- Location
- Yorks
Of we could extract the value, then I think many would be happier. Not sure how we know that if they pay a bonus, that they haven't just knocked it off the base price in the first place.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.
Solution....
Not sure if this would work from a buyer's perspective, but....
e.g. agree a base food safety protocol with processors/retailers. They agree to purchase produce of that standard. Then have the add-on higher level (e.g. RT's GFC). The retailer can then offer a price premium for the GFC. The farmer can either choose to supply basic level or GFC level. The percentage of farmers supplying GFC produce will depend on if the retailer has offered a sufficiently attractive price premium.
Then M&S who offered a decent premium ,can advertise "99% of our produce is GFC". Aldi, if their price offer wasn't as attractive, might only be able to say "25% of our produce is GFC".
Agree. And it doesn't need inspecting every 12 months. Every few years would be fine. See the post below about my grain inspection.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.
Can't really disagree with that, but how do we extract these value added provenance goodies from the marketplace? Up to now, RT has wedged itself between seller and buyer, it's pretty much a condition of market access, and thus the market hasn't had to pay anything extra to get all the RT assurance it has wanted.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's been the result of having a single monopoly assurance scheme and brand, and that was NFU policy.... the desire for a single assurance scheme. I can see the arguments for this, and can see the problems it has caused.
With commodities like grain, we seem to have given away a whole load of assurance add-ons at our own cost, then it goes into Ensus along with the imported stuff from the Ukraine. The lorry drivers tell us what goes on....
...so I think we're on the same page, but need to get things into perspective and tilt that playing field back to being level.
NZ Lamb assurance scheme is 36 month inspection. Danish Crown pork/bacon is quite an easy scheme to pass. Both these get space on our supermarket shelves, and sit next to the RT stuff.
German wheat growers get local government inspection every 5 years, then can sell to our flour mills, with UK Flour Millers saying this is good assurance. I didn't renew RT assurance this spring, so I lost my earned recognition, then got local authority Food Standards Inspection. Qualified Food Hygiene officer. Similar to RT audit really. We passed, and inspector said grain safe for animal feed and human consumption. Can I sell to a mill in the UK? No, they won't buy my grain. I think they should, and I think that inspection is absolutely fine to cover me for the next 4-5 years.
To he fair, Irish beef has quite a comprehensive assurance scheme (probably just to match RT).
At least, at long last, NFU are having a review of the whole situation. That's welcome. Let's hope they make some sensible suggestions.