Minette Batters NFU president

[Grass And Grain]

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.

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.

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".

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.

Agree. And it doesn't need inspecting every 12 months. Every few years would be fine. See the post below about my grain inspection.

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!!!

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.

^^^^ 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.

 

[Grass And Grain]

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.

We can just see the top of your head and glasses

It is actually pleasing that everyone is now debating the issue and looking to make improvements to current situation

 

[Charles.]

RT,AIC,BRC, Minette Batters and the rest of them will say anything so long the coercion continues for the majority of farmers needing to be RT/SQC assured to sell the grain to mills and OSR to crushers. AIC allow imported gatekeeper lab tested grain and OSR into UFAS mills and UFAS crushers. If it's illegal for AIC to say they won't allow UK grown Gatekeeper lab tested grain or OSR into UFAS mill or UFAS crusher then the lot of them are playing a dangerous game. Presumably the lot of them already know if it's illegal under competition law etc.

All I can think of is pressuring them, then exposing to the public and MPs the coercion, lies or misleading information what RT assurance label means, elite few sitting on their arses taking the money off the masses(farmers). This can be done using social media, papers, television and radio. If MPs won't pursade them, then legal action next. Other method is for group to set up a mill and crusher that accepts UK produce gatekeeper lab tested grain or lower standard and OSR and uses a non assured label like Little RT label, promoting choice to public and farmer, not coercion, giving farmer more money instead of the elite few getting the money from dictatorship RT assurance schemes and less control,work and paperwork for farmer due to assurance scheme and telling the truth about what the non assured label means rather than the lies or misleading information the RT label means(selling imported produce under RT label, mixing RT assured produce with imports). Of course it's important this non assured label does not give the "pity me" farmer as this will backfire with some of the public. Final idea is farmers to infiltrate and run RT, AIC board (unlikely I know). So far we've pressured them but the coercion continues, expose AIC,RT,BRC,Minette Batters and the rest of them to the public and MPs next, then legal action probably required.


Totally against joining RT non assured scheme because they keep getting the money and control. We will also be back to where we are now with RT if join non assured RT scheme. Farmers must rightfully sell on the open world free market selling their produce to gatekeeper lab tested standard or at a lower standard to this.

 

[L P]

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.

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.


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.

^^^^ 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.

But GFC will clearly be offset against scope 3 emissions, I've no issue with selling my annual carbon offset, agreena have offered a pretty poor sum of £10k a year without any knowledge of my business. That figure is not enough by miles. GFC would have to produce a hefty premium to be viable, it must be equivalent at least to supermarkets buying carbon credits, and they are laughable in value currently.... what would happen if I sold my credits to Agreena and joined GFC?

 

[Charles.]

But GFC will clearly be offset against scope 3 emissions, I've no issue with selling my annual carbon offset, agreena have offered a pretty poor sum of £10k a year without any knowledge of my business. That figure is not enough by miles. GFC would have to produce a hefty premium to be viable, it must be equivalent at least to supermarkets buying carbon credits, and they are laughable in value currently.... what would happen if I sold my credits to Agreena and joined GFC?

The carbon net zero is probably a lie. An excuse to destroy economies and control us. They are going to damage farmers probably intentionally rather than unintentionally. Bill Gates wants the people to eat his manufactured meat free poison instead of eating meat for a start.

 

[L P]

The carbon net zero is probably a lie. An excuse to destroy economies and control us. They are going to damage farmers probably intentionally. Bill Gates wants the people to eat his manufactured meat free poison instead of meat for a start.

It's definitely a lie it's another tax burden on its way, and we are the only solution to the lie so should not sell ourselves off cheaply

 

[Old apprentice]

GFC,is to my view on it is a TOTAl PLOT To STEEL your carbon on other reason .Yes I put it in capitals . Talking of getting paid for gfc, in previous post dreamer.

 

[Jackov Altraids]

A sentence beginning with 'Yes, but....' reminds me of Vicky Pollard.

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

It CAN be done.
The NFU could have done it in days, at anytime in the last few years.
They haven't and will not.
What's the next move?

 

[DeeGee]

Well for what it’s worth I resigned from NFU last week, citing in no uncertain terms my disgust and anger at having been conned for years by the NFU dreaming up ever more Red Tractor regulations.

Was contacted yesterday by big cog in the NFU machine (a missed phone call and then a text) asking to chat about the situation. He having been asked to contact me by a county organiser following my resignation.

Maybe they really are loosing some members now?

 

[Grass And Grain]

RT,AIC,BRC, Minette Batters and the rest of them will say anything so long the coercion continues for the majority of farmers needing to be RT/SQC assured to sell the grain to mills and OSR to crushers. AIC allow imported gatekeeper lab tested grain and OSR into UFAS mills and UFAS crushers. If it's illegal for AIC to say they won't allow UK grown Gatekeeper lab tested grain or OSR into UFAS mill or UFAS crusher then the lot of them are playing a dangerous game. Presumably the lot of them already know if it's illegal under competition law etc.

All I can think of is pressuring them, then exposing to the public and MPs the coercion, lies or misleading information what RT assurance label means, elite few sitting on their arses taking the money off the masses(farmers). This can be done using social media, papers, television and radio. If MPs won't pursade them, then legal action next. Other method is for group to set up a mill and crusher that accepts UK produce gatekeeper lab tested grain or lower standard and OSR and uses a non assured label like Little RT label, promoting choice to public and farmer, not coercion, giving farmer more money instead of the elite few getting the money from dictatorship RT assurance schemes and less control,work and paperwork for farmer due to assurance scheme and telling the truth about what the non assured label means rather than the lies or misleading information the RT label means(selling imported produce under RT label, mixing RT assured produce with imports). Of course it's important this non assured label does not give the "pity me" farmer as this will backfire with some of the public. Final idea is farmers to infiltrate and run RT, AIC board (unlikely I know). So far we've pressured them but the coercion continues, expose AIC,RT,BRC,Minette Batters and the rest of them to the public and MPs next, then legal action probably required.


Totally against joining RT non assured scheme because they keep getting the money and control. We will also be back to where we are now with RT if join non assured RT scheme. Farmers must rightfully sell on the open world free market selling their produce to gatekeeper lab tested standard or at a lower standard to this.

Any move by RT (and up to now, also the NFU), has been centred around ensuring farmers have no choice but RT. Keeps the money flowing in. DEFRA like it because it saves them paying for inspections, DEFRA like it because they can police things like Urea use and NRoSO.

But GFC will clearly be offset against scope 3 emissions, I've no issue with selling my annual carbon offset, agreena have offered a pretty poor sum of £10k a year without any knowledge of my business. That figure is not enough by miles. GFC would have to produce a hefty premium to be viable, it must be equivalent at least to supermarkets buying carbon credits, and they are laughable in value currently.... what would happen if I sold my credits to Agreena and joined GFC?

Yeah, using GFC as my example of a premium assurance standard..... well it wasn't a very good choice of example . Indeed, GFC really did cross the boundary into potentially gifting away things we could sell on open markets.

 

[L P]

Any move by RT (and up to now, also the NFU), has been centred around ensuring farmers have no choice but RT. Keeps the money flowing in. DEFRA like it because it saves them paying for inspections, DEFRA like it because they can police things like Urea use and NRoSO.


Yeah, using GFC as my example of a premium assurance standard..... well it wasn't a very good choice of example . Indeed, GFC really did cross the boundary into potentially gifting away things we could sell on open markets.

Nothing wrong with your choice of example G&G, I'm not picking you out, just pointing out a true reflection of the value GFC must give back to farmers for potentially unknowingly sell a vast amount of carbon credits. For now, ours are not for sale by bribe or not... really, I don't think they should be purchasable or offsettable ever.

 

[gone up the hill]

Nothing wrong with your choice of example G&G, I'm not picking you out, just pointing out a true reflection of the value GFC must give back to farmers for potentially unknowingly sell a vast amount of carbon credits. For now, ours are not for sale by bribe or not... really, I don't think they should be purchasable or offsettable ever.

Carbon credits for grassland could soon be worth £500 to £1000 acre yearly!

If that is the case it blows farming livestock commercially out of the window and then there will be no need for RT etc!

Thus why you see why they want the green module for!

No way any so called RT premium will get anywhere near that for beef/ lamb let alone cover production costs for the lambs etc as the carbon credit would be worth say £125 lamb then add on the current market price so that would mean a RT prime lamb would need to be making £235 currently to compete with the carbon payments @£1000 acre or £173 head at £500 acre carbon payments.

Somehow i cannot see the so called RT premium if they have the farmers carbon credits worth £3 kilo over non carbon credit/ non assured lambs..

 

[gone up the hill]

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!!!

Where are these so called RT beef and lamb premiums then??

Most weeks non assured stock ppk for liveweight lambs are similar or even higher than assured lambs!

Yes marketing needs addressing but both RT and the AHDB are failing very badly in this area yet neither organization see any issue with their poor marketing of beef/ lamb!

You say some farms need to pull their socks up, well you need to sort out the RT and AHDB first before slating farmers!

Margins are tight in the beef/lamb sectors, costs on farm cannot be cut anymore, only costs that can be cut are the ones that for every £1 spent give zero return to the farmer and that £1 is currently the RT and AHDB who add nothing to farmers bottom line let alone increase livestock prices!

Senior AHDB staff claim they cannot promote British lambs under EU law but that is a lie as they actually can but choose not to, as they have told me time and time again, it does not matter if people buy British or NZ lamb as long as they buy lamb.. What a complete nonsense and they clearly forget who are paying their wages and its not NZ farmers!

 

[gone up the hill]

Oh forgot to ask how did you get on at your private luncheon with Minette
@Henarar whilst poor @farmerclare was out in the car park changing your truck tyres that you had let down to keep her busy for an hour or two

 

[Henarar]

Oh forgot to ask how did you get on at your private luncheon with Minette
@Henarar whilst poor @farmerclare was out in the car park changing your truck tyres that you had let down to keep her busy for an hour or two

Very pleasant thanks for asking

 

[gone up the hill]

Very pleasant thanks for asking

Hell do not tell @farmerclare that or you will end up sleeping in the cubicle shed

 

[mixedfmr]

Not an NFU member, never was . Full of people who like to hear their own voice and now climb to get their new diversification payments and pensions, they say they talk to the goverment, put on a show for members but Gov body takes no notice, just polite interaction. If Bradshaw replaces Batters what does that say for the NFU top table, and how it thinks about its ordinary members, The french would nt stand for this, i dont advocate violance, BUT ther s plenty of steam going of on our own medias, but not where the public or buisness can see. I interact at every chance with the previous, the public now so little, but they have never seen a poor farmer, Iput themright , and the tesco manager who told me ,"pig farmers are subsidised" with a laugh i put him right NFU not fit for purpose , up with BFU.

 

[Mwf]

Where are these so called RT beef and lamb premiums then??

Most weeks non assured stock ppk for liveweight lambs are similar or even higher than assured lambs!

Yes marketing needs addressing but both RT and the AHDB are failing very badly in this area yet neither organization see any issue with their poor marketing of beef/ lamb!

You say some farms need to pull their socks up, well you need to sort out the RT and AHDB first before slating farmers!

Margins are tight in the beef/lamb sectors, costs on farm cannot be cut anymore, only costs that can be cut are the ones that for every £1 spent give zero return to the farmer and that £1 is currently the RT and AHDB who add nothing to farmers bottom line let alone increase livestock prices!

Senior AHDB staff claim they cannot promote British lambs under EU law but that is a lie as they actually can but choose not to, as they have told me time and time again, it does not matter if people buy British or NZ lamb as long as they buy lamb.. What a complete nonsense and they clearly forget who are paying their wages and its not NZ farmers!

Why so aggressive?

Who said they are rt schemes? I certainly didn't.....

 

[gone up the hill]

Why so aggressive?

Who said they are rt schemes? I certainly didn't.....

So i disagree with you and that is aggressive?

You sound very much like Minette and her bullying claims on X when someone posts something she does not like!

If you want/ believe that you can change thinks then tell us how because from your posts so far i just read more of the same we have had to put up with from our industry leaders selling us the farmers out the last decade and more! ( and it gets worse every year )

 

[L P]

Carbon credits for grassland could soon be worth £500 to £1000 acre yearly!

If that is the case it blows farming livestock commercially out of the window and then there will be no need for RT etc!

Thus why you see why they want the green module for!

No way any so called RT premium will get anywhere near that for beef/ lamb let alone cover production costs for the lambs etc as the carbon credit would be worth say £125 lamb then add on the current market price so that would mean a RT prime lamb would need to be making £235 currently to compete with the carbon payments @£1000 acre or £173 head at £500 acre carbon payments.

Somehow i cannot see the so called RT premium if they have the farmers carbon credits worth £3 kilo over non carbon credit/ non assured lambs..

Quite right... as I said my carbon credits are not for sale or bribe!