Red Tractor Chair sells out all members

MattR

Member
ive had inspectors who have “helped” me give the right answer, i’m sure im not alone and the help is appreciated

but does that give the scheme any credibility?

I've literally been told - when an inspector has come to some pointless inane question in the record book that I'd left blank - "oh just put something down, as long as there's a date or something in that box that'll be fine" :ROFLMAO: :banghead:
 

DrWazzock

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lincolnshire
I worm the cats and give them flea treatment whether RT require it or not.
Just because I passed my driving test 35 years ago and haven’t had a test since doesn’t mean I’m a complete bar steward on the road either. No trust nowadays. Imagine if the public had to have a driving test every year. It’s safety critical no? But they wouldn’t stand for it so it doesn’t happen. Yet farmers have to suck it up,
 

Jackov Altraids

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Devon
You are all wrong.😀

The Lord’s amendment is not workable or practical or desirable.
If it does pass, then mark my words, it won’t stop imports and they will be rubber stamped as “ meeting the same standards as British produce” just as GM soya is by Red Tractor ( for convenience more than anything else).
The imports will still be cheaper due to lower wages and huge scale abroad. They will be cheaper and they will meet our standards so guess which produce people will buy?
If we left them alone as “substandard” imports then RT would serve a real purpose in highlighting the higher standard of British produce and giving people a clear reason to buy it even if it is a bit dearer.

Just when RT could have served a real purpose we want to make imports RT as well, destroying our unique selling point.

I am not even considering the mayhem that will ensue as other countries then impose their own sets of peculiar standards on our exports in retaliation.

I don't think so.

The Lord's amendment has nothing to do with Red Tractor standards.
Please could someone correct me if I'm wrong, but several people on this thread seem to think that imports will have to meet Red Tractor standards which I don't believe is true. They simply have to not use any method/ practice / product that would be illegal for farmers in the UK.
This would actually make it easier to organise trade agreements.
Red Tractor would still have a role, it might just lose its ability to act as an extortion racket or create a premium worth the hassle.
 

Humble Village Farmer

Member
BASE UK Member
Location
Essex
if I farmed a smaller area i would focus much more on direct access to retail and assurance would certainly be something i would not need

as a producer of big heaps of commoditised products I need access to volume markets and for some inexplicable reason buyers insist on this farcical scheme even though we all know it has no credibility and that food standards are already regulated and protected by law
The point is that buyers don't insist on FA, unless it's of UK origin, as evidenced by what they import, including horse of unknown origin. But if we carry on paying for it, then they are quite happy to go along with it as it makes their job easier while someone off the payroll adds value to their end product.

Can you imagine a supermarket going to the same trouble and expense for no financial gain?

I don't think it's a bad idea but there should be a premium attached.
 

DrWazzock

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lincolnshire
I don't think so.

The Lord's amendment has nothing to do with Red Tractor standards.
Please could someone correct me if I'm wrong, but several people on this thread seem to think that imports will have to meet Red Tractor standards which I don't believe is true. They simply have to not use any method/ practice / product that would be illegal for farmers in the UK.
This would actually make it easier to organise trade agreements.
Red Tractor would still have a role, it might just lose its ability to act as an extortion racket or create a premium worth the hassle.
I’m not really sure what people think the Lord’s’ amendment encompasses. It seems to mean different things to different people. I think your interpretation is the right one but I’d say at least 50% of people think it means imports must comply with RT, NFU included perhaps?
As you allude, if imports must only comply with basic UK legal standards then why should UK production that does the same but doesn’t subscribe to RT be excluded en masse from UK flour mills for example, thereby being set at a disadvantage to equivalent imports only because the producer doesn’t pay a sub to RT. This isn’t really a new situation. It’s been going on for years but Brexit has thrown it into sharp focus. That’s a good thing in my view. Our national parliament has resumed its governing role and will have to thrash out a solution rather than acquiesce under the EU blanket.
 

JP1

Member
Livestock Farmer
I had a Society bull inspector over by appointment for a bull yesterday (passed) . In conversation I mentioned my RT was lapsing at the end of the month and said I would go direct retail with my own provenance story if I had to. He made the point quite strongly he'd be worried for me with my cull cows valuations non-FA
 

DrWazzock

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lincolnshire
The crux of the matters is that UK buyers are getting RT for free while there is no discernible premium to the RT supplier over and above non RT imports. At the same time non RT home producers are actually at a disadvantage to equivalent basic standard imports as RT have persuaded UK buyers not to buy any non RT home production. That’s where RT has maybe inadvertently turned into an extortion raquet in the eyes of uk producers. Its an untenable situation in my view.
RT is a worthy idea at core but ironically the way they have stitched up markets for home producers is like some kind of monopoly and should illegal in my view. It should be illegal to discriminate against non RT produce that meets UK standards. You shouldn’t be forced to pay a sub to RT to access markets, when your produce already meets UK standards.
Really I can’t draw any other conclusion than RT should be scrapped as it works as an artificial barrier to free and fair trade on behalf of the buyers at the expense of the producers.
If individual buyers wanted to set up their own schemes that went over and above uk basic standards and pay for them that would all well and good. It’s their choice and they are paying for it. But as it is RT are essentially charging us for access to our own markets yet offering no price premium in return. That can’t be right.
 

DrWazzock

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lincolnshire
I had a Society bull inspector over by appointment for a bull yesterday (passed) . In conversation I mentioned my RT was lapsing at the end of the month and said I would go direct retail with my own provenance story if I had to. He made the point quite strongly he'd be worried for me with my cull cows valuations non-FA
That’s precisely the rub. I’d say your cull cows are probably some of the best there are as far as welfare and husbandry standards go. So why should you have to pay RT for access to markets, or be excluded from certain markets by default if you don’t pay the sub. It stinks in my view.
 

Filthyfarmer

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Hertfordshire
RT was brought about in the first place following the BSE outbreak in the 80's. The NFU were telling us that if we farmers do not come up with a scheme ( run by the NFU ) then the government would impose one or maybe lots of different ones from each supermarket.
Seemed like a good idea at the time as farmers were getting quite a severe bashing.

Lots of change in the last 30+ years and RT had run its course in its present form.

I would be happier to pay someone to "audit" my farming business to make sure I am compliant with all the legalities that farming requires these days.
No gold plated extras that earn nothing in return.
 

JP1

Member
Livestock Farmer
That’s precisely the rub. I’d say your cull cows are probably some of the best there are as far as welfare and husbandry standards go. So why should you have to pay RT for access to markets, or be excluded from certain markets by default if you don’t pay the sub. It stinks in my view.
Er it was suggested a "penalty" of £1/kg ............

Any comments @cull cows ?
 

Hfd Cattle

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Hereford
I had a Society bull inspector over by appointment for a bull yesterday (passed) . In conversation I mentioned my RT was lapsing at the end of the month and said I would go direct retail with my own provenance story if I had to. He made the point quite strongly he'd be worried for me with my cull cows valuations non-FA
Your cows would sell well enough Tested in a green market . Farm assured or not decent cows sell well in Hereford .
It also depends how many you are sending each yr on the cull ......does the price difference make up for the cost and hassle of RT ?
 

Hindsight

Member
Location
Lincolnshire
If individual buyers wanted to set up their own schemes that went over and above uk basic standards and pay for them that would all well and good. It’s their choice and they are paying for it. But as it is RT are essentially charging us for access to our own markets yet offering no price premium in return. That can’t be right.

I worked for a South Lincs veg Co-op in mid 90's when Assurance was first introduced as a concept, and was involved as a technical manager in the initial roll out. Each of the major retailers was about to introduce their own scheme, and the coming together under a single Assurance scheme was a driving force for the NFU etc, to simplify trading terms. Long time ago now.
 

DrWazzock

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lincolnshire
I worked for a South Lincs veg Co-op in mid 90's when Assurance was first introduced as a concept, and was involved as a technical manager in the initial roll out. Each of the major retailers was about to introduce their own scheme, and the coming together under a single Assurance scheme was a driving force for the NFU etc, to simplify trading terms. Long time ago now.
So the NFU rolled over. The NFU should have made sure no member subscribed to any buyers “scheme” but stuck to minimum legal standards. But oh no, they just cannot bend over quick enough can they?
I suppose that was during the “customer is king” era.
What about producers? Presumably they have no right to make a living?
 

JP1

Member
Livestock Farmer
Your cows would sell well enough Tested in a green market . Farm assured or not decent cows sell well in Hereford .
It also depends how many you are sending each yr on the cull ......does the price difference make up for the cost and hassle of RT ?
Well no and that was a decider in the end. Hopefully I've a few years with only one or two a year. It's not just the inspection fee and the "RT loyalty fee" you pay, you now have to pay a vet to do an annual herd plan on the beef suckler. I could maybe understand the dairies wanting something with bigger AYR and how the thing might be "dynamic", my herd health plan (101% regular and considered dialogue with my vet, my vet meds supplier to minimise or stop prophylactic treatments and regular rotation of drugs etc) won't change for 10 years future and I always have the entire herd blood tested and reviewed as part of my SAC Premium Health Scheme (that's a vet taking bloods btw but that doesn't count according to RT). If you count all the hangers on for 40 pedigree suckler cows the cost annually per calf is climbing constantly: fluke testing, pedigree registrations, memberships of 3 societies, RT, SAC and so it goes on ..............
 

DrWazzock

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lincolnshire
My car has an MoT. That’s the minimum legal standard. Now imagine if the AA persuaded the government not to allow any motorist on the motorway network unless they were paid up members of the AA and had their car retested by the AA at their own expense.
That’s what RT feels like to a small independent minded farmer such as myself.
Maybe wasn’t intended that way, but that’s how it feels, and that’s why I resent it.
 

tepapa

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
North Wales
Red tractor works for the super market and processors. They have almost the entire UK production covered so it's almost all available for them to purchase.
If it was scrapped and they would have to have their own schemes. You would think this would disadvantage the farmer as he may have a limited market but all he has to do is join two schemes.
The buyer in the other hand would want produce produced to their standards. If they start adding cat wormer to the list of requirements the farmer says bugger that and doesn't renew after non compliance. He lost one market but the buyer also lost a supplier. The buyer is stuck for supply from the farms signded up to their scheme, as opposed to almost the entire UK produce, and on top of that they'd have to pay for and manage it themselves. Red tractor works well for them at the expense of the farmer. Individual schemes makes arranging supply from a smaller pool of farmers with varying carcass sizes a lot harder for the buyer then one big scheme and just topping up supply from the live market.
 

JP1

Member
Livestock Farmer
The annual herd report by a vet is just a license to print money ......for the vets !

I am so proud of my high welfare I could conceive a time when the only time I see my vet (out of luck of course) would be at the SAC blood testing. That should count

I would mind less if the RT inspector had ever wanted to actually see my animals (or my facilities etc)
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 80 42.3%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 66 34.9%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 15.9%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 7 3.7%

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

  • 1,293
  • 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