Opinion Harvester Survey - Red Tractor

topground

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
North Somerset.
Livestock markets already deal with Red Tractor suppliers it will just mean to be fully farm assured a animal will need to be assured from birth but you do raise another point there should be a limit on movements too.
So we either have different levels of farm assurance or none at all?
Why should a animal born & finished on a single farm be the same price as a animal bought and sold several times but its last 90days just happened to be on a farm assured farm ?
This is where Red Tractor is Mickey Mouse , should be whole life and a premium for it.
Livestock markets provide competition for stock. I sell cull cows through Sedgemoor and regularly achieve top prices despite not being farm assured because I sell when there is a shortage in the summer.
Red Tractor and other farm assurances schemes are designed for the benefit of the supermarket cartel by the supermarket cartel and the sooner farmers refuse to pay in to these protection rackets the better.
To suggest anything other than farmers boycotting these
protection rackets and particulalry that scheme rules should be tightened is akin to not only putting your own head in the noose but also volunteering to jump of the scaffold.
 

Bruce Almighty

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Warwickshire
I've found mine in the trash

I think it's badly worded

"How fair or unfair do you find each of these statements about Red Tractor?"
"Some are farmers are required to be members"

Fair or unfair ?
It's unfair that we have to be members to gain market access
But it is fair to say that farmers are required to be members
 

Farma Parma

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Northumberlandia
Filled it in & like another had said i really gave them a peace of my mind.
Iam not against it as such but what annoys me is all the costs n paperwork & my time
for what exactally ? just so on paper i comply?
it affects all grain produced here not one jot weither iam in a paper chasing/money costing game with RT or have nowt to do with any of it.
 

Grass And Grain

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Yorks
Livestock markets already deal with Red Tractor suppliers it will just mean to be fully farm assured a animal will need to be assured from birth but you do raise another point there should be a limit on movements too.
So we either have different levels of farm assurance or none at all?
Why should a animal born & finished on a single farm be the same price as a animal bought and sold several times but its last 90days just happened to be on a farm assured farm ?
This is where Red Tractor is Mickey Mouse , should be whole life and a premium for it.
Think pig and poultry are whole life assurance, and in fact poultry need to come from a RT hatchery iirc. Also, seem to remember store pigs can't be purchased from a live market (not sure about that one, would have to look it up).

Pig and poultry really seem to get hammered on price by the processors and retailers, so don't get the premium for the whole life assurance. Or at least, those industries are sometimes on negative margins!

So, I don't disagree that beef & lamb RT rules allowing 90 day residency to them pick up a RT sticker is nonsense, and makes the whole thing a sham.

But where to go from there?

Suggest RT go WLA for beef and lamb, then as someone pointed out it's very unlikely to command a price premium, but maybe more vertical integration of the supply chain, and maybe more control by processors and retailers (as in pig and poultry). They then only need to add in 'store sheep and cattle cannot be traded at a live market (or slaughter market)' and that's even less competition in the marketplace.

In Republic of Ireland Borda Bia have negotiated a price premium for assured stock at the slaughterhouse, but if they will only purchase assured, I'm not certain how we determine if slaughter house pays market price plus a FA premium, or if they knock off the supposed premium from their base price before they then itemise the FA premium and add it back on!

You could have 2 × qualities for FA. Whole Life Assured, or minimum 90 day residency stock, and see what the price difference is. But what will happen long term. Will the supermarkets just stamp their feet and say we want WLA, then if no-one wants 90 day residency, are we back to no price premium for the WLA? I don't know, but there seems to be a tendancy over the years for supermarkets to want more and more standards from RT, and for the farmer to provide those "extras" just to be allowed to sell to the supermarket.

It's tricky to get straight in one's head.

We're using the WLA example here, so let's just stick with it as our example, but it could be grain or other produce. Standard RT, or RT+...

Now, is there any chance of getting supermarkets to retain RT (90 day stock) as an acceptable standard, but only offer them warranty of the higher WLA standard if they pay up. I fear it's not possible, but if it is, and they don't drop Standard RT as acceptable, then great.

I don't know how prevent them morphing into ALWAYS wanting WLA (or RT+ if you like). The industry has continually wanted mission creep, extra standards, and for the farmer to provide it for free.

Any wisdom welcome.
 

Treg

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Cornwall
Think pig and poultry are whole life assurance, and in fact poultry need to come from a RT hatchery iirc. Also, seem to remember store pigs can't be purchased from a live market (not sure about that one, would have to look it up).

Pig and poultry really seem to get hammered on price by the processors and retailers, so don't get the premium for the whole life assurance. Or at least, those industries are sometimes on negative margins!

So, I don't disagree that beef & lamb RT rules allowing 90 day residency to them pick up a RT sticker is nonsense, and makes the whole thing a sham.

But where to go from there?

Suggest RT go WLA for beef and lamb, then as someone pointed out it's very unlikely to command a price premium, but maybe more vertical integration of the supply chain, and maybe more control by processors and retailers (as in pig and poultry). They then only need to add in 'store sheep and cattle cannot be traded at a live market (or slaughter market)' and that's even less competition in the marketplace.

In Republic of Ireland Borda Bia have negotiated a price premium for assured stock at the slaughterhouse, but if they will only purchase assured, I'm not certain how we determine if slaughter house pays market price plus a FA premium, or if they knock off the supposed premium from their base price before they then itemise the FA premium and add it back on!

You could have 2 × qualities for FA. Whole Life Assured, or minimum 90 day residency stock, and see what the price difference is. But what will happen long term. Will the supermarkets just stamp their feet and say we want WLA, then if no-one wants 90 day residency, are we back to no price premium for the WLA? I don't know, but there seems to be a tendancy over the years for supermarkets to want more and more standards from RT, and for the farmer to provide those "extras" just to be allowed to sell to the supermarket.

It's tricky to get straight in one's head.

We're using the WLA example here, so let's just stick with it as our example, but it could be grain or other produce. Standard RT, or RT+...

Now, is there any chance of getting supermarkets to retain RT (90 day stock) as an acceptable standard, but only offer them warranty of the higher WLA standard if they pay up. I fear it's not possible, but if it is, and they don't drop Standard RT as acceptable, then great.

I don't know how prevent them morphing into ALWAYS wanting WLA (or RT+ if you like). The industry has continually wanted mission creep, extra standards, and for the farmer to provide it for free.

Any wisdom welcome.
If we had more assurance schemes Standard RT , RT , RT Gold would that create competition?
Or have we already got them RT, Pasture for life & Organic etc
Did M& S assurance once that was nice very practical BUT on top of RT , so had to be RT assured to get M&S assurance on top .
So would we better off leaving it to retailers? If they want to sell a product with a higher assurance then they inspect the farm to their standards?
Where does that leave those of us that supply multiple retailers? They'll probably want different things so multiple paperwork?
Which is why RT was created to save multiple inspections .
It's not perfect and needs reform but no farm assurance is not a alternative as retailers will demand their own .
 

topground

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
North Somerset.
Think pig and poultry are whole life assurance, and in fact poultry need to come from a RT hatchery iirc. Also, seem to remember store pigs can't be purchased from a live market (not sure about that one, would have to look it up).

Pig and poultry really seem to get hammered on price by the processors and retailers, so don't get the premium for the whole life assurance. Or at least, those industries are sometimes on negative margins!

So, I don't disagree that beef & lamb RT rules allowing 90 day residency to them pick up a RT sticker is nonsense, and makes the whole thing a sham.

But where to go from there?

Suggest RT go WLA for beef and lamb, then as someone pointed out it's very unlikely to command a price premium, but maybe more vertical integration of the supply chain, and maybe more control by processors and retailers (as in pig and poultry). They then only need to add in 'store sheep and cattle cannot be traded at a live market (or slaughter market)' and that's even less competition in the marketplace.

In Republic of Ireland Borda Bia have negotiated a price premium for assured stock at the slaughterhouse, but if they will only purchase assured, I'm not certain how we determine if slaughter house pays market price plus a FA premium, or if they knock off the supposed premium from their base price before they then itemise the FA premium and add it back on!

You could have 2 × qualities for FA. Whole Life Assured, or minimum 90 day residency stock, and see what the price difference is. But what will happen long term. Will the supermarkets just stamp their feet and say we want WLA, then if no-one wants 90 day residency, are we back to no price premium for the WLA? I don't know, but there seems to be a tendancy over the years for supermarkets to want more and more standards from RT, and for the farmer to provide those "extras" just to be allowed to sell to the supermarket.

It's tricky to get straight in one's head.

We're using the WLA example here, so let's just stick with it as our example, but it could be grain or other produce. Standard RT, or RT+...

Now, is there any chance of getting supermarkets to retain RT (90 day stock) as an acceptable standard, but only offer them warranty of the higher WLA standard if they pay up. I fear it's not possible, but if it is, and they don't drop Standard RT as acceptable, then great.

I don't know how prevent them morphing into ALWAYS wanting WLA (or RT+ if you like). The industry has continually wanted mission creep, extra standards, and for the farmer to provide it for free.

Any wisdom welcome.
In my view there should be no negotiation with Red Tractor or their supermarket masters. Any promises of a premium will be short term to entice the naive into the scheme and will be rapidly eroded and not be worth the paper they are written on. Any acceptance of WLA by cattle and sheep breeders in any form will lead to further control of the market being ceded to the cartel. I for one will not be controlled and dictated to by the cartel in what I breed and where and to whom I sell it and at what price.
To negotiate with Red Tractor is to accept that they have a place in British Agriculture and provide some benefit when in fact they are parasites eroding whatever profit margin there is in farming.
Red Tractor should be consigned to the refuse bin of history and the way it was developed and sold to the farming community should serve as a lesson to farmers not to get into bed with those who seek to control our businesses without taking any of the risks, namely the supermarket robber barons.
 

Treg

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Cornwall
In my view there should be no negotiation with Red Tractor or their supermarket masters. Any promises of a premium will be short term to entice the naive into the scheme and will be rapidly eroded and not be worth the paper they are written on. Any acceptance of WLA by cattle and sheep breeders in any form will lead to further control of the market being ceded to the cartel. I for one will not be controlled and dictated to by the cartel in what I breed and where and to whom I sell it and at what price.
To negotiate with Red Tractor is to accept that they have a place in British Agriculture and provide some benefit when in fact they are parasites eroding whatever profit margin there is in farming.
Red Tractor should be consigned to the refuse bin of history and the way it was developed and sold to the farming community should serve as a lesson to farmers not to get into bed with those who seek to control our businesses without taking any of the risks, namely the supermarket robber barons.
Do you sell your Beef / sheep finished?
Who buys them ? Surely a high percentage of Beef and lamb has to be RT assured to reach its final market? ( at the moment) .
Would not having RT increase rules?
I ask this as wasn't it Mac Donald's who brought in movement limits ? And they take something like 20% of all beef
As far as I know we can't just supply Mc Donald's so if they ask for certain standards it maybe on top of basic supermarkets standards?
If we want RT gone I think we have to come up with a alternative that keeps everyone happy, that may mean we end up with the same just different name , happy to be proved wrong.
 

topground

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
North Somerset.
Do you sell your Beef / sheep finished?
Who buys them ? Surely a high percentage of Beef and lamb has to be RT assured to reach its final market? ( at the moment) .
Would not having RT increase rules?
I ask this as wasn't it Mac Donald's who brought in movement limits ? And they take something like 20% of all beef
As far as I know we can't just supply Mc Donald's so if they ask for certain standards it maybe on top of basic supermarkets standards?
If we want RT gone I think we have to come up with a alternative that keeps everyone happy, that may mean we end up with the same just different name , happy to be proved wrong.
It is not our job to keep everyone happy. People have to eat and we as farmers produce food. There will not be a better time than now for farmers to take back control of our destiny because of world events.
I only sell through the live markets and by checking CTS I can see to which slaughterhouse the animals went. There is competition for my non assured stock which is reflected in the returns that I am happy with.
The processors and their cartel masters have convinced farmers that they should accept prices for finished cattle as an example are dictated by the factory. I don’t trade with any of my suppliers on the basis of what I will pay them for a specific item, if it is too expensive I don’t buy it unless I absolutely need it and it should not be that case that farmers are any different for supplying processors.
What farmers seem to forget is that processors and supermarkets cannot operate without our product.. Supermarkets might put forward that they will source from abroad but with the fall in the value of sterling and world wide food price inflation that is increasingly an empty threat.
Movement limits and other market manipulation tools disappear when the raw material is hard to come by.
The answer to your question is for producers collectively to decide on the price they will accept for their stock. It could perhaps be done through a forum such as this. Those selling through the market put a reserve on their stock and make it clear they are prepared to take them home. Those selling direct tell the slaughterhouse what they will accept. I wouldn’t sell direct because I don’t trust the scales but that is a different matter.
To be fair to processors they should be given notice that the price will be x per kiloon a certain date, take it or leave it.
Alternatively if you sell direct, put some through the live auction to test the market.
It requires discipline and coordinated action.
‘ If things don’t change they’ll stay the same’
 

Grass And Grain

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Yorks
If we had more assurance schemes Standard RT , RT , RT Gold would that create competition?
Or have we already got them RT, Pasture for life & Organic etc
Did M& S assurance once that was nice very practical BUT on top of RT , so had to be RT assured to get M&S assurance on top .
So would we better off leaving it to retailers? If they want to sell a product with a higher assurance then they inspect the farm to their standards?
Where does that leave those of us that supply multiple retailers? They'll probably want different things so multiple paperwork?
Which is why RT was created to save multiple inspections .
It's not perfect and needs reform but no farm assurance is not a alternative as retailers will demand their own .
I fully respect the reasoning of only having one inspection, supermarkets will want some form of assurance, etc. - positive reasons to have RT.

However, I think the above reasons to retain RT need to be balanced against some facts.

Danish Crown, approved UK supermarket suppliers, have an assurance scheme, it's only reason of existence is for the UK market. It has a 36 month inspection and membership fee. Yes, 36 months. It's also got way less standards than RT. So, why are we pandering to RT, why are we happy to accept extra costs compared to Danish Crown. The supermarkets are obviously happy with DC.

One thing to note, which may be relevant, is DC is a farmer owner cooperative. Here's a quote from their website...

"At Danish Crown, we continually strive to improve what we do – from farm to fork – so people around the world can enjoy tasty meals, with full confidence. We have roots back to 1887 and the Danish cooperative movement, so responsibility towards society, employees and our owners, the farmers, is part of our DNA."

Similar with New Zealand lamb. Only about 30% of producers are assured, yet it sits on the shelf alongside our British lamb.

We need to consider all these things before we decide what to do, and what we want from assurance in the UK. We need to make it work in favour of UK farmers, not against us.

I'm not saying I have the answers, but rather I'm pointing out all the things to consider.

In my view there should be no negotiation with Red Tractor or their supermarket masters. Any promises of a premium will be short term to entice the naive into the scheme and will be rapidly eroded and not be worth the paper they are written on. Any acceptance of WLA by cattle and sheep breeders in any form will lead to further control of the market being ceded to the cartel. I for one will not be controlled and dictated to by the cartel in what I breed and where and to whom I sell it and at what price.
To negotiate with Red Tractor is to accept that they have a place in British Agriculture and provide some benefit when in fact they are parasites eroding whatever profit margin there is in farming.
Red Tractor should be consigned to the refuse bin of history and the way it was developed and sold to the farming community should serve as a lesson to farmers not to get into bed with those who seek to control our businesses without taking any of the risks, namely the supermarket robber barons.

This is the alternative to palling up to RT. We could get farmers together and say we're all coming out unless you do x,y, z exactly as we say. Or just all leave anyway.

History tells me the processors want a mission creep of extra standards, but pay no more for it.

We saw this with grain recently. AIC said they saw no demand for UK Gatekeeper style assured grain, yet their members/mills readily purchase imports with iffy gatekeeper assurance. Fact is, the mills are getting RT grain from the UK suppliers, and they're not having to pay a penny more for it than for imports which they accept with zero farm audited assurance.

Do you sell your Beef / sheep finished?
Who buys them ? Surely a high percentage of Beef and lamb has to be RT assured to reach its final market? ( at the moment) .
Would not having RT increase rules?
I ask this as wasn't it Mac Donald's who brought in movement limits ? And they take something like 20% of all beef
As far as I know we can't just supply Mc Donald's so if they ask for certain standards it maybe on top of basic supermarkets standards?
If we want RT gone I think we have to come up with a alternative that keeps everyone happy, that may mean we end up with the same just different name , happy to be proved wrong.

At the moment, if we consider the things I've posted above, UK farmers are being asked to supply A grade produce, when our customers are accepting B grade from overseas.

It looks like we're being taken for mugs, so we can't be happy with that.

Seemingly, we must work together to change this, but we've to decide what change we want.

For equality, either imports must meet Grade A specification, or we say we're only prepared to supply B Grade (same as imports).

Supplying A Grade, for B grade price doesn't sit right.

NFU seem to have been happy with this. I'm not happy.

Can we ever achieve a price premium? We haven't yet, and it's been going on for 20 years.

I'd be happy supplying RT grain if there was a genuine premium, or if imports had to meet our RT rules. At the moment we've got neither.
 

Treg

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Cornwall
It is not our job to keep everyone happy. People have to eat and we as farmers produce food. There will not be a better time than now for farmers to take back control of our destiny because of world events.
I only sell through the live markets and by checking CTS I can see to which slaughterhouse the animals went. There is competition for my non assured stock which is reflected in the returns that I am happy with.
The processors and their cartel masters have convinced farmers that they should accept prices for finished cattle as an example are dictated by the factory. I don’t trade with any of my suppliers on the basis of what I will pay them for a specific item, if it is too expensive I don’t buy it unless I absolutely need it and it should not be that case that farmers are any different for supplying processors.
What farmers seem to forget is that processors and supermarkets cannot operate without our product.. Supermarkets might put forward that they will source from abroad but with the fall in the value of sterling and world wide food price inflation that is increasingly an empty threat.
Movement limits and other market manipulation tools disappear when the raw material is hard to come by.
The answer to your question is for producers collectively to decide on the price they will accept for their stock. It could perhaps be done through a forum such as this. Those selling through the market put a reserve on their stock and make it clear they are prepared to take them home. Those selling direct tell the slaughterhouse what they will accept. I wouldn’t sell direct because I don’t trust the scales but that is a different matter.
To be fair to processors they should be given notice that the price will be x per kiloon a certain date, take it or leave it.
Alternatively if you sell direct, put some through the live auction to test the market.
It requires discipline and coordinated action.
‘ If things don’t change they’ll stay the same’
If there's a time for change then it certainly is approaching as food is starting to get important again.
I haven't sold through a livestock market for years after being stung several times but also seeing how a buyers ring works .
I sell through a coop and have been pleased with the results, works slightly different for me as I'm Organic so there is no live market to dictate price and yet there is a strong premium paid by the processors?
Maybe we need create more different labels- different breed labels , several earning good premiums, different rearing types ?
Went to a meeting afew years ago about integrated beef systems, apparently we should all be doing exactly the same thing to make it easier for the supermarkets :ROFLMAO:
Diversity within agriculture is so important for all sorts of reasons and we must all resist being pushed to farm the same.
 

Grass And Grain

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Yorks
It is not our job to keep everyone happy. People have to eat and we as farmers produce food. There will not be a better time than now for farmers to take back control of our destiny because of world events.
I only sell through the live markets and by checking CTS I can see to which slaughterhouse the animals went. There is competition for my non assured stock which is reflected in the returns that I am happy with.
The processors and their cartel masters have convinced farmers that they should accept prices for finished cattle as an example are dictated by the factory. I don’t trade with any of my suppliers on the basis of what I will pay them for a specific item, if it is too expensive I don’t buy it unless I absolutely need it and it should not be that case that farmers are any different for supplying processors.
What farmers seem to forget is that processors and supermarkets cannot operate without our product.. Supermarkets might put forward that they will source from abroad but with the fall in the value of sterling and world wide food price inflation that is increasingly an empty threat.
Movement limits and other market manipulation tools disappear when the raw material is hard to come by.
The answer to your question is for producers collectively to decide on the price they will accept for their stock. It could perhaps be done through a forum such as this. Those selling through the market put a reserve on their stock and make it clear they are prepared to take them home. Those selling direct tell the slaughterhouse what they will accept. I wouldn’t sell direct because I don’t trust the scales but that is a different matter.
To be fair to processors they should be given notice that the price will be x per kiloon a certain date, take it or leave it.
Alternatively if you sell direct, put some through the live auction to test the market.
It requires discipline and coordinated action.
‘ If things don’t change they’ll stay the same’
See bit highlighted in bold.

I'd like to think we could do this, but competition rules come into play. Read the attached document (tff software has put the pdf link in a funny place in this post for some reason). It gives an example in France where farmers and processors were fined €16million for colluding to set beef prices.

There are rules as to what can and can't be done, yet the NFU negotiate with British Sugar to agree the beet price, so I'm not sure how they get around the competition rules. If it can be done with beet, then why not other sectors?

It like to facilitate more power to farmers to work collectively, and increase price bargaining power, but we must stay within the law. Actions such as holding back supply is illegal, so not easy to say this week we've told all farmer members to tip 20% of their milk down the drain.

Meanwhile, View attachment OFT740rev.pdfOPEC limit supply, so do CF fertilisers. CF only release a certain tonnage, then they pull prices until the following week, and on Monday the price is up £20.

Funny old world being a farmer. When we buy fert or a new tractor, the seller tells us the price, but when we sell grain or livestock, the buyer tells us the price. Why?

Why aren't we going to the processor and saying we've 3 bulls to sell and we want £3.30/kg?manufacturers often provide a recommended retail price to the retailer (although I think it is maybe illegal for them to specify a minimum retail price).

Suppose problem with commodities is if we ring up ABP and say we want £3.30/kg for our bulls, they just say I am getting plenty for £2.80 thanks.
 

Treg

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Cornwall
I fully respect the reasoning of only having one inspection, supermarkets will want some form of assurance, etc. - positive reasons to have RT.

However, I think the above reasons to retain RT need to be balanced against some facts.

Danish Crown, approved UK supermarket suppliers, have an assurance scheme, it's only reason of existence is for the UK market. It has a 36 month inspection and membership fee. Yes, 36 months. It's also got way less standards than RT. So, why are we pandering to RT, why are we happy to accept extra costs compared to Danish Crown. The supermarkets are obviously happy with DC.

One thing to note, which may be relevant, is DC is a farmer owner cooperative. Here's a quote from their website...

"At Danish Crown, we continually strive to improve what we do – from farm to fork – so people around the world can enjoy tasty meals, with full confidence. We have roots back to 1887 and the Danish cooperative movement, so responsibility towards society, employees and our owners, the farmers, is part of our DNA."

Similar with New Zealand lamb. Only about 30% of producers are assured, yet it sits on the shelf alongside our British lamb.

We need to consider all these things before we decide what to do, and what we want from assurance in the UK. We need to make it work in favour of UK farmers, not against us.

I'm not saying I have the answers, but rather I'm pointing out all the things to consider.



This is the alternative to palling up to RT. We could get farmers together and say we're all coming out unless you do x,y, z exactly as we say. Or just all leave anyway.

History tells me the processors want a mission creep of extra standards, but pay no more for it.

We saw this with grain recently. AIC said they saw no demand for UK Gatekeeper style assured grain, yet their members/mills readily purchase imports with iffy gatekeeper assurance. Fact is, the mills are getting RT grain from the UK suppliers, and they're not having to pay a penny more for it than for imports which they accept with zero farm audited assurance.



At the moment, if we consider the things I've posted above, UK farmers are being asked to supply A grade produce, when our customers are accepting B grade from overseas.

It looks like we're being taken for mugs, so we can't be happy with that.

Seemingly, we must work together to change this, but we've to decide what change we want.

For equality, either imports must meet Grade A specification, or we say we're only prepared to supply B Grade (same as imports).

Supplying A Grade, for B grade price doesn't sit right.

NFU seem to have been happy with this. I'm not happy.

Can we ever achieve a price premium? We haven't yet, and it's been going on for 20 years.

I'd be happy supplying RT grain if there was a genuine premium, or if imports had to meet our RT rules. At the moment we've got neither.
Would you be happy to buy Danish Crown and feed it to your children? I wouldn't.

Nobody likes being inspected especially self employed people, had lights put in cubicle shed years ago and told the electrician what I wanted , he said " who's doing the job ":ROFLMAO:

Isn't that a bit like what we're saying to RT?
 

Grass And Grain

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Yorks
Trimble. They come into this conversation.

You can buy a Trimble GPS box for say £2k, and it lets you have 30cm accuracy.

The hardware will do RTK 2cm accuracy, but you've to pay Trimble another £2k to get that feature unlocked.

So, can we use a similar system for our assurance.

OK Mr processor, you can have RT grain. Fine. When you buy RT grain from me, you've got the pretty poor assurance because all RT do is an annual audit.

If you want me to warrant the grain has not only passed the RT annual inspection, but you also want a signed declaration those standard have also been upheld for the last 200 days since the inspection, I'll sign the paper, but only for £5/t. Your choice. Sort of like the Trimble unlock code.

Problem is, how do you stop the processors all wanting the unlock code, but they won't pay a premium for it.

Does this suggest assurance is a never ending, mission creeping snowball, which is only ever going to get bigger and have ever increasing standards, with no price premium? Where will it stop? It's been continuously getting more onerous. Why would it ever stop getting more and more onerous. I can't see the retailers saying they want to tear out pages from the rule book.

If so, that suggests leading everyone out of it, but we don't want to lose market share to the overseas competitors.

Hmmm. More thinking required.
 
I don't mind red tractor hardly know I do it, compared to Organic Certification it's a doddle , quite happy with it just needs to be tougher and less Mickey mouse , whole life or nothing . Making a fat animal suddenly farm assured in its last 90 days is ridiculous .
If we didn't have Red Tractor would we have more inspections ?
I'd prefer one inspection that covers everything farm standards/ Rpa / health & safety / Supermarket and for me Organic all at the same time rather than multiple inspections that quite often duplicate each other.


If the "Inspections" had a mandatory prison sentance and hard labour attached - it still wouldn't make any difference to the food produced.

Farming is about producing food, not paying for and passing imaginary & pointless tests.
 
So would we better off leaving it to retailers? If they want to sell a product with a higher assurance then they inspect the farm to their standards?


Last time I looked if someone wants something from someone else they pay for it.

God knows how the muppets involved got the reverse situation - but of course those who created Red Tractor and all these other lunatic schemes are making lots of money - for themselves.
 

Make Tax Digital Software Poll

  • Quickbooks

    Votes: 34 16.2%
  • Sage

    Votes: 20 9.5%
  • Xero

    Votes: 97 46.2%
  • Other

    Votes: 59 28.1%

Man fined £300 for bonfire-related waste offences

  • 248
  • 0
Written by William Kellett from Agriland

court-640x360.jpg
A man has pleaded guilty at Newtownards Magistrates’ Court to waste offences relating to a bonfire next to the electrical sub-station on the Circular Road in Newtownards, Co. Down.

Gareth Gill (51) of Abbot’s Walk, Newtownards pleaded guilty to two charges under the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, for which he was fined £150 each and ordered to pay a £15 offender’s levy

On June 25, 2018, PSNI officers went to Gill’s yard, where they found a large amount of waste consisting of scrap wood, pallets, carpet and underlay.

Discussion with Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) officers confirmed the site...
Top