Guy Smiths steps down from Red Tractor

[Tamar]

NFU is RT

I know !!


Think my sub money is safe then

 

[ollie989898]

That does somewhat ignore the fact that there is always a political agenda to tighten rules and make industry pay the bill.
Politics often works by negotiating the least bad outcome, and you can’t do that if you are not at the table.

It is nonsense though- there is no political need for the NFU to exist, nor any reason for RT to exist. Politically, it's not even in the minds of voters. Nobody cares. How often do you see anything in the news relating to environmental health, trading standards or animal welfare? The only press the EA gets is from flooding events.

RT does not add value to your product. It does not protect consumers, nor does it shelter the rest of the industry from imports of food. What then is the point?

 

[Exfarmer]

It is nonsense though- there is no political need for the NFU to exist, nor any reason for RT to exist. Politically, it's not even in the minds of voters. Nobody cares. How often do you see anything in the news relating to environmental health, trading standards or animal welfare? The only press the EA gets is from flooding events.

RT does not add value to your product. It does not protect consumers, nor does it shelter the rest of the industry from imports of food. What then is the point?

you could not be more wrong Ollie, the only people to benefit from the loss of the NFU would be the politicians who would be delighted and they could continue down the road of more rewinding, carbon offsetting, more animal welfare all of which will giver the voters a very healthy glow as they buy their imported foods from far away places happy in the knowledge those trees being planted down the road have off set all the carbon this and from their next foreign holiday too.
The place will become dog walking heaven and those nasty peasants can go hang themselves since there s now right to roam all across the country, except for those enclaves where some wealthy people have released wolves to and Lynx eat the deer which are eating all those nice trees planted to capture the carbon

 

[Grass And Grain]

Hope the "personal reasons " are not health related for Guy or family.

He's clearly a capable chap, and would be good if UK Ag could in some way benefit from his abilities to speak up for the profession.

I'm presuming Guy's a fan of Red Tractor. He never really let slip if he was/wasn't in favour of introducing some sort of Red Tractor Basic standard, to somehow equal cereal import standards, or if he would like to see things such as NRoSO dropped from the RT standards, or 3 year sprayer testing.

He only ever seemed to defend RT when commenting on Twitter or TFF. Were those his views? Or because he couldn't do anything else as chairman? Not really certain he publicly stood up for farmers when in the chairman role, but maybe he did in the boardroom?

We had a Twitter discussion one day, and after about 2 hrs, he did eventually admit non-RT grain was perfectly safe for livestock feed or human consumption.

Suppose Guy was only one member of the voting board, but personally I don't think a written H&S Policy should have been included in the standards, as don't think it's anything to do with food safety. So we probably disagree on some things.

 

[Grass And Grain]

you could not be more wrong Ollie, the only people to benefit from the loss of the NFU would be the politicians who would be delighted and they could continue down the road of more rewinding, carbon offsetting, more animal welfare all of which will giver the voters a very healthy glow as they buy their imported foods from far away places happy in the knowledge those trees being planted down the road have off set all the carbon this and from their next foreign holiday too.
The place will become dog walking heaven and those nasty peasants can go hang themselves since there s now right to roam all across the country, except for those enclaves where some wealthy people have released wolves to and Lynx eat the deer which are eating all those nice trees planted to capture the carbon

The non-assured farmers might benefit if the NFU didn't exist and back Red Tractor. Those farmers have had their produce devalued, whilst imports come in without any assurance, yet NFU have gone along with organising a system by which non-assured UK produced grain is at a price disadvantage, but they know the imports literally sail in on a boat.

Not only do NFU know it's happening, they've been instrumental in organising this structure.

Most other things NFU do are fine.

 

[SilliamWhale]

That is a very well put post. And sums red tractor up in a nutshell.

Essentially there is nothing wrong with free enterprise to make money, (yes they claim to be not for profit but it’s a fact the staff and management don’t work for nothing) But how they conduct themselves towards the people who they lean on for funding is a disgrace.

Well they are not for profit in the same way everyone else is not for profit....

I agree with many of the comments / moans about the NFU and especially Red Tractor.
I cannot any longer claim to be a farmer but have done and continue to press for what ever is best for farming.
I have more than once been chairman of the local NFU branch and have an insight in the why's and wherefores of the problems it faces. Firstly the challenges of representing such a diverse industry.
We see regular bitter arguments on here between the myriad of differing views regarding so many issues on agriculture alone. If there were ten different bodies replacing the NFU , you can be certain there would be calls for ten more.
However every time you set up a separate body , you divide the political power and clout in half.
We already have plenty of groups out there, RSPCA, SA, RSPB, The Greens, WWF, CIWF, PETA, The Ramblers, CFRE etc.etc.etc. Who are determined to make farming anything from difficult to down right impossible. Who claim to represent everything in the countryside and country people, and to be brutally honest in terms of pure numbers I would guess they outnumber farmers possibly 100 to one or more in terms of supporters and votes.
Farmers more than ever with their ever declining numbers need a single industry body which represents them all, whatever their views and that is not easy and involves a lot of compromise. Currently the NFU attempts to do this which means it satisfies no one really, but that has always been and always will be the case.
How does it do its job better, that is simple bit needs all members to go along and speak their views. Dont just send dad as has always been the case. I was lucky having chaired my first meeting at the age of 25 after leaving college my father told me that the NFU needed young peoples views and sent me along and rarely went again.
I certainly ruffled many feathers as various old members harrumphed and hummed about these new fangled ideas, while their sons were at home doing just that while dad was not about.
I watched as various members carried on their petty feuds in meeting after meeting which made me very angry as it continually took up time which was valuable. Meeting their sons at agronomy of dairy industry meetings who would laugh at the antics of their fathers, but it kept him out of the way while they ran the farms.
Sadly you have the NFU you have chosen by not going to meetings and supporting candidates like Guy who have worked very hard to modernise things.
I confess, I too never had the time that I would have liked to do more and perhaps go higher in the organisation but I knew also that I would never had the votes from all the old duffers to do it anyway.

All reasonable stuff, I don't think we have the NFU we have chosen - we have the NFU others choose for us or they choose for themselves at an executive level.

However we cannot support a trade organisation who wants to put imports in favour ove homegrown. Its a huge and fundamental issue, the thin edge of the edge and absolutely unforgiveable.

I give leeway on a lot of other issues for sure as there are lots of sides to it - however shining the light of proper equitable debate on them would be no harm.

 

[Drillman]

I give leeway on a lot of other issues for sure as there are lots of sides to it - however shining the light of proper equitable debate on them would be no harm.

red tractor would never allow that to happen, I sincerely believe they would shut up shop for good rather than allow there business model be put under the spotlight and answers be demanded of questions they prefer not to be asked.

 

[Grass And Grain]

However we cannot support a trade organisation who wants to put imports in favour ove homegrown. Its a huge and fundamental issue, the thin edge of the edge and absolutely unforgiveable.

I give leeway on a lot of other issues for sure as there are lots of sides to it - however shining the light of proper equitable debate on them would be no harm.

It really beggars belief.

How can they knowingly do this to us?

Putting Red Tractor and SQC income in front of fairness for UK farmers.

AIC could quite easily change the wording of their rules. Should he one set of rules for all grain from any country in the world. But no, instead, they've got one set of rules for UK farmers, and an easier set of rules for imports.

 

[Drillman]

It really beggars belief.

How can they knowingly do this to us?

Putting Red Tractor and SQC income in front of fairness for UK farmers.

AIC could quite easily change the wording of their rules. Should he one set of rules for all grain from any country in the world. But no, instead, they've got one set of rules for UK farmers, and an easier set of rules for imports.

What effect would it have on AIC if they changed the rules? Made it a level playing field?

 

[Grass And Grain]

What effect would it have on AIC if they changed the rules? Made it a level playing field?

The AIC bosses said they don't have any association with SQC. However, the SQC website says this...

...and Red Tractor, along with Scottish Quality Meats, have a nice little rule which says animal feed must come from an AIC UFAS approved feed mill (or similar mill assurance scheme).

AFAIK no other assurance schemes are available for feed mills in the UK.

I'm sure it's a coincidence, but Red Tractor and SQC benefit from the AIC rules, as all UK grain farmers must be assured if they wish to sell to a UFAS feed mill.

It's just how it is, and it happens that RT benefit from AIC rules, and AIC benefit from RT rules.

...and when AIC were asked to change their rules, they wouldn't change their rules to allow UK grain farmers access to UFAS feed mills by the same method as imports are allowed, and thus the UK farmers must continue to pay up to Red Tractor.

AIC must be happy with the quality/safety of the import assurance method (one lab test on 60k tonnes), but when asked if UK grain could be given a safety stamp by the same method - AIC couldn't give any logical reason as to why UK grain couldn't use the same procedures as imports.

Seemingly lab tests are deemed as a perfectly good way of assuring grain if you're from Canada, USA, Brazil, Spain, Argentina, Germany, Portugal, Indonesia, etc, etc. But AIC don't deem lab tests as a good way to assure UK grain which has already been grown to UK legislative standards (and so arguably already better than the imports).

They just can't explain their reasons.

(I don't think they've got any reasonable reasons)

Which takes me back to the whole question of coincidences.

 

[tullah]

It really beggars belief.

How can they knowingly do this to us?

Putting Red Tractor and SQC income in front of fairness for UK farmers.

AIC could quite easily change the wording of their rules. Should he one set of rules for all grain from any country in the world. But no, instead, they've got one set of rules for UK farmers, and an easier set of rules for imports.

It's time this all came to the for and put in hands of prime time media. Its only then things will change.

 

[An Gof]

The AIC bosses said they don't have any association with SQC. However, the SQC website says this...

View attachment 1032742

...and Red Tractor, along with Scottish Quality Meats, have a nice little rule which says animal feed must come from an AIC UFAS approved feed mill (or similar mill assurance scheme).

AFAIK no other assurance schemes are available for feed mills in the UK.

I'm sure it's a coincidence, but Red Tractor and SQC benefit from the AIC rules, as all UK grain farmers must be assured if they wish to sell to a UFAS feed mill.

It's just how it is, and it happens that RT benefit from AIC rules, and AIC benefit from RT rules.

...and when AIC were asked to change their rules, they wouldn't change their rules to allow UK grain farmers access to UFAS feed mills by the same method as imports are allowed, and thus the UK farmers must continue to pay up to Red Tractor.

AIC must be happy with the quality/safety of the import assurance method (one lab test on 60k tonnes), but when asked if UK grain could be given a safety stamp by the same method - AIC couldn't give any logical reason as to why UK grain couldn't use the same procedures as imports.

Seemingly lab tests are deemed as a perfectly good way of assuring grain if you're from Canada, USA, Brazil, Spain, Argentina, Germany, Portugal, Indonesia, etc, etc. But AIC don't deem lab tests as a good way to assure UK grain which has already been grown to UK legislative standards (and so arguably already better than the imports).

They just can't explain their reasons.

(I don't think they've got any reasonable reasons)

Which takes me back to the whole question of coincidences.

AIC want to see the perpituity of TASSC which is their scheme and links with RT.
They both feed off each other. It’s a symbiosis where it’s heads AIC and RT win and tails the farmer loses

 

[David.]

It is nonsense though- there is no political need for the NFU to exist, nor any reason for RT to exist. Politically, it's not even in the minds of voters. Nobody cares. How often do you see anything in the news relating to environmental health, trading standards or animal welfare? The only press the EA gets is from flooding events.

RT does not add value to your product. It does not protect consumers, nor does it shelter the rest of the industry from imports of food. What then is the point?

Don't make the mistake of thinking I'm a RT fan.

 

[Grass And Grain]

AIC want to see the perpituity of TASSC which is their scheme and links with RT.
They both feed off each other. It’s a symbiosis where it’s heads AIC and RT win and tails the farmer loses

Now there's an interesting conspiracy theory.

Red Tractor and AIC surely wouldn't make up rules just so hauliers, mills and farmers had to all pay up to their schemes....would they?

That would be preposterous!

 

[Grass And Grain]

AIC want to see the perpituity of TASSC which is their scheme and links with RT.
They both feed off each other. It’s a symbiosis where it’s heads AIC and RT win and tails the farmer loses

I remember studying symbiosis at school.

In the same lesson we compared a symbiotic relationship with a parasitic relationship.

 

[An Gof]

I remember studying symbiosis at school.

In the same lesson we compared a symbiotic relationship with a parasitic relationship.

Youll be telling us all about Dodder in a minute

 

[glasshouse]

Now is the perfect time for everyone to tell rt and sqc to get raffled
Grain is in unprecedented demand, it will all find a home rt or not

 

[teslacoils]

Really chaps, you should all know that NFU/RT/AIC/AHDB are all the same people just hoping from one seat to another. Its like a game of musical chairs, except a new chair keeps getting added; some yellow-corded toff gets to play; you all pay for the chair, and when the music stops they sit down and have a five course meal at our expense.

 

[Drillman]

So top and bottom of it all these companies must benefit financially from the rules they set.

Not like there going to do it for nothing is it….

 

[Grass And Grain]

Youll be telling us all about Dodder in a minute

A blood sucker sprang to mind.

Leech, tick, vampire. That sort of thing.