Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
Farm assurance premium
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Grass And Grain" data-source="post: 7726439" data-attributes="member: 23184"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>But who doesn't insist on using only RT grain? When it comes down to it, who doesn't value it?</p><p></p><p>RT themselves!</p><p></p><p>They allow non-assured imports to be fed to RT livestock. </p><p></p><p>That's the sort of muddle RT/AIC have got themselves into when they allow double standards.</p><p></p><p>RT are hypocrites.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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? </p><p></p><p>Or more to the point, why won't you also allow non-assured UK grain to be fed to the RT livestock? </p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Grass And Grain, post: 7726439, member: 23184"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
Farm assurance premium
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top