Guy Smith's response to FW article on AIC rules.

Bruce Almighty

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
England
I just posted this on NFU online, patting themselves on the back for BackBritishFarming day
 

Attachments

  • image.png
    image.png
    248.1 KB · Views: 0
If only we had vertically integrated coops like....oh the rest of Europe.
19th September 2019, Woldmarsh members were invited to a meeting at Hemswell Court, the speakers were Adam Henson and our Heather Claridge. Heather's topic was "UK Co-operatives and the benefit of collaboration". Partly, this considered European co-operative models, vertical integration and how this compares to the UK. If any of our members wish to see this presentation we would be happy to make it available on our members area of the website.
 

Grass And Grain

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Yorks
Same with the letter, showing how good it is and making 40k by being RT assured, but what they don't get is if RT didn't exist the supposed farmer would not be penalised by 40k
That's exactly what sprung to my mind when I read that letter.

Farmers grain was no different, but the positioning of RT between the UK farmer and end user resulted in farmer (who refuses to be RT assured any longer) having a maasive price reduction.

Meanwhile those same end users probably purchase non-assured imports, brought into the assured grain chain by a pesticide declaration.

Farmer loses a lot of cash because his morals are too high to pay the protection money.

Nice one NFU and AHDB. You've supported a system which has cost the levy payer a small fortune.
 

Steevo

Member
Location
Gloucestershire
Same with the letter, showing how good it is and making 40k by being RT assured, but what they don't get is if RT didn't exist the supposed farmer would not be penalised by 40k

....and yet the "counter letter" in this week's FW shows as "Name and address supplied". Fine everyone is welcome to be anonymous if they so wish but it does lose some credibility and look suspicious.

Something tells me that it was probably written by:

a) NFU employee
b) RT employee
c) Both
 

Grass And Grain

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Yorks
A politician amassing as much capital from mentions of complaints elsewhere , kind of recognising them and still then drawing the conclusion you'd be better off in the industry with Red Tractor




























Not convinced
Reasonable of Guy to say we want RT accepted by end users who want audited assurance. If RT rules were watered down too much, then some end users might request their own bolt on standards. Fair enough, good points.

I think the VI shouldn't be policed by RT. The VI either needs to work with growers on a voluntary basis, or become mandatory to avert a pesticide tax. Either way, the NFU, RT, AHDB, VI should not make farmers be railroaded into taking RT assurance, just so the VI is a success.

No mention of why UK grain couldn't be assured in same way as imports. That's what we're asking for, but side-stepped the main issue. Presumably because there isn't a credible answer.

No mention of fact that RT will lose members if we get our way. That's THE REAL REASON everyone wants to avoid change. We all know it. They know it, we know it, NFU don't want it to happen because they've backed the RT horse. AHDB have staff on the RT boards and are company guarantors. AIC are in company ownership structure of SQC, so they'd be responsible for a fall in their income at SQC. All imho.

No mentiom that RT livestock schemes readily accept imported grain into their feed.

We are saying have 2 x schemes.

Pesticide declaratin for those who want it - might be just feed grain growers to start with.

Keep RT for farmers and end users who wish to go RT.

Let market forces and premium prices work effectively to shape the future and success (or not) of RT.

What they scared of? Failure?
 

Grass And Grain

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Yorks
....and yet the "counter letter" in this week's FW shows as "Name and address supplied". Fine everyone is welcome to be anonymous if they so wish but it does lose some credibility and look suspicious.

Something tells me that it was probably written by:

a) NFU employee
b) RT employee
c) Both
That's what I thought. Why wouldn't anyone be prepared to put their name to that, if that's what they thought. It was a reasonable opinion to have. No need to hide.
 

Drillman

Member
Mixed Farmer
Reasonable of Guy to say we want RT accepted by end users who want audited assurance. If RT rules were watered down too much, then some end users might request their own bolt on standards. Fair enough, good points.

I think the VI shouldn't be policed by RT. The VI either needs to work with growers on a voluntary basis, or become mandatory to avert a pesticide tax. Either way, the NFU, RT, AHDB, VI should not make farmers be railroaded into taking RT assurance, just so the VI is a success.

No mention of why UK grain couldn't be assured in same way as imports. That's what we're asking for, but side-stepped the main issue. Presumably because there isn't a credible answer.

No mention of fact that RT will lose members if we get our way. That's THE REAL REASON everyone wants to avoid change. We all know it. They know it, we know it, NFU don't want it to happen because they've backed the RT horse. AHDB have staff on the RT boards and are company guarantors. AIC are in company ownership structure of SQC, so they'd be responsible for a fall in their income at SQC. All imho.

No mentiom that RT livestock schemes readily accept imported grain into their feed.

We are saying have 2 x schemes.

Pesticide declaratin for those who want it - might be just feed grain growers to start with.

Keep RT for farmers and end users who wish to go RT.

Let market forces and premium prices work effectively to shape the future and success (or not) of RT.

What they scared of? Failure?
Guy Smith has actually answered the question about testing imports. (In a convoluted sort of way) by stating testing of imports depends what the end user wants.

which is exactly the same as what our users of grain etc test for ie- milling wheat protein and hagberg. Malting barley nitrogen level and germination. Etc etc…..

so thank you Guy

And it now means red tractor has no further use or purpose👍👍

the end😂😂
 

Grass And Grain

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Yorks
Guy Smith has actually answered the question about testing imports. (In a convoluted sort of way) by stating testing of imports depends what the end user wants.

which is exactly the same as what our users of grain etc test for ie- milling wheat protein and hagberg. Malting barley nitrogen level and germination. Etc etc…..

so thank you Guy

And it now means red tractor has no further use or purpose👍👍

the end😂😂
That's the thing, there isn't a list of the minimum allowable tests.

The shipper or the customers can decide which tests they do.

...or even bypass the tests, and do a pesticide declaration.

If that all assures safe grain, then that's fine, no problem with it.

What I have got a problem with, is that they'll allow that for Jonnie Foreigner, but not for you, I, or anyone else in our home land. Nope, just for Jonnie Foreigner.
 

Humble Village Farmer

Member
BASE UK Member
Reasonable of Guy to say we want RT accepted by end users who want audited assurance. If RT rules were watered down too much, then some end users might request their own bolt on standards. Fair enough, good points.

I think the VI shouldn't be policed by RT. The VI either needs to work with growers on a voluntary basis, or become mandatory to avert a pesticide tax. Either way, the NFU, RT, AHDB, VI should not make farmers be railroaded into taking RT assurance, just so the VI is a success.

No mention of why UK grain couldn't be assured in same way as imports. That's what we're asking for, but side-stepped the main issue. Presumably because there isn't a credible answer.

No mention of fact that RT will lose members if we get our way. That's THE REAL REASON everyone wants to avoid change. We all know it. They know it, we know it, NFU don't want it to happen because they've backed the RT horse. AHDB have staff on the RT boards and are company guarantors. AIC are in company ownership structure of SQC, so they'd be responsible for a fall in their income at SQC. All imho.

No mentiom that RT livestock schemes readily accept imported grain into their feed.

We are saying have 2 x schemes.

Pesticide declaratin for those who want it - might be just feed grain growers to start with.

Keep RT for farmers and end users who wish to go RT.

Let market forces and premium prices work effectively to shape the future and success (or not) of RT.

What they scared of? Failure?
Don't be led down the "falling standards" path.

Farm assurance is no indication of standards. It's a self declaration.

We have high standards in this country.
 

tullah

Member
Location
Linconshire
What they scared of? Failure?

They are afraid of competition because they have nothing to offer.

They are afraid of public ridicule when it comes down like a house of cards.

What they are most afraid of is the supply of free money from every single farming business drying up.
The longer it goes on the more ridiculous fools look. But you see this happening wherever you look so it's not unusual. They just go out with a bigger bang at the end.
 

CHAP Webinar - Innovative tools to overcome the challenges of Regen Ag

  • 303
  • 0
https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.evbuc.com%2Fimages%2F186160299%2F486662465563%2F1%2Foriginal.20211115-160823


Applying principles of regen ag can incur a range of on-farm challenges. Learn how innovative tools & machinery can help with these hurdles.

This event will be held online from 1pm to 2pm on Thursday 2nd December 2021 so please block it out in your diary.

About this event​

Intro
This...
Top