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
Guy Smith's response to FW article on AIC rules.
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="Steevo" data-source="post: 7744077" data-attributes="member: 430"><p>Just made a start reading FW. First off, very very well done [USER=23184]@Grass And Grain[/USER] on a cracking article. The double page spread looks really good and hits home on the issue.</p><p></p><p>Reading on a bit further there is an article (or should that be advert?) on P50 about a farmer who earns a £3/t premium over feed for supplying Weetabix. Grows 300-400t a year and has never had a load rejected (no mention of claims though).</p><p></p><p>Taking previous comments about Weetabix really valuing Red Tractor given by those in defence of the standard it struck me crazy that they only pay £3/t premium. In that farmer’s position, I’m not sure I’d consider the extra £1000 really worth the hassle. Added to that, on top of RT assurance you also have to be LEAF or in a stewardship scheme. If they really value RT standard grain then why not make those rules part of the “contract” too, and pay a real premium. This idea of RT being a single standard to prevent all buyers creating their own is total rubbish.</p><p></p><p>There’s even talk in the article Weetabix plan to “work with grower groups to measure and try to reduce carbon footprint”.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Steevo, post: 7744077, member: 430"] Just made a start reading FW. First off, very very well done [USER=23184]@Grass And Grain[/USER] on a cracking article. The double page spread looks really good and hits home on the issue. Reading on a bit further there is an article (or should that be advert?) on P50 about a farmer who earns a £3/t premium over feed for supplying Weetabix. Grows 300-400t a year and has never had a load rejected (no mention of claims though). Taking previous comments about Weetabix really valuing Red Tractor given by those in defence of the standard it struck me crazy that they only pay £3/t premium. In that farmer’s position, I’m not sure I’d consider the extra £1000 really worth the hassle. Added to that, on top of RT assurance you also have to be LEAF or in a stewardship scheme. If they really value RT standard grain then why not make those rules part of the “contract” too, and pay a real premium. This idea of RT being a single standard to prevent all buyers creating their own is total rubbish. There’s even talk in the article Weetabix plan to “work with grower groups to measure and try to reduce carbon footprint”. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
Guy Smith's response to FW article on AIC rules.
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