Red Tractor Beef lifetime Assurance.

[Old Boar]

A few things have become obvious in this and other threads:-

Farmers do not see a proper return for the extra work involved for RT.

Consumers do not understand RT, have no idea what it means, and it does not affect the buying decision in the vast majority of cases.

The main union, who after all, are supposed to represent their members, are not listening to their members and this begs the question as to why they are not taking their members views on board.

The whole life assurance will drive some farmers out of the beef business and stop others starting to rear beef.

It really does not affect the way most farmers rear their stock, as most do what is needed naturally for the good of their stock. Adding a paperwork layer does not help the animal.

If this goes through, what assurance are we given that the present rules wil not be escalated?

It may be me, but something smells....

 

[Henarar]

The rules will be escalated, history tells us that
And farmers will just take it, history tells us that

 

[roscoe erf]

The rules will be escalated, history tells us that
And farmers will just take it, history tells us that

not all

 

[Old Boar]

Isnt that exactly where we are now?

 

[topground]

A few things have become obvious in this and other threads.

Consumers do not understand RT, have no idea what it means,

If this goes through, what assurance are we given that the present rules wil not be escalated?

It may be me, but something smells....

The Mafia would be proud of the protection racket that is Farm Assurance. It is portrayed as being essential to securing the market yet the consumer neither knows or cares about the rules and it does not infuence their buying decisions enough to be of benefit to the primary producer.
While it might initially have helped to improve food safety, many of the rules bolted on have nothing to do with food safety.
So when the Supermarket buyers say Farn Assurance is essential. What they really mean is 'this is how we will control the market to our advantage. You will sign up to our scheme so that we can control how and where you sell your stock so that we can control the price and you will pay for the privelidge'
If that isn't blackmail and extortion I don't know what is and yes, it does stink!

 

[cowboysupper]

Yep and the supermarkets import beef from all these country's to pull our price down + the beef from these country's should be cheaper anyway as they don't have such high production costs as we do as they don't have all the red tape/ rules etc that we have to comply with to be assured..

Most of the imported beef goes into the wholesale market rather than retail, the vast majority of which is from the EU and 70% of which is from the ROI. Are you saying ROI beef is a poorer quality product and worth 60p/kg less than UK beef that it currently is? I'm fairly sure they have Bord Bia Quality Assurance and have the same costs of production we have.

The only reason we reserve our premium is because:

A. It's born reared and slaughtered in the UK.
B. Effective lobbying be farming organisations ensure that British beef is the mainstay on retail shelves.
C. It's RT standard.

Agreed retailers could have done more last year to help beef farmers, but the reality is that as bad as it was, we always retained a substantial premium over the imported beef. It would be different if imported beef was sold at the same price but it's not.

I would be interested to understand why you think the UK beef price is higher than the rest of Europe?

https://www.lmcni.com/fs/doc/publications/latest-bulletin110.pdf

 

[Steevo]

From NFU today....apologies if anyone takes issue with copy & paste of NFU documentation but I thought it was better publicised than not. Take note all non-beef farmers, we've been given the green light to object to Red Tractor as a whole rather than just about the beef questions.

Regional board backs members’ farm assurance concerns
Red Tractor is seeking your views on lifetime assurance of beef and this was once again debated at yesterday’s meeting of the NFU regional board (made up of all county representatives, chairs of the livestock, dairy, poultry, horticulture, combinable crops boards and other regional officeholders).
Without doubt this topic, and the delivery and wording of the consultation itself, have caused more than a little consternation amongst our membership.
Many would prefer to have begun the conversation with the fundamental question “do we need this at all?” It is fair to say that opinions of members have been divided – and that is before addressing the question of how to deliver (see consultation questions below). At yesterday’s meeting there was a very clear view articulated that Red Tractor ought to reassess its core principles and that it faces a demonstrable disconnect between decision making and its grass-roots membership.
An initial discussion of the consultation at last month’s regional livestock board brought to the fore a very clear view that there needs to be, in effect, more carrot and less stick. In short, if this is needed, the market must pay for it.
We urge members to respond to the consultation directly, but more so than that, the regional board asks that members take the opportunity to respond not just with answers to the questions posed but with other points you wish to raise too. In addition, local NFU representatives will be seeking your views and county livestock delegates will be looking to represent their members’ views at regional livestock board.
Regional board chairman Martin Howlett says: “I urge members to take this golden opportunity to make their views heard, and to use the space provided in the Red Tractor consultation forms as a blank canvas to make their views known, even if that means not directly answering the questions asked.”
The consultation questions are below and the deadline for responses is Friday 27 March. Details of the consultation and a response form can be found at: www.redtractorassurance.org.uk/beefconsultation. If you would like a paper copy, please contact the regional office on 01392 440700.

 

[spin cycle]

excellent news...as a critic of the nfu i'd happily praise them if they follow up on this response

i can't open the consultation on my computer though????

 

[gone up the hill]

From NFU today....apologies if anyone takes issue with copy & paste of NFU documentation but I thought it was better publicised than not. Take note all non-beef farmers, we've been given the green light to object to Red Tractor as a whole rather than just about the beef questions.

Regional board backs members’ farm assurance concerns
Red Tractor is seeking your views on lifetime assurance of beef and this was once again debated at yesterday’s meeting of the NFU regional board (made up of all county representatives, chairs of the livestock, dairy, poultry, horticulture, combinable crops boards and other regional officeholders).
Without doubt this topic, and the delivery and wording of the consultation itself, have caused more than a little consternation amongst our membership.
Many would prefer to have begun the conversation with the fundamental question “do we need this at all?” It is fair to say that opinions of members have been divided – and that is before addressing the question of how to deliver (see consultation questions below). At yesterday’s meeting there was a very clear view articulated that Red Tractor ought to reassess its core principles and that it faces a demonstrable disconnect between decision making and its grass-roots membership.
An initial discussion of the consultation at last month’s regional livestock board brought to the fore a very clear view that there needs to be, in effect, more carrot and less stick. In short, if this is needed, the market must pay for it.
We urge members to respond to the consultation directly, but more so than that, the regional board asks that members take the opportunity to respond not just with answers to the questions posed but with other points you wish to raise too. In addition, local NFU representatives will be seeking your views and county livestock delegates will be looking to represent their members’ views at regional livestock board.
Regional board chairman Martin Howlett says: “I urge members to take this golden opportunity to make their views heard, and to use the space provided in the Red Tractor consultation forms as a blank canvas to make their views known, even if that means not directly answering the questions asked.”
The consultation questions are below and the deadline for responses is Friday 27 March. Details of the consultation and a response form can be found at: www.redtractorassurance.org.uk/beefconsultation. If you would like a paper copy, please contact the regional office on 01392 440700.

Yep I got that email from the NFU as well

Very clear that the SW regional board aren't happy with the whole farm assurance issue and want the whole thing reviewed... question now is what will HQ's/ the top team and Charlie Sercombe's response be to the views of the SW board's views on this issue... will they go against the view of the regional board/ most of their members views and carry on supporting the new RT rules being introduced or will they withdraw the NFU's support for the new rules and ask the RT company to go back to the drawing board????????....

Intresting comment in todays FW.. the RT quango say they have done two surveys and the consumers are in favour of lifetime assurance for cattle but don't want it for sheep??? surely that is a nonsense,....why would the consumer want it for beef and not lamb!!!....

 

[gone up the hill]

Most of the imported beef goes into the wholesale market rather than retail, the vast majority of which is from the EU and 70% of which is from the ROI. Are you saying ROI beef is a poorer quality product and worth 60p/kg less than UK beef that it currently is? I'm fairly sure they have Bord Bia Quality Assurance and have the same costs of production we have.

The only reason we reserve our premium is because:

A. It's born reared and slaughtered in the UK.
B. Effective lobbying be farming organisations ensure that British beef is the mainstay on retail shelves.
C. It's RT standard.

Agreed retailers could have done more last year to help beef farmers, but the reality is that as bad as it was, we always retained a substantial premium over the imported beef. It would be different if imported beef was sold at the same price but it's not.

I would be interested to understand why you think the UK beef price is higher than the rest of Europe?

https://www.lmcni.com/fs/doc/publications/latest-bulletin110.pdf

So you think that as most of the imported beef goes into wholesale it doesn't cut the price of the rest of the beef market then?? iv heard some daft comments in my time but that is the dumbest thing iv heard in a long while!!

If Ireland doesn't adopt lifetime assurance but the UK does then yes your beef will be worth less..

Also most of the beef/lamb exported from the UK is from animals that are not assured.... why that's not the case in Ireland I don't know..

 

[llamedos]

Red Tractor, Red Tape & Red mist...

The Red Tractor board must be careful not to give farmers more work in areas where the regulations are already sufficient, says Anthony Gibson

It was Andrew Blenkiron on the phone. North Staffordshire man, now running a big estate in East Anglia and chairman of the Red Tractor Technical Standards Committee. I'd got to know and respect him during my time at Stoneleigh. Would I chair an open meeting to discuss "whole life assurance" for beef? Why not? I didn't know much about it, but it seemed reasonably straightforward. It would give me something to write about and be a chance to meet a few old friends, no doubt.

Oh you poor, naïve sap, Gibbo! On rocking up at the Padmore Park Hotel it took me about 30 seconds to realise that this wasn't going to be a polite exchange of views between like-minded colleagues. By the time the meeting started, there were more than 200 farmers crammed into the room. The old friends were there, all right, but they weren't in the mood for pleasantries. They were out for blood.

Not mine, I'm happy to report. Their target was whoever in the Red Tractor hierarchy had had the bright idea of requiring them to keep records of lambing losses – something which was roundly condemned as pointless, bureaucratic, burdensome and an infringement of commercial confidentiality – and, worse still, was attempting to foist whole life assurance on what was evidently a deeply hostile beef industry.

I'm afraid that I didn't keep a precise record of who said what. I was too busy trying to keep a semblance of order. Suffice it to say that the likes of Bryan Griffiths, Ian Scott, Jim Stephens, David Horton, Anne McLean Williams, Bill Harper and even semi-establishment figures like Dorset's John Hoskin, weren't holding back.

Andrew Blenkiron and Phillipa Wiltshire had outlined a carefully thought-out, well argued, staged approach, intended to bring the entire beef production chain into the farm assurance fold, in response to what we were told was the clear expectation from consumers and their proxies, the supermarkets, that beef with a Red Tractor label had come from an animal which had spent its whole life on an assured farm, even though it might have changed hands several times before its final 90 days on a Red Tractor farm.

It rapidly became clear that the vast majority of the audience weren't in the least bit interested in the finer points of WLA implementation. What they wanted was the entire concept consigned to the dustbin. Store cattle producers are opposed because of the extra costs and bureaucracy.

The auctioneers don't like it, on account of the paperwork and practical difficulties. The finishers want it scrapped because it will limit where they can buy stores. Everyone was concerned that it could put the beef sector in a straitjacket, making it even more difficult for small farmers and new entrants to carve out a living.

It all ended up amicably enough, and the letting off of steam probably did more good than harm.

But the Red Tractor team were sent away with plenty of food for thought. For myself, I remain to be convinced that there is any great, unprompted, demand from consumers for WLA.

Does it really matter what standards were like on the farm where a calf was born, when the animal comes to be eaten two and a half years later? And anyway, aren't those standards pretty much guaranteed by all the other inspections and controls to which all farms are subject?

If I was on the Red Tractor board, I'd be arguing for a pause. Farm assurance is a force for good. Losing farmers' support for it by pressing ahead with WLA risks doing far more damage overall than putting the project on hold.

By Anthony Gibson for

: http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/...ory-25988999-detail/story.html?#ixzz3R2wyYOzj

 

[cowboysupper]

So you think that as most of the imported beef goes into wholesale it doesn't cut the price of the rest of the beef market then?? iv heard some daft comments in my time but that is the dumbest thing iv heard in a long while!!

If Ireland doesn't adopt lifetime assurance but the UK does then yes your beef will be worth less..

Also most of the beef/lamb exported from the UK is from animals that are not assured.... why that's not the case in Ireland I don't know..

I'm from NI so our Farm Quality Assurance Scheme (FQAS) has equivalence with RT. In NI if we don't have FQAS (and over 99% of all cattle are) then our cattle are out of spec and not fit for the retail market. That means it goes into the wholesale commodity market and competes with imported beef on the European market, so the processor will need to discount it if they want to sell it.

Ultimately it will depend on the processor and their access to markets. We have 5 powerful processors who absorb the vast majority of NI cattle and they all serve customers with high specs in the UK market where over 80% of beef if exported to.. There are only a small number of smaller processors who take the out of spec cattle eg no FQAS, ROI cattle finished in north, more than 4 residencies etc. But they'll pay you less accordingly (£100--150).

Unfortunately all beef produced is not just beef. Being farm assured where I come from is part of the spec. I can have the perfect animal for weight,age etc, but if it's not farm assured I'm getting paid less. I could go direct to a butcher non assured cattle if I really wanted but that's not overly practical at the minute.

As far as I'm concerned being farm assured is pretty important or we lose a lot of money. But I don't think life assurance will make us any better off and potentially has other unintentional consequences. So I'm not convinced of its necessity at all.

 

[why??]

hi quick question, if this is passed and accepted does anybody know what he farmer is required to do? We turn out 6 - 10 calves per year. I know FA farms must follow strict rules and regs set out and regularly inspected. Does this new proposal for WLA set any rules and regs out as yet? i.e can calves be born n the field? is it acceptable that cows and calves are not house inside in the winter? etc? or is this not know yet. Am i right in thinking it wouldn't be a like a 'fully farm assured' farm. Not at all accepting or agreeing with the proposal but seriously need to know whats what before we can make a decision on our future. Many thanks

 

[topground]

There is nothing set in concrete but ultimately It will be whatever the Supermarkets want it to be.
The initial scheme might well be simple in order to suck in us gullible Farmers but you can bet your bottom dollar that those rules will change to screw us in the long term. This scheme is about controlling the market and the supply chain in the long run.
Please do not fall for this Farm Assurance nonsense unless you want to have all of your freedom to sell your cattle where and when you would like to, taken away.

 

[spin cycle]

hi quick question, if this is passed and accepted does anybody know what he farmer is required to do? We turn out 6 - 10 calves per year. I know FA farms must follow strict rules and regs set out and regularly inspected. Does this new proposal for WLA set any rules and regs out as yet? i.e can calves be born n the field? is it acceptable that cows and calves are not house inside in the winter? etc? or is this not know yet. Am i right in thinking it wouldn't be a like a 'fully farm assured' farm. Not at all accepting or agreeing with the proposal but seriously need to know whats what before we can make a decision on our future. Many thanks

best guess would be to look at the FABBL regs....but hopefully common sense will prevail and the proposal will be ditched as it serves no-one apart from jobsworths........ IMO good luck with your calves

 

[milkloss]

So, had a conversation with an NFU chappie yesterday and learnt one or two things I thought I best report on here. I will try and make sense but I have an uneasy feeling that the NFU are looking at the WLA thing at a different angle to a working farmer that has to deal with it. They had a meeting with council members and the red tractor gang, not too sure of the details as I was trying to load straw at th time.

RT admit they made a balls up of the consultation process and I suggested that it was on purpose so the issue was made public for the supermarkets and consumers which I thought was unnecessary and a rather back hand way of coercing farmers into it.

They were discussing how to track an animals assurance history and an individual animal system was thought best. Possibly using stickers in the passport. I thought silly; stickers fall out and will be a bitch to replace (don't forget those bcms stickers that dried and fell off), passports returned for more pages, damage, passport returned for correction would all mean the history or assurance is lost and difficult to replace/reinstate.

This moved onto; anyhow there is prolly going to be eid in 2018(?) and they are going low freq so data could be held on the tag. Eh??! What if the tag got lost, farmer need equip to read and write data, where does the backup data get held if any and who pays for it? Was my response but apparently all that is ok because it will be voluntary! Ehh? Says I. It's a Bleddy protection racket/blackmail, you have to b e a member of RT to make the job pay, it's fecking well not really voluntary if you look at it like that is it?

I went on to suggest the animals history should be tracked by bcms (little RT next to tag no.) and all data available to producers so they can check WLA status ringside before buying but it would raise the question about funding this alongside a ridiculously wasteful government run sector. Although I beleieve bcms does a pretty good job and i was just trying to make a point.

There was suggestion of paying for WLA by herd size which I thought sensible and maybe 3 or 5 yearly inspections which I though it pointless being WLA and not being inspected very often but let it lie. I did voice my concern over the idea of getting producers hooked and then kicking them in the balls with expensive eid tags,readers etc but got the 'it's voluntary' comment which p.ssed me off a bit.

I said the NFU isn't looking forward enough into the ramifications of all this and must have producers return for the 'voluntary' expense at the top of its agenda and the extra 'benefit' must not get absorbed by the markets when they are suggesting it is for the consumers benefit and not necessarily theirs. If consumers want they will have to pay for it and that has to pass back to the producer. No arguments and it absolutely has to be transparent and clear on that point.

WLA is coming whether we like it or not and we HAVE to get on top of it. This convo was worrying for me because it showed the naivety of the NFU and all sounded a bit like pavlovs dogs slobbering away at some kind of regulatory introduction bell. 'Ha ha, more hoops, more corridor shuffling, more ways to make ourselves necessary!! Slobber, slobber!'

Well that's a bit much but it makes you think. Just a note here: no representatives at all from Kent, or E.sussex, not good.

All members of farming organisations NEED to get involved in the finer points and not stone wall it. It's coming. Embrace it and get it right for us, we only get one chance.

 

[topground]

Thanks for relayng this. However I have to disagree with your assertion that this is coming and there is nothing we can do about it as calf producers. Very simply, with no calves registered to the scheme it cannot function. When Farmers say no they have to mean no otherwise they will not have themselves to blame for handing control of the supply chain to the Supermarkets which is what this is all about.
There would have been many who thought that Nazi domination of Europe and the invasion of these islands was inevitable in 1940.
Farmers need to take lesson from our fathers and grandfathers and stand up and be counted when it comes to saying we will not be dominated by the a supermarket bully barons, that we have seen through their scheme to take control over how calves are marketed.
WLA must be rejected by calf producers and that means having nothing to do with the scheme full stop.

 

[milkloss]

Thanks for relayng this. However I have to disagree with your assertion that this is coming and there is nothing we can do about it as calf producers. Very simply, with no calves registered to the scheme it cannot function. When Farmers say no they have to mean no otherwise they will not have themselves to blame for handing control of the supply chain to the Supermarkets which is what this is all about.
There would have been many who thought that Nazi domination of Europe and the invasion of these islands was inevitable in 1940.
Farmers need to take lesson from our fathers and grandfathers and stand up and be counted when it comes to saying we will not be dominated by the a supermarket bully barons, that we have seen through their scheme to take control over how calves are marketed.
WLA must be rejected by calf producers and that means having nothing to do with the scheme full stop.

Sorry, but I just don't think you'll get enough support. I for one probably can't risk not being assured, I can't afford to sell for less.

 

[Henarar]

Farmers need to take lesson from our fathers and grandfathers and stand up and be counted when it comes to saying we will not be dominated by the a supermarket bully barons, that we have seen through their scheme to take control over how calves are marketed.
WLA must be rejected by calf producers and that means having nothing to do with the scheme full stop.

I don't think it will be enough because some will join and those that don't will have to take less money
What it would need is for the beef fatteners that already belong to RT to tell them to shove it so far up there arse that they can taste the ink on the paper but that won't happen
WLA will come in cos of the way they have done it, Two years on a register that costs nothing to get us hooked before we have to pay and then they start bringing in new things to adhere to, as shown in the post above

 

[spin cycle]

it's very sad that the nfu no longer represent farmers...i've asked three supermarkets about their policy on wla...so far only tesco have come back and they said they want it....so i guess we begin to get confirmation... the nfu will side with supermarkets against farmers