Minette Batters NFU president

[Clive]

That depends on what happens in February perhaps.

if the expected pre groomed graduates get elected i don’t see a lot changing and the decline / gradual loss of members will continue

i think a big statement needs to be made in February that really sets out a new direction

 

[Drillman]

So why are you a member of the nfu when they created and support red tractor?
Nothing wil change while the nfu members keep paying their subs.
Nfu top brass can say what they doing is right as we have X many farmers behind us ..

They have other uses, we normally get the membership fee and more back each year with other stuff.

my future as a member is not set in stone though, if they cock this review up I’m out.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

As level a playing field as possible is obviously required. Beyond that, added value for the services provided. It's not rocket science.

So how do you feel about paying for the privilege of "the need to provide assurance to the consumer", who neither pays for nor demands that assurance and therefore adds no value, when the same buyer is happy to accept imports without "the need to provide assurance" (suggesting that there is no "need to provide assurance"?

 

[willyorkshire]

They have other uses, we normally get the membership fee and more back each year with other stuff.

my future as a member is not set in stone though, if they cock this review up I’m out.

Ok, they're making some noises by conducting a review or two. But the only thing they really listen to is members leaving. Would be interesting to know how many have quit over this RT/GFC mess.

 

[SilliamWhale]

It means exactly what is says. Other countries also have certain levels of 'assurance' and that is not to be forgotten. The 'level playing field' refers to aligning our base leves to the requirement to match others, or add value.

So a level playing field is booting out RT and going back to legislative obligations and trading on that basis.

 

[SilliamWhale]

The building industry is not a great comparison. Their level of scrutiny would far outweigh ours. Iso numbers, building regs, insurances and liabilities.

Do we grow produce to sell confidently, or do we grow it for our own amusement?

As per my initial post, I do not wish to bare knuckle fight, just looking for solutions.

I don't agree.

My builder has to comply with building regs. He insured and liable for his staff. I don't see him having a RT type inspector check a trade type as a condition of trade, his job is to ensure he is legally complying

The solution is simple but to see it you will have to do an about turn and face the other way and to see it

 

[SilliamWhale]

There is certainly a piece of work to do to resolve current issues. I absolutely believe it can be done.

Good. I'm grateful you recognize this because a lot of the NFU top team have ignored it or not been honest about this. And it has led to rancour simply because farmers can see the lies - imported produce comes into Pembroke Dock and gets mixed with assured commodities straight away. We know it's rotten and it is not defensible.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

There's a boatload of rape at Tilbury, the drivers are doing alternate loads from an adm store and the docks. Tipping in the same place.

 

[tullah]

There's a boatload of rape at Tilbury, the drivers are doing alternate loads from an adm store and the docks. Tipping in the same place.

Perhaps we should all go to docks and peacefully demonstrate. That would get news coverage.

 

[An Gof]

This thread seems to be going around in circles and I have no desire to get into some sort of bare knuckle fight here.


Would it not be a more positive discussion to debate how YOU feel agriculture should be represented? Are you concerned about future regulation, succession, tax liabilities, retirement, production?
Does the industry require leadership and guidance, or are you all content to represent yourselves? How do you do that, outside of in here?
If you asked 100 farmers what their gripe with agriculture is , would it be the NFU? I doubt it. You might find there are 40 different answers and not all of them can be pushed under one letterbox.

Personally, I think there is a need for an organisation to represent and there is already one, I also feel there is a need for us to provide assurance to consumers (our customers). I do think it needs doing perhaps much 'better' but that is my view.

Shouting at the driver from the back of the bus is easy. Not so easy perhaps if you get into the driving seat and find it's a single track road...

As an industry we should be looking further up the road, we can then decide which way the bus goes.
Strategy, short,medium and long term are essential in agriculture. Fighting battles with the postman is not great.

What do you mean when you say Assurance needs doing "much Better"?
In the past, and from bitter experience with RT, that has come to mean ever higher and increasing standards for no gain. You should clearly and unambiguously set out your position on this.
The current situation is intolerable.

If we need to provide assurance it should be limited to the original ethos of traceability and meeting legal food safety standards.

 

[Mwf]

What do you mean when you say Assurance needs doing "much Better"?
In the past, and from bitter experience with RT, that has come to mean ever higher and increasing standards for no gain. You should clearly and unambiguously set out your position on this.
The current situation is intolerable.

If we need to provide assurance it should be limited to the original ethos of traceability and meeting legal food safety standards.

Much better...

As I said in my initial post, from an arable perspective, match requirements as per imported goods, anything above through better practices should be value added.

Livestock, similarly, however it already has a plethora of 'membership value' chains within it which creates a differentiation in product.

Are we the best farmers in the world?
Can we match scale and costs of production?
I would suggest not on both counts, excepting the top 10%?

We have traceability, we have all the adjectives, 'grass fed', 'home grown', 'suckler bred' etc etc.
It all has added value to an informed consumer.
That value added should pay for the added costs we incur by default or design.
We don't have massive feed lots, super dairies and we are not cutting trees down to make room.

There are farms that need to pull their socks up, and there are fantastic holdings on our patch.
It needs celebrating and paying for.

Marketing is required for UK ag. It is a very saleable product!!!

 

[Raider112]

There's the same 20 or so at most names, constantly, repetitively baying the same old message.

Hats off to those who've put effort into the BFU- they've put some commitment into their beliefs... The owner of this site loves anti NFU posts, as the traffic it generates must be even higher that topics about which pick up... I notice that whilst BFU talked of paying for adverts with FW- whilst no such ads have appeared on here?

I also find it slightly ironic that the common complaint on the NFU is one member one vote, committee transparency etc, yet none of this exists with it's supposed replacement... An alternative view, and perspective giver can't be a bad thing to be honest- I happen to think in Wales we're better for having two unions. However, I can't really see the validity/relevance of an online group, run by an arable pseudonym as is the BFU, to my business though I'm afraid, so I've not paid in.

Reality is, however, TFF spout on about 30,000+ regular users, huge numbers and stats to sell advertising, whilst the same old same old post the same old again and again on this forum. These stuck records go over and over the same thing in their echo chambers- but the truth is, if anything like the 30,000 or more users the owners claim, are truly so engaged in the site, and outraged by the NFU- how come only 270 have taken the time to cast a vote on this topic? It's been up what 3 weeks? If the 30,000 users a day is to believed- that's over 600,000 viewers... with 270 votes....

Either-

The issue has been hugely inflated by the echo chamber?

or

Have the forum's engagement figures been hugely inflated?
Or shudder to think, could it be both?

I remember engaging with one vocal anti NFU poster on here, must be 15 years ago in some other format- who was cancelling their NFU membership. I can't remember what their justification was back then- but the crux of their messages haven't changed in all these years... It's ALL the NFU's fault... Not really sure what they've achieved for the industry in those 15 years outside of membership, but given how vocal they post on this one topic, there must be something really eating at them from the inside...

I buy a newspaper but I don't contribute to it. I imagine the vast majority of readers don't post on here either.

Maybe you pretty much fit into that as a rule? Apologies if I have that wrong but the username doesn't ring a bell.

Thanks for posting though.

 

[SilliamWhale]

Much better...

As I said in my initial post, from an arable perspective, match requirements as per imported goods, anything above through better practices should be value added.

Livestock, similarly, however it already has a plethora of 'membership value' chains within it which creates a differentiation in product.

Are we the best farmers in the world?
Can we match scale and costs of production?
I would suggest not on both counts, excepting the top 10%?

We have traceability, we have all the adjectives, 'grass fed', 'home grown', 'suckler bred' etc etc.
It all has added value to an informed consumer.
That value added should pay for the added costs we incur by default or design.
We don't have massive feed lots, super dairies and we are not cutting trees down to make room.

There are farms that need to pull their socks up, and there are fantastic holdings on our patch.
It needs celebrating and paying for.

Marketing is required for UK ag. It is a very saleable product!!!

Our legal standards are already above the global gap standards for trading grain. There isn't a case to answer to be honest. Lots of RT/NFu defenders tend to get themselves into contortions to try and run with the hare and hunt with the hounds over Red Tractor but as it gets undermined on intake with no chance of value for the grain commodity farmer, unless you can come out and condemn the situation it will just be another Minette Batters scenario, ie not trusted.

But I do appreciate the language you are talking, but the marketplace needs to pay if it wants more.

 

[Mwf]

Our legal standards are already above the global gap standards for trading grain. There isn't a case to answer to be honest. Lots of RT/NFu defenders tend to get themselves into contortions to try and run with the hare and hunt with the hounds over Red Tractor but as it gets undermined on intake with no chance of value for the grain commodity farmer, unless you can come out and condemn the situation it will just be another Minette Batters scenario, ie not trusted.

But I do appreciate the language you are talking, but the marketplace needs to pay if it wants more.

Grain is a mess. No other words for it.

 

[homefarm]

Much better...

As I said in my initial post, from an arable perspective, match requirements as per imported goods, anything above through better practices should be value added.

Livestock, similarly, however it already has a plethora of 'membership value' chains within it which creates a differentiation in product.

Are we the best farmers in the world?
Can we match scale and costs of production?
I would suggest not on both counts, excepting the top 10%?

We have traceability, we have all the adjectives, 'grass fed', 'home grown', 'suckler bred' etc etc.
It all has added value to an informed consumer.
That value added should pay for the added costs we incur by default or design.
We don't have massive feed lots, super dairies and we are not cutting trees down to make room.

There are farms that need to pull their socks up, and there are fantastic holdings on our patch.
It needs celebrating and paying for.

Marketing is required for UK ag. It is a very saleable product!!!

That is what I expected RT to deliver 20 yrs ago.

Why are we were we are now?

Who do we blame if not the NFU?

 

[SilliamWhale]

Grain is a mess. No other words for it.

Sadly the DP of the NFU did a review on it and found everything hunky dory. The DP job is to represent the President.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

Marketing is required for UK ag. It is a very saleable product!!!

We might think it is, and know it's probably better than a lot of imported stuff. Unfortunately the trade buys on price and price alone and mostly prices are set by the lowest available product at the time, which is usually off a boat.

As an example, watch the timing of boatloads of lamb from NZ which arrive just at the time when UK lamb prices would be peaking traditionally.

Example 2 above, imported rape going into Erith from Tilbury. It's too easy not to pay the premium so they don't.

 

[Mwf]

We might think it is, and know it's probably better than a lot of imported stuff. Unfortunately the trade buys on price and price alone and mostly prices are set by the lowest available product at the time, which is usually off a boat.

As an example, watch the timing of boatloads of lamb from NZ which arrive just at the time when UK lamb prices would be peaking traditionally.

Example 2 above, imported rape going into Erith from Tilbury. It's too easy not to pay the premium so they don't.

I havent been involved in how we got here.... we are here and need to move forward. Maybe I am interested in getting involved in that as I think it is something worth doing.

I wouldn't poke my head over the turret if I didnt think change could be achieved.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

Grain is a mess. No other words for it.

At least we pay to satisfy the need to provide assurance for our consumers though.

That makes me feel so much better about my farm accounts.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

I havent been involved in how we got here.... we are here and need to move forward. Maybe I am interested in getting involved in that as I think it is something worth doing.

I wouldn't poke my head over the turret if I didnt think change could be achieved.

I wish you all the best in improving trading conditions for farmers. It might slow the amount of land going into environmental schemes and rewilding.

IT would be interesting though, to hear from someone who has been involved in how we got here, how they think it's gone so far, and how they would see things developing in the future.