Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
Opinion Harvester Survey - Red Tractor
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Grass And Grain" data-source="post: 8202164" data-attributes="member: 23184"><p>I fully respect the reasoning of only having one inspection, supermarkets will want some form of assurance, etc. - positive reasons to have RT.</p><p></p><p>However, I think the above reasons to retain RT need to be balanced against some facts.</p><p></p><p>Danish Crown, approved UK supermarket suppliers, have an assurance scheme, it's only reason of existence is for the UK market. It has a <strong>36 month inspection and membership fee. </strong>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.</p><p></p><p>One thing to note, which may be relevant, is DC is a farmer owner cooperative. Here's a quote from their website...</p><p></p><p>"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,<strong> so responsibility towards society, employees and our owners, the farmers, is part of our DNA.</strong>"</p><p></p><p>Similar with New Zealand lamb. Only about 30% of producers are assured, yet it sits on the shelf alongside our British lamb.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>I'm not saying I have the answers, but rather I'm pointing out all the things to consider.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>History tells me the processors want a mission creep of extra standards, but pay no more for it.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>It looks like we're being taken for mugs, so we can't be happy with that.</p><p></p><p>Seemingly, we must work together to change this, but we've to decide what change we want.</p><p></p><p>For equality, either imports must meet Grade A specification, or we say we're only prepared to supply B Grade (same as imports).</p><p></p><p>Supplying A Grade, for B grade price doesn't sit right.</p><p></p><p>NFU seem to have been happy with this. I'm not happy.</p><p></p><p>Can we ever achieve a price premium? We haven't yet, and it's been going on for 20 years.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Grass And Grain, post: 8202164, member: 23184"] 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 [B]36 month inspection and membership fee. [/B]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,[B] so responsibility towards society, employees and our owners, the farmers, is part of our DNA.[/B]" 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
Opinion Harvester Survey - Red Tractor
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top