Opinion Harvester Survey - Red Tractor

Grass And Grain

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Yorks
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?
Suppose it doesn't matter what I want. What matters is what the customer wants and what they're prepared to pay for. They buy Danish Crown and think nothing of it. The shopping trollies are full of it, the supermarkets are happy with it on the shelf, and it's a light touch 36 month inspection, so why would we want to have extra costs piled on the UK farmer when it gets placed next to each other on the shelf at Tesco.

If Tesco say they want 12 month inspection RT bacon, that's fine, but don't tell us that and then buy DC and undermine our price. We must not be happy with that, and although we might like the ideal of the premium RT product and that premium product being purchased in preference, in reality the supermarkets' actions have not changed, they continue to want free gold plating from UK suppliers whilst they buy DC.

I'd like to think RT would give us a premium marketing edge over imports, and 100% shelf space, but it hasn't imho, not in 20 years. So why think anything is going to change now.

Just trying to think it all through. All the for and against reasons, and to try and make sense of it all, in order to decide how best to tackle the issue.

It makes perfect sense to go to Tesco and say "Look, DC supplies under Protocol X, yet you want us to supply under Protocol X+++. Tell you what, either ask us to continue supplying under Protocol X+++ and give us 100% of the shelf space, or we only supply under Protocol X. Alternative, we want you to only give DC shelf space if they also supply Protocol X+++. That's fair isn't it?"

At the moment we seem to have the worst of both worlds. We're supplying X+++, yet sharing our shelf space with import Protocol X competitor, who have lower costs so therefore can undercut us on price.
 

Humble Village Farmer

Member
BASE UK Member
Location
Essex
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.
Why on earth should you have to pay dead tractor when you are already inspected and certified organic? That's just ridiculous and waste of your time and money.
 

Grass And Grain

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Yorks
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.
My opinion is, you're correct. The Muppets have got the reverse situation, and they've agreed to it voluntarily.

It is the retailers prerogative to specify what standard they want, but maybe the farmer reps at RT should have more teeth. Ultimately the NFU have the nuclear button at their disposal, they could tell all members to leave RT, so it's the NFU who I hold responsible for the mess. They could have had 100% control of RT, but they gave the control away. An assurance scheme only has some worth if it has some farmer members.
 

Humble Village Farmer

Member
BASE UK Member
Location
Essex
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.
Surely that's anticompetitive?
 

Jackov Altraids

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Devon
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.

Organic works well because retailers know that there is a premium for that product which people are willing to pay [most of the time]. It takes time and commitment to become organic which limits supply.
I have spoken to supermarket buyers about sustainable/ carbon neutral lamb and they are absolutely adamant that it is at its price limit and nobody will pay a premium.
A lamb with a Union flag is actually more saleable than one with a red tractor but you can't sell deadweight without it. It's a joke.
 

Grass And Grain

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Yorks
Surely that's anticompetitive?
I'd have to refresh my memory and look back through the standards to check that. Think the markets must be RT assured, no choice of a different assurance scheme.

RT are dominant in the marketplace of assurance. They have retailers and processors invited to be on their boards, then the retailers specify RT, then the farmers and processors and livestock markets must be RT to supply.

There's certainly not a lot of free competition in the assurance sector. Is inviting processors and retailers onto your board perfectly acceptable, or does it create an anticompetitive system by which all processors and farmers must pay up to RT? Doesn't sit well in my mind.

Edit. Then Mr Supermarket doesn't say "you've to be assured by one of several assurance schemes". They say you've to be RT.
 

Humble Village Farmer

Member
BASE UK Member
Location
Essex
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.
They buy non assured from live markets by employing an agent who presumably gives them a magic sticker. Heard it first hand from a director of one of the big markets who was not a fan of farm assured either.
 

Grass And Grain

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Yorks
Yes it is ridiculous . Somebody has ruled all Tesco Beef has to be Red Tractor so that includes Organic :rolleyes:
Seems totally daft. Presume, as you suggested in an earlier post, that the Organic certification is somewhat in depth.

Maybe we should be lobbying Tesco and the organic certification body to get this changed?
 

Jackov Altraids

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Devon
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.

This is what I think happened.

BSE knocked public confidence in British meat.
The NFU thought RT would be a good idea to build faith back into British produce.
It worked well for a few years. A simple assurance fetching a small premium.

Then it all started to go wrong.

I'm guessing the supermarkets threatened to pull all support which would have killed RT.
So RT went cap-in-hand to the supermarkets asking what they could do to get them to continue.
This led to the never ending wish-list and to the nefarious policy of making RT effectively compulsory.

Assurance schemes only work if the costs of increased standards are passed to those asking for them.
If buyers had to pay 0.5p/ kg 0r 0.5p/l for every standard, how many requirements would there be left?
 

topground

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
North Somerset.
This is what I think happened.

BSE knocked public confidence in British meat.
The NFU thought RT would be a good idea to build faith back into British produce.
It worked well for a few years. A simple assurance fetching a small premium.

Then it all started to go wrong.

I'm guessing the supermarkets threatened to pull all support which would have killed RT.
So RT went cap-in-hand to the supermarkets asking what they could do to get them to continue.
This led to the never ending wish-list and to the nefarious policy of making RT effectively compulsory.

Assurance schemes only work if the costs of increased standards are passed to those asking for them.
If buyers had to pay 0.5p/ kg 0r 0.5p/l for every standard, how many requirements would there be left?
Farm assurance came about as a result of the Food Safety Act 1990.
The act provides that there can be a defence of due diligence in the event of proceedings for an offence under the act.
Due diligence means taking all reasonable steps and all reasonable precautions to prevent the commissioning of the offence.
The supermarket cartel devised farm assurance as a means of getting someone else to do the leg work and therefore bear the expense of the process aided and abetted by the NFU who left their members to carry the expense while presumably the NFU creamed off some of the profits as a conowner of the protection racket they helped create.
If supermarkets have to do their own work to provide a due diligence defence so be it.
Producers will have to stand up to the buyer bullies at some stage or become the modern equivalent of serfs. The difference between modern day serfs and their predecessors is that those in the past didn’t bear any of the financial risk in making their masters rich unlike today.
 
Last edited:

Treg

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Cornwall
Seems totally daft. Presume, as you suggested in an earlier post, that the Organic certification is somewhat in depth.

Maybe we should be lobbying Tesco and the organic certification body to get this changed?
Yes it's really a Organic inspection and they just Sort the Red Tractor after 🤫 ;)
Why pay for both?
No access to market without it:unsure:
OK I agree with you lot it needs sorting(y)
 

Grass And Grain

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Yorks
Yes it's really a Organic inspection and they just Sort the Red Tractor after 🤫 ;)

No access to market without it:unsure:
OK I agree with you lot it needs sorting(y)
I suppose it's justifiable if the RT audit asks a whole load more questions. Makes you wonder why the organic inspection doesn't have their own assurance add-on. Hmmm, me thinks someone wants RT to have market dominance. No competition. The only assurance scheme.

Presumably a lot of things are covered by the organic inspection. Spray and fert records (or non use of), medical records, etc.
 

Humble Village Farmer

Member
BASE UK Member
Location
Essex
I suppose it's justifiable if the RT audit asks a whole load more questions. Makes you wonder why the organic inspection doesn't have their own assurance add-on. Hmmm, me thinks someone wants RT to have market dominance. No competition. The only assurance scheme.

Presumably a lot of things are covered by the organic inspection. Spray and fert records (or non use of), medical records, etc.
What else would be needed?

It's profiteering, plain and simple.
 

Grass And Grain

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Yorks
iirc, in the AHDB freedom of information documents, they said they liked the concept of ONE assurance brand. This was when RT was on rocky financial ground, and needed propping up with a cash injection (again, iirc), so AHDB decided to give them a bung of our levy money to prevent the brand collapsing and so we didn't end up with lots of different assurance brands.

Have they not heard of competition laws. It was a bung from AHDB (what ever they are, a Government organisation, side shoot, type thing, certainly a public body), given to one single private company, which would catapult them with a cash injection and make it harder for other assurance companies to compete. Look what happened to Genesis.
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 77 43.5%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 62 35.0%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 28 15.8%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 4 2.3%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,284
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top