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="Grass And Grain" data-source="post: 7751903" data-attributes="member: 23184"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>No mentiom that RT livestock schemes readily accept imported grain into their feed.</p><p></p><p>We are saying have 2 x schemes.</p><p></p><p> Pesticide declaratin for those who want it - might be just feed grain growers to start with. </p><p></p><p>Keep RT for farmers and end users who wish to go RT.</p><p></p><p>Let market forces and premium prices work effectively to shape the future and success (or not) of RT.</p><p></p><p>What they scared of? Failure?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Grass And Grain, post: 7751903, member: 23184"] 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? [/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