections. It’s
Ridiculous and treats us all as incompetent. It’s rules dreamt up by people with little or no real agricultural experience and no practical knowledge whatsoever. It makes me very

 

[An Gof]

And the only thing that is worse is having to sit in a meeting with Jim Mosley grinning at you like a Cheshire cat telling you how wonderful RT is and how much it’s valued by Joe Public. The bloody bloke lives in a dream world.

 

[roscoe erf]

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.

Don’t need assurance it’s a scam we’ve already got plenty of rules and regs that are laid down in law

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

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.

You've got the nail right on the head. What we actually need to keep standards up is proper inspections by the powers that be. Producers would up their game and standards would certainly improve.

It's farm assured so must be ok when the reality can be far from that

 

[farmerm]

You've got the nail right on 5he head. What we actually need to keep standards up is proper inspections by the powers that be. Producers would up their game and standards would certainly improve.

It's farm assured so must be ok when the reality can be far from that

I do think we have to be careful what we wish for... I suspect most who have had an inspection by one of the government bodies like Natural England the Environment Agency or the HSE would have far rather faced a farm assurance inspection.

 

[Grass And Grain]

And the only thing that is worse is having to sit in a meeting with Jim Mosley grinning at you like a Cheshire cat telling you how wonderful RT is and how much it’s valued by Joe Public. The bloody bloke lives in a dream world.

Yea Jim says RT ismarvellous, valued by Joe Public, insisted on by feed mills, extremely important to have audited assurance, RT produce promoted to purchasers by RT etc.

But who doesn't insist on using only RT grain? When it comes down to it, who doesn't value it?

RT themselves!

They allow non-assured imports to be fed to RT livestock.

That's the sort of muddle RT/AIC have got themselves into when they allow double standards.

RT are hypocrites.

They actually allow grain treated with pesticides banned in the UK, to be fed to their RT livestock. Paraquat, neonics, linuron, IPU, ctl, atrazine etc.

And then expect us to agree that taking a sample from a boat assures the grain, even though 1,000 lorry loads from as many different farms filled the boat. And none of those lorry loads were individually tested for pesticides.

Come on RT. If RT or equivalent schemes are so important and so valued, why don't you only allow audited assured grain to be fed to your RT branded livestock?

Or more to the point, why won't you also allow non-assured UK grain to be fed to the RT livestock?

Oh, I've just realised. It's so you get your farmer member fees isn't it? No other reason. Can't be any other reason, because you allow non-assured imports.

 

[Raider112]

Isn’t that ‘comprehensive record keeping’ mostly legally required anyway?

The ‘how to inject’ course is £20 to spend a couple of hours in a local pub on a damp, winter’s day, or it was here anyway. Sandwich’s and the first pint were included.

Did you learn anything you didn't know on the course?

 

[neilo]

Did you learn anything you didn't know on the course?

No, it’s purely a box ticking exercise to show that grannies can indeed suck eggs.

 

[Raider112]

As for the original question, I would say we need to start at a 5p premium for assured and 10p premium for elite assured beef and lamb.

Once all three levels were accepted the market would adjust the premiums up or down, Red Tractor would have to promote their brand properly or there would be no premium worth the hassle and most of us would choose to go non assured. If the public value Red Tractor as much as we are told then the premium would mean we think it's worth our while to be assured.

The problem is that it would probably need legislation or mass withdrawal to get there.