- Location
- Warwickshire
I wouldn’t hold out much hope if the NFU helping change anything .
Every time I comment or ask a question on any of their FB posts, it quickly gets removed .
Well said.I just posted this on NFU online, patting themselves on the back for BackBritishFarming day
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.If only we had vertically integrated coops like....oh the rest of Europe.
What did you think?Article by Guy in FW defending the status quo . Thought about sending a photo but maybe best not for copyright. Page 34 / 35 bottom 1/3
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 TractorWhat did you think?
That's exactly what sprung to my mind when I read that letter.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
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
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.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
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.....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
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.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?
That's the thing, there isn't a list of the minimum allowable tests.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
Don't be led down the "falling standards" path.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?
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.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.