Meeting with AHDB about cereals assurance: What do you want us to say?

[An Gof]

Hi

I always knew the trade paid as well, but do they only pay once?.

If the cereal buyer pays do processors pay again when they buy it off a trader ?

What about exports?

What if a trader sells to another trader? How many times can a tonne be charged levy?

Levy payable on first buyer only.
Processing levies on tonnes processed.
Levy on grain exported is charged on the first buyer as above.

 

[chipchap]

All that is needed is for some imported grain to be found contaminated in some way.

But that won’t happen because the testing regime is so lax.

 

[Luke Cropwalker]

I see no reason at all to continue with the current RT model.

Going forward then there has to be a way of getting UK grain into mills on an equal footing with imports, presumably this will be a much simpler assurance type of system. If there has to be a more onerous assurance standard for certain markets or customers then there needs to be a premium for that grain and imports must also be required to meet the same standards. I am a big fan of the AHDB, I use the resources and attend some meetings, however the AHDB need to show some leadership in this debate and show they genuinely work in the interests of the growers that supply the majority of the funding.

 

[Mercury]

Thanks, yes, think the trade pay £0.05/t, so as you say AHDB don't just work for farmers. They have to consider everyone.

Is this the same levy that is passed back to the producers by the merchants?

 

[An Gof]

Is this the same levy that is passed back to the producers by the merchants?

The levy is a parafiscal tax paid by both producers and traders/processors of grain. The rates are Independant of each other. The first buyer collects the levy for AHDB. The levy is NOT passed back to producers by merchants.
The merchants do receive a consideration for their work in collecting the levy as first buyer.

 

[farmerm]

What is Gatekeeper style access? Presumably something to do with Gatekeeper software which not everyone is using

Its about imports.. Gatekeepers have back door keys to allow imported product into mills with little more than a "risk based" assessment.. Domestic product has to jump though the hoops, is not allowed though gatekeeper doors, it has to qualify to go through the door marked "farm assured".

 

[homefarm]

Is this the same levy that is passed back to the producers by the merchants?

 

[Wooly]

First question you need to ask is

" Do the AHDB still want jobs next year?"

Remind them that the arable farmers could easily go the way of the spud farmers !!

Then ask them how they are going to level up the marketing of UK produce against imports.

 

[4course]

my thoughts to ahdb, just because im forced to be a rt member does not absolve me of any claim against my produce as delivered ( e.g say it was contaminated with a chemical or extraneous matter )therefore whats the point .So long as I have a contract stipulating terms and conditions which we already have and which is broadly in line with imports why do I need rt. Its a cartel and I cant trade without it .It is not written in the law of the land ,other than the statutory requirements of trade which are already in place and have been since before rt. Why does the ahdb continue to support it as in all the time rt has been in place as a levy payer ive had no financial benefit just cost both in monetary, time ,and needless paperwork not to mention stress .as someone who has been selling grain produced on this farm other than the occassional claim which has been within the contract terms i.e moisture or bushel havnt I by practice shown that im a supplier of as grown grain of a high standard and quality

 

[JJT]

gotta keep it simple cos they'll wriggle then prevaricate......out of rt all together then work on equal to imports

Personally for me the main points are that AHDB,AIC,RT, NFU ect have all become to hand in glove with each other and it needs to stop.

If I could have one outcome from all this it would be to have a simple self declaration on grain passports which states our goods are equal to and/or exceed imports. This is a simple scheme that AHDB could sort and save there own skins. RT could still continue for any premium markets provided there was a true premium for the good but the vast majority of grain could be traded with the simple tick box declaration.

If the AHDB could do this then I would let them stay but at the moment my vote is a firm NO.

Why mention imports, just say produced to UK standards.

 

[Grass And Grain]

First question you need to ask is

" Do the AHDB still want jobs next year?"

Remind them that the arable farmers could easily go the way of the spud farmers !!

Then ask them how they are going to level up the marketing of UK produce against imports.

It's not really for us to say how to level up the marketing is it. More for AHDB to think of hiw they're going to do it.

 

[wanton dwarf]

1) Imports must be disassociated with UK Cereals and carry their own non conformance passports.

Any deviation from standards within UK agriculture in the country of origin must be declared at the point of entry into the UK. A declaration of non comformance to UK assurance schemes, legislation and regulation must follow the product all the way through to the consumer. This should detail the risks, health, animal welfare and environmental issues associated with the raw material.

This passport should be displayed at the point of sale so consumers are informed.


2) Any declaration by the food industry, AIC or government that imported food is safe - despite being grown using standards that are illegal in the UK or are against UK assurance practices which would lead to a ban - should immediately bring about an investigation into the standards imposed on UK agriculture.

If the outcome is the imported food is safe - then those standards should be adopted as safe for UK agriculture to apply.
If the outcome is imported food is not safe or the health implecations are unknown - then that food should be banned.


3) Any assurance scheme throughout UK agriculture must apply a premium at the point of sale. That premium must be large enough to pay for the scheme and pay the farmer for the time alloted to forefill the assurance scheme. At the very least this must include charges for maintenance of any equipment used, time alloted for tasks, administration and a minimum profit on each task.


4) Any assurance scheme must be fully controlled by an executive board of farmers overseeing their own industry, ensuring standards are met and ensuring assurance rules are not vindictive/baseless. (Of which there are MANY within Red Tractor) Executive members must rotate amongst member farmers on a maximum of 3 year terms with no repeat terms.


I also think members of an assurance scheme need the ability to raise concern about standards which don't work and the ability to remove them by vote.

Any new rule for an assurance scheme should come with an associated added value payment ontop of the existing assurance premium. Which can then be voted for.

 

[wanton dwarf]

Collective myself and my customers are paying about 4-6k a year depending, that’s more than I realised.

Am I right in saying 8,000 tonnes of Wheat or so ?

 

[ollie989898]

I see no reason for ANY non-government organisation to exist if it funded by mandatory levies, taxes or anything of the sort. This sort of organisation should not exist, end of the story. If the AHDB is so great, they won't mind moving to a model that is funded by subscription of it's members and stand the acid test of commercialism just like the true test of business all their members invariably have to face.

 

[Feldspar]

1) Imports must be disassociated with UK Cereals and carry their own non conformance passports.

Any deviation from standards within UK agriculture in the country of origin must be declared at the point of entry into the UK. A declaration of non comformance to UK assurance schemes, legislation and regulation must follow the product all the way through to the consumer. This should detail the risks, health, animal welfare and environmental issues associated with the raw material.

This passport should be displayed at the point of sale so consumers are informed.


2) Any declaration by the food industry, AIC or government that imported food is safe - despite being grown using standards that are illegal in the UK or are against UK assurance practices which would lead to a ban - should immediately bring about an investigation into the standards imposed on UK agriculture.

If the outcome is the imported food is safe - then those standards should be adopted as safe for UK agriculture to apply.
If the outcome is imported food is not safe or the health implecations are unknown - then that food should be banned.


3) Any assurance scheme throughout UK agriculture must apply a premium at the point of sale. That premium must be large enough to pay for the scheme and pay the farmer for the time alloted to forefill the assurance scheme. At the very least this must include charges for maintenance of any equipment used, time alloted for tasks, administration and a minimum profit on each task.


4) Any assurance scheme must be fully controlled by an executive board of farmers overseeing their own industry, ensuring standards are met and ensuring assurance rules are not vindictive/baseless. (Of which there are MANY within Red Tractor) Executive members must rotate amongst member farmers on a maximum of 3 year terms with no repeat terms.


I also think members of an assurance scheme need the ability to raise concern about standards which don't work and the ability to remove them by vote.

Any new rule for an assurance scheme should come with an associated added value payment ontop of the existing assurance premium. Which can then be voted for.

Good suggestions.

 

[Farma Parma]

Everyone is happy to do a deal if there's a mutual benefit.

We ask AHDB to amend the passport so we can sign a declaration of legal pesticide applications.

AHDB may offer to create a system where we upload our current NSTS number, PA1,PA2 etc. We can upload a pesticide application record. Costs diddly squat. AHDB get this assurance method accepted by the trade.

Benefit to levy payers is less costly market access.

Benefit to AHDB is we don't trigger a ballot. In fact we're now actively wanting the continued existence of AHDB to run this for us. Farmers now love AHDB.

Who won't want this? RT, as they might lose some farmer members. SQC, for same reasons. AIC, as they are one of the members of SQC. NFU, as they are guarantors to RT.

So what will happen?

We'll find out if AHDB's main focus is to work to the best of their ability in the interests of the levy payers, or if they are more aligned to RT, NFU, AIC, SQC. We might find out if NFU will put farmers first or RT first.

We'll also find out if NFU, RT, AIC, millers, maltsters, oilseed crushers, etc are prepared to throw AHDB under the oncoming bus.

One danger is the millers, trade, maltsters etc see no value in their AHDB levy, would rather not help, and prefer to see them gone.

you have my backing all the way bash on sir

 

[Farma Parma]

1) Imports must be disassociated with UK Cereals and carry their own non conformance passports.

Any deviation from standards within UK agriculture in the country of origin must be declared at the point of entry into the UK. A declaration of non comformance to UK assurance schemes, legislation and regulation must follow the product all the way through to the consumer. This should detail the risks, health, animal welfare and environmental issues associated with the raw material.

This passport should be displayed at the point of sale so consumers are informed.


2) Any declaration by the food industry, AIC or government that imported food is safe - despite being grown using standards that are illegal in the UK or are against UK assurance practices which would lead to a ban - should immediately bring about an investigation into the standards imposed on UK agriculture.

If the outcome is the imported food is safe - then those standards should be adopted as safe for UK agriculture to apply.
If the outcome is imported food is not safe or the health implecations are unknown - then that food should be banned.


3) Any assurance scheme throughout UK agriculture must apply a premium at the point of sale. That premium must be large enough to pay for the scheme and pay the farmer for the time alloted to forefill the assurance scheme. At the very least this must include charges for maintenance of any equipment used, time alloted for tasks, administration and a minimum profit on each task.


4) Any assurance scheme must be fully controlled by an executive board of farmers overseeing their own industry, ensuring standards are met and ensuring assurance rules are not vindictive/baseless. (Of which there are MANY within Red Tractor) Executive members must rotate amongst member farmers on a maximum of 3 year terms with no repeat terms.


I also think members of an assurance scheme need the ability to raise concern about standards which don't work and the ability to remove them by vote.

Any new rule for an assurance scheme should come with an associated added value payment ontop of the existing assurance premium. Which can then be voted for.

Id say that sums it all up perfectly well written thanks

 

[ajd132]

Am I right in saying 8,000 tonnes of Wheat or so ?

Of crop but it would obviously vary quite a lot depending on yield and cropping.

 

[ajd132]

Of crop but it would obviously vary quite a lot depending on yield and cropping.

It could actually be way more than that this year if we get decent yields. I haven’t actually added up exact amounts from last harvest yet. Its actually probably more like 12-14 in total

 

[Grass And Grain]

Suppose should ask if anyone likes the current set-up of us being required to have RT?

Think that nothing should change?