Poll: Should NFU be lobbying AIC to change their rules?

[jonnieboy]

Genuine question, say you self assure.... then get rejected for grain having high levels of CIPC in the grain from being stored in the a potato store, should that person be blacklisted from selling grain? If so whom oversees the blacklisting? Or do they just not send to that mill again and keep going to other mills till they get caught..... just trying to understand the mechanics.

That would be a problem I agree but then the present enforcers didn’t really do much about horse meat getting into the food chain or food getting labelled as British when it clearly isn’t.
Not to mention all the flip flops and crap that seems to come in the self assured imported feeds that gets mixed with my feed wheat.

 

[principal skinner]

Not you personally sending it, (it was a rhetorical question, ‘you’ being cereal growers), often hear there are samples cropping up in the system with CIPC levels, something that may become more prevalent as folks drop spuds and grow more grain, unfortunately the minority generally spoil it for the majority. It was a question on the mechanics of a self assuring system where there are a few looking to circumnavigate the rules. Not trying to catch anyone out, just trying to understand who would police a breach.

So cipc is happening under RT rules, yet we can’t be trusted to self assure, hmmm. Sorry which merchant do you work for, remind me.

 

[crazy_bull]

So cipc is happening under RT rules, yet we can’t be trusted to self assure, hmmm. Sorry which merchant do you work for, remind me.

no one has said you can’t be trusted to self assure, I asked how the mechanics would work, as currently if they are caught their assurance is suspended. Could there be a similar situation with self assurance, or would it rely on everyone being completely honest........ and those who aren’t surely there should be a penalty vs those of you who are... ?

 

[Steevo]

Genuine question, say you self assure.... then get rejected for grain having high levels of CIPC in the grain from being stored in the a potato store, should that person be blacklisted from selling grain? If so whom oversees the blacklisting? Or do they just not send to that mill again and keep going to other mills till they get caught..... just trying to understand the mechanics.

I would think the merchant they sold to would get tired of trading with them pretty quickly and no longer buy their grain because they are too much hassle to deal with. The market forces would take effect.

After a short while, having been through all merchants and burnt their bridges something would have to give.

The market alone will happily weed out such issues without needing any continual checking up.

 

[Steevo]

On top of that.....many merchants have now stopped sampling stores themselves citing health and safety. If a merchant visited a grain store to sample and could see it was an ex-potato store would alarm bells not start to ring?

Not so easy to carry out such due diligence when grain arrives ready packaged in little bags by post ready for analysis.

 

[homefarm]

no one has said you can’t be trusted to self assure, I asked how the mechanics would work, as currently if they are caught their assurance is suspended. Could there be a similar situation with self assurance, or would it rely on everyone being completely honest........ and those who aren’t surely there should be a penalty vs those of you who are... ?

Those good old market forces will work just like they do now. You stop buying my grain and claim big time. I clean up my act or go broke.

Now I have merchants I prefer to deal with and merchants I avoid. I am sure you have a list of farmers too even with assurance.

 

[crazy_bull]

On top of that.....many merchants have now stopped sampling stores themselves citing health and safety. If a merchant visited a grain store to sample and could see it was an ex-potato store would alarm bells not start to ring?

Not so easy to carry out such due diligence when grain arrives ready packaged in little bags by post ready for analysis.

so self assurance goes out the window if it requires others coming round checking you are abiding by the rules. It is a tricky one, as the stores I know have been culprits in the past have never been sampledor shown to a prospective buyer, just loaded on lorries and hoped for the best. It is certainly not a straightforward situation or I bet an easy solution to sell to end consumers who have gotten used to the current system. But thank you for indulging me, as I am trying to understand it from both sides. As previously mentioned I looked at assurance for the sheep flock and could see no benefit for my business..... so took it no further, however if the local market shut I might have to re-consider assurance in order to go to a collection centre. If it was too onerous I might have to stop sheep altogether if it wasn’t viable.

 

[Steevo]

so self assurance goes out the window if it requires others checking you are abiding by the rules. It is a tricky one, as the stores I know have been culprits in the past have never been sampledor shown to a prospective buyer, just loaded on lorries and hoped for the best. It is certainly not a straightforward situation or I bet an easy solution to sell to end consumers who have gotten used to the current system. But thank you for indulging me, as I am trying to understand it from both sides. As previously mentioned I looked at assurance for the sheep flock and could see no benefit for my business..... so took it no further.

Six weeks ago I “self assured” my income tax bill with HMRC and then delivered what I told them I owed them. They even call it “self assessment”.

HMRC expected 12.2 million people to fill out a self assessment form this year.

Tax fraud will still happen.....so does that mean HMRC should send an inspector around to check every person’s finances and charge them for the privilegeEven that wouldn’t stop tax fraud and they well know it.


How do merchants know that the grain purchased from abroad didn’t come from a CIPC store. They haven’t seen any of the storage facilities full stop. A 50,000t boat load could contain 500t of wheat from a CIPC store mixed in long with 49,500t of non CIPC wheat. The merchant will then stick his TASCC sticker on the paperwork as it enters the UK and become complicit in the legal trade of CIPC wheat.

To take your comment from your post above is this an “easy solution to sell to end consumers who have gotten used to the current system.”?

 

[Steevo]

There seems to be a perpetuated mentality by many in the associated industries that farmers as a majority cannot be trusted. Instead of accepting it to be true that it is only a very small minority, it suits for those seeking to retain control and power to maintain the perception of it to be commonplace. It could even be considered manipulation for their own benefit.

As a farmer who takes pride in what I produce I find this insulting and will choose to take my business to those that respect me as I respect them.

Respect is earned....and that is a two way street. Often those who expect it least deserve it.

 

[crazy_bull]

Six weeks ago I “self assured” my income tax bill with HMRC and then delivered what I told them I owed them. They even call it “self assessment”.

HMRC expected 12.2 million people to fill out a self assessment form this year.

Tax fraud will still happen.....so does that mean HMRC should send an inspector around to check every person’s finances and charge them for the privilegeEven that wouldn’t stop tax fraud and they well know it.

I get that and is a good analogy however I would counter to say that HMRC is a singular body, therefore you be naughty once you are on their naughty list and as they are the only tax collector you will be under the spotlight from then on.

With a grain self assurance as I understand it, you could be naughty yet there could be dozens of bites at the cherry (selling to different merchants/mills) ultimately undermining what the good growers do.... and damaging the industry?.

What would happen if you knew of a fellow farmer who was using illegal chemicals and illegal practices but was still signing as self assured and going into your markets, thus unfairly disadvantaging you. Whom would it be reported to (assuming you wanted to shop them for bringing the scheme into disrepute), I am going to guess trading standards?

I do completely agree it is generally the minority that cock the job up for the majority as is the case in the wider world, someone gets caught exploiting a loop hole or something illegal and legislation is brought it to blanket the whole industry in an attempt to prevent it.

I am playing devils advocate here so do not have the answers, but am curious as to how it could play out.

C B

 

[Barleymow]

You can still sell the wheat as non assured feed, however you have made a business decision to grow milling wheat, that currently requires RT to be sold as such. That decision has pro’s and cons, as you are doing it I can assume it is financially beneficial for you to do so.... a premium.

But the important grain its mixed with isn't, apparently the German wheat that came over last year maize in it but it will still end up in our bread

 

[Barleymow]

I get that and is a good analogy however I would counter to say that HMRC is a singular body, therefore you be naughty once you are on their naughty list and as they are the only tax collector you will be under the spotlight from then on.

With a grain self assurance as I understand it, you could be naughty yet there could be dozens of bites at the cherry (selling to different merchants/mills) ultimately undermining what the good growers do.... and damaging the industry?.

What would happen if you knew of a fellow farmer who was using illegal chemicals and illegal practices but was still signing as self assured and going into your markets, thus unfairly disadvantaging you. Whom would it be reported to (assuming you wanted to shop them for bringing the scheme into disrepute), I am going to guess trading standards?

I do completely agree it is generally the minority that cock the job up for the majority as is the case in the wider world, someone gets caught exploiting a loop hole or something illegal and legislation is brought it to blanket the whole industry in an attempt to prevent it.

I am playing devils advocate here so do not have the answers, but am curious as to how it could play out.

C B

What illegal chemicals I've never been offered any ,its not the sort of thing you can buy on the black market or wd would all be doing it to cut costs

 

[crazy_bull]

What illegal chemicals I've never been offered any ,its not the sort of thing you can buy on the black market or wd would all be doing it to cut costs

Granted it’s not happened yet (hopefully it doesn’t) but one scenario I can think of would be pre harvest glyphosate. Imagine if it’s continued wider use in the UK was only that it be used as a weed herbicide, not a harvest aid, and DEFRA monitoring closely any breaches entering the food chain, resulting in a blanket ban if found in the food chain. It’s been discussed on here before and some mills already request no glyphosate pre harvest...... but you know your self assuring neighbour is doing it as they are stretched and it’s a catchy harvest and therefore jeopardising the future of glyphosate...... you could argue that no one would break that rule...... however as we are all talking hypothetical situations how would you envisage that would play out?

or neonics for example that your neighbour who dresses their own seed (doesn’t have to be neighbour) had a stock pile and you didn’t but was carrying on using it regardless of it no longer being legal. Should they be commended for saving some up for a rainy day or condemned for bringing the self assurance scheme into disrepute?

there are also well document cases of spurious fake chemicals entering the system, and being used (granted often without the user knowing fully) now I get that they are being used under the current regimes but there are clear protocols for dealing with assurance breaches, I’m curious as to how the industry protects itself from the self serving minority who could undermine what the good growers are doing.

you suggest you would all break the rules to save a few ££ if you could get away with it?

CB

 

[MrNoo]

Illegal application of chems has gone on even when RT assured, it makes zero difference if assured or not. Pretty much every arable farmer I know has two spray stores, the legit one and the "other" one.
But this is thread creep from the OP so maybe we should be focusing on the NFU and their lack of lobbying the AIC

 

[Drillman]

Genuine question, say you self assure.... then get rejected for grain having high levels of CIPC in the grain from being stored in the a potato store, should that person be blacklisted from selling grain? If so whom oversees the blacklisting? Or do they just not send to that mill again and keep going to other mills till they get caught..... just trying to understand the mechanics.

We had RT assured grain rejected for some rather spurious reasons last year. Strange that the previous load went straight thru though off the same heap out of the same field cut on the same day etc etc etc.

I wasn’t black listed but I will also point out that RT didn’t come riding to defend me on there gravy train either.

mills etc will only take RT assured grain due to the was the rules have been made by AIC

The mills still reject RT assured grain if they deem it not what they want

therefore RT assurance has no worth.

 

[Drillman]

There seems to be a perpetuated mentality by many in the associated industries that farmers as a majority cannot be trusted. Instead of accepting it to be true that it is only a very small minority, it suits for those seeking to retain control and power to maintain the perception of it to be commonplace. It could even be considered manipulation for their own benefit.

As a farmer who takes pride in what I produce I find this insulting and will choose to take my business to those that respect me as I respect them.

Respect is earned....and that is a two way street. Often those who expect it least deserve it.

Hmm maybe we should all start challenging mill intake results,

Im sure @crazy_bull would love it wen there is a queue of wagons a mile long clamouring to unload and the mill has run out but unable to do anything about it till independent tests have been carried out on the load!

 

[Grass And Grain]

Genuine question, say you self assure.... then get rejected for grain having high levels of CIPC in the grain from being stored in the a potato store, should that person be blacklisted from selling grain? If so whom oversees the blacklisting? Or do they just not send to that mill again and keep going to other mills till they get caught..... just trying to understand the mechanics.

How do they currently go on with RT assured potatoes? Most of those will be stored in what have been historically CIPC treated stores. RT are checking this each year. Have RT condemned every spud store in the country? Or have they 'overlooked' this.

Just because someone is checking and giving a certificate, doesn't necessarily assure its safety.

I get your point though. See further down this post.

Not you personally sending it, (it was a rhetorical question, ‘you’ being cereal growers), often hear there are samples cropping up in the system with CIPC levels, something that may become more prevalent as folks drop spuds and grow more grain, unfortunately the minority generally spoil it for the majority. It was a question on the mechanics of a self assuring system where there are a few looking to circumnavigate the rules. Not trying to catch anyone out, just trying to understand who would police a breach.

Why is all lemonade in the US produced under Kosher rules?

The answer from Taleb is the minority rule. Explained here: https://medium.com/incerto/the-most...ctatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15.

There are some parallels which I found interesting in explaining why everything we sell has to be Red Tractor. The problem is up to now farmers / the NFU / Red Tractor themselves have not been intransigent enough. I think that is changing now. Farmers have had enough and I think we may enter a regime where we have two opposing intransigent groups and I think that might make all farmers better off.

The problem here is that the symmetrical equivalent of buyers insisting on only buying Red Tractor UK grains would be farmers who insist on only selling or at least partially selling their grain as non-assured. We see this in some elements of the livestock sector which has held WLA assurance at bay because, I guess, it's not so easy to import the equivalent produce.

The problem is this situation is not reality, because of Red Tractor's rules that you can't produce assured and non-assured on the same holding they make it difficult to be the intransigents. That and the very, very, very thin market for non-assured which self-perpetuates. And the freedom of buyers to say 'screw you' to any fledgling movement to take this more intransigent line.

The difference between the Red Tractor case and the Kosher case is that buyers are just really Bad Jews (have you seen the play, it's hilarious?) in that when no one's looking they're quite happy to gorge on effectively non-assured imports. This guilty story I still think is their Achilles heel that might be their undoing.

Re: Not alliwed to grow/sell assured and non-assured (RT rules). If we grow 100% assured, can we sell it without a sticker on the passport?

So it's assured crop, but we're not selling it as assured.

If we can (only RT rules would stop us), that makes it less risky for a farm business to test the water in a new self assured world.

I get that and is a good analogy however I would counter to say that HMRC is a singular body, therefore you be naughty once you are on their naughty list and as they are the only tax collector you will be under the spotlight from then on.

With a grain self assurance as I understand it, you could be naughty yet there could be dozens of bites at the cherry (selling to different merchants/mills) ultimately undermining what the good growers do.... and damaging the industry?.

What would happen if you knew of a fellow farmer who was using illegal chemicals and illegal practices but was still signing as self assured and going into your markets, thus unfairly disadvantaging you. Whom would it be reported to (assuming you wanted to shop them for bringing the scheme into disrepute), I am going to guess trading standards?

I do completely agree it is generally the minority that cock the job up for the majority as is the case in the wider world, someone gets caught exploiting a loop hole or something illegal and legislation is brought it to blanket the whole industry in an attempt to prevent it.

I am playing devils advocate here so do not have the answers, but am curious as to how it could play out.

C B

That's a fair question. How does it currently work with imports? If you've imported a boat loadand put it in a TASCC merchant's store, and the first load is rejected for CIPC, then does the TASCC merchant get suspended? And who polices it? And what happens to the other 10,000t?

To answer your question, maybe that's where the digital grain passport could help, if the trade would accept it.

Granted it’s not happened yet (hopefully it doesn’t) but one scenario I can think of would be pre harvest glyphosate. Imagine if it’s continued wider use in the UK was only that it be used as a weed herbicide, not a harvest aid, and DEFRA monitoring closely any breaches entering the food chain, resulting in a blanket ban if found in the food chain. It’s been discussed on here before and some mills already request no glyphosate pre harvest...... but you know your self assuring neighbour is doing it as they are stretched and it’s a catchy harvest and therefore jeopardising the future of glyphosate...... you could argue that no one would break that rule...... however as we are all talking hypothetical situations how would you envisage that would play out?

or neonics for example that your neighbour who dresses their own seed (doesn’t have to be neighbour) had a stock pile and you didn’t but was carrying on using it regardless of it no longer being legal. Should they be commended for saving some up for a rainy day or condemned for bringing the self assurance scheme into disrepute?

there are also well document cases of spurious fake chemicals entering the system, and being used (granted often without the user knowing fully) now I get that they are being used under the current regimes but there are clear protocols for dealing with assurance breaches, I’m curious as to how the industry protects itself from the self serving minority who could undermine what the good growers are doing.

you suggest you would all break the rules to save a few ££ if you could get away with it?

CB

I don't see it makes any difference if assured or not. It relies on the honesty of the farmer in both the application itself, and writing it down correctly.

After giving some thought to the content of this whole thread, I've decided to boycott the large merchants who import grains. If they are going to insist on me being RT assured, but import unassured and give it a magic sticket, then I'm out. I'll deal with my small local merchant who doesn't operate these practices.

If larhe merchants who import unassured, but then will purchase self-assured from UK farmers, then I'll start selling to them again. Same goes for my seed supplies. I'm voting with my feet.

If I were a merchant or a feed mill, and relied on trading with UK farmers, then I'd be lobbying AIC to change their rules. It could be a very lonely being a merchant that doesn't back a level playingfield for UK farmers.

 

[Grass And Grain]

Illegal application of chems has gone on even when RT assured, it makes zero difference if assured or not. Pretty much every arable farmer I know has two spray stores, the legit one and the "other" one.
But this is thread creep from the OP so maybe we should be focusing on the NFU and their lack of lobbying the AIC

Should AHDB set up their own version of UFAS and TASCC? A version that's there to serve the British farmer. They might create rules which give UK farmers fair access to their own market.

If NFU don't lobby AIC to change their rules, then a scheme to replace AIC could be a way to go? AIC income stream would dry up. Easiest way would be for NFU and AHDB to pressurise AIC, and for AIC to give a fair deal to UK farmers.

 

[stroller]

I Googled for "NFU AIC" earlier and t his was the first hit that came up.

The image suggests a fairly cosy relationship.....either businesses working well together, or you scratch my back I'll scratch yours. In fact, it even looks rather mafia/gangster mob like!!

Anyhooo....back to my point - back in 2019 the NFU were in consultation with AIC about the grain sellling contract. @stroller it's surprising they didn't pick things up then as you say.

The last bulletpoint says it all for me.....would you trust the NFU to check a contract on your behalf?!


View attachment 947608

On that basis I think the vote might be arse about face, do we really want the nfu lobbing to change the rules, they managed to f**k it up last time, maybe a professional contract negotiator, even if it costs a few hundred thousand it would be peanuts compared to what the current one has cost us all over the last few years.

 

[Grass And Grain]

AIC seem to be working for the mills, the grain trade and the assurance industry. UK farmers getting a kicking in the process.

Needs to stop. Primary producers need to stand up for themselves.