Mission creep is my main concern. I actually lose sleep wondering what they are going to come up with next. Will I be able to comply ? Can I afford to comply ? Will the next new set of rules put an end to my business ? I resent being subjected to this.
Red Tractor Fight, Campaign Resources
- Thread starter Grass And Grain
- Start date
@FarmyStu not sure if you missed this but not heard any reply on the subject@FarmyStu to quote the rt strap line
“world beating standard”
we don’t have an issue with that.
what we do have an issue with is the lack of world beating price to go with the standard!
If rt can get and pass on a premium for all the extras we have to do to be members non of the above (or any other threads in the subject for that matter) would exist.
Obviously I’m sure your able to back any counter argument up with fact and figures
so please could you give examples of percentage premium of uk assured grain V imported grain?
assured V non assured beef
assured V non assured Lamb
manythanks
cheers
Drillman
As I don't sell any of those things I haven't made the calculation. What I can say, with certainty, is that if I did sell those things, I'd be looking to maximise profits. If joining an assurance scheme improved my bottom line, despite the costs it might incur, I'd join. If it cost more than it made, or (perhaps much more importantly for some) it caused me more stress than I wanted, I'd not join.
But I assume you do sell some or all of these things so will have done those calculations. Perhaps you can tell us (with facts, figures and percentage premiums/losses
) how it does or doesn't stack up?It doesn’t stack up in any way shape or form,As I don't sell any of those things I haven't made the calculation. What I can say, with certainty, is that if I did sell those things, I'd be looking to maximise profits. If joining an assurance scheme improved my bottom line, despite the costs it might incur, I'd join. If it cost more than it made, or (perhaps much more importantly for some) it caused me more stress than I wanted, I'd not join.
But I assume you do sell some or all of these things so will have done those calculations. Perhaps you can tell us (with facts, figures and percentage premiums/losses
unfortunatley Im unable to market some of my crops without paying the cartel though. A very sad state of affairs and is Why I’m keen to see change,
those guys like yourself who seem to be in support of rt don’t seem to get that though which is why I asked the question! although as you don’t sell any of the afore mentioned things you will have no idea of the issues so your probably not best placed to comment on the subject.
apologies for bothering you.
- Location
- East yorks
As I don't sell any of those things I haven't made the calculation. What I can say, with certainty, is that if I did sell those things, I'd be looking to maximise profits. If joining an assurance scheme improved my bottom line, despite the costs it might incur, I'd join. If it cost more than it made, or (perhaps much more importantly for some) it caused me more stress than I wanted, I'd not join.
But I assume you do sell some or all of these things so will have done those calculations. Perhaps you can tell us (with facts, figures and percentage premiums/losses
We don;t have any storage so cannot sell grain without it so for me its not whether we want to be in it or not they blocked stores storing none assured grain till recently forcing everyone to comply, the beef one will be getting sacked off now i know the changes as it makes no difference in the market or to the butcher who buys my few stores to fatten.
SilliamWhale
Member
As I don't sell any of those things I haven't made the calculation. What I can say, with certainty, is that if I did sell those things, I'd be looking to maximise profits. If joining an assurance scheme improved my bottom line, despite the costs it might incur, I'd join. If it cost more than it made, or (perhaps much more importantly for some) it caused me more stress than I wanted, I'd not join.
But I assume you do sell some or all of these things so will have done those calculations. Perhaps you can tell us (with facts, figures and percentage premiums/losses
Apparently imported grain is even better than our own according to Jim Mosely anointed expert on everything:
Secondly, at the safety level, there is probably no difference – in fact, some millers would actually say the safety standards of imported grain are higher than Red Tractor, because they are subjected to huge amounts of lab testing.
New Red Tractor standards aim to improve farmyards - Farmers Weekly
Enhancing human safety and improving animal health and welfare are two of the main objectives behind the latest review of Red Tractor farm assurance
www.fwi.co.uk
If this is the case what the f**k are we bothering with the RT paperchase for, if imported stuff is better than ours thanks to a few arbitrary and untraceable "tests" per boatload of grain? Doesn't say a lot for the RT scheme does it?
That’s hit the nail on the head,Apparently imported grain is even better than our own according to Jim Mosely anointed expert on everything:
Secondly, at the safety level, there is probably no difference – in fact, some millers would actually say the safety standards of imported grain are higher than Red Tractor, because they are subjected to huge amounts of lab testing.
New Red Tractor standards aim to improve farmyards - Farmers Weekly
Enhancing human safety and improving animal health and welfare are two of the main objectives behind the latest review of Red Tractor farm assurance
If this is the case what the fudge are we bothering with the RT paperchase for, if imported stuff is better than ours thanks to a few arbitrary and untraceable "tests" per boatload of grain? Doesn't say a lot for the RT scheme does it?
As the rt head honcho himself has said imported is better
best thing we can do is sack off rt and use the spare subs money to hire a boat to take our grain for a quick trip out to sea to magically turn it into imported grain.
Dim Jim has single handedly made a complete mockery of rt and insulted every single combinable member in one short paragraph!
That's great we can now point to aic this is the way forward and rt say it is the best way .RT FINISHED by rt in one fell swoop . We are on the way test and no rt job done.
Unbelievable, he's now promoting imported product over ours! I would be very happy with just the lab testsApparently imported grain is even better than our own according to Jim Mosely anointed expert on everything:
Secondly, at the safety level, there is probably no difference – in fact, some millers would actually say the safety standards of imported grain are higher than Red Tractor, because they are subjected to huge amounts of lab testing.
New Red Tractor standards aim to improve farmyards - Farmers Weekly
Enhancing human safety and improving animal health and welfare are two of the main objectives behind the latest review of Red Tractor farm assurance
If this is the case what the fudge are we bothering with the RT paperchase for, if imported stuff is better than ours thanks to a few arbitrary and untraceable "tests" per boatload of grain? Doesn't say a lot for the RT scheme does it?
SilliamWhale
Member
We don't even need to lab test. What are they lab testing for?
tullah
Member
- Location
- Linconshire
Gerald Ratner comes to mind.
- Location
- Cirencester
And NFU shysters are fully supportive of it, copied from a re-issued e-mail from RT today
Stuart Roberts, NFU deputy president, said: “It has never been more important for British agriculture to be in tune with the public. Following feedback from the NFU and farmer and grower licensees, Red Tractor has developed the right standards to progress our industry, while balancing the needs of farmers with the evolving demands of shoppers and the supply chain.
“Going forward I would like to see Red Tractor embrace the eight principles that NFU has set out for future standards development.”
Matt Culley, NFU crops board chairman said: “It was important that Red Tractor listened to our sectors’ concerns during the consultation, and the impact the proposals could have on businesses. The combinable crops sector already faces numerous challenges and is undergoing considerable change.
“NFU representatives on the crops sector technical advisory committee worked extremely hard with industry stakeholders to ensure that the development of these standards took into account the views of our members and growers, and continued to demonstrate the value of Red Tractor to the whole supply chain.”
Guy Smith, Red Tractor crops and sugar beet sector board chair, said: “Aside from some minor technical changes and some removals, the only substantive change in the version five Red Tractor audit for arable farmers is the requirement to show a Health and Safety policy to the auditor.
“Given that having such a policy is a legal requirement and given the latest appalling figures for deaths on farms we have seen this week, I think it only right we should add this check to the audit.”
Stuart Roberts, NFU deputy president, said: “It has never been more important for British agriculture to be in tune with the public. Following feedback from the NFU and farmer and grower licensees, Red Tractor has developed the right standards to progress our industry, while balancing the needs of farmers with the evolving demands of shoppers and the supply chain.
“Going forward I would like to see Red Tractor embrace the eight principles that NFU has set out for future standards development.”
Matt Culley, NFU crops board chairman said: “It was important that Red Tractor listened to our sectors’ concerns during the consultation, and the impact the proposals could have on businesses. The combinable crops sector already faces numerous challenges and is undergoing considerable change.
“NFU representatives on the crops sector technical advisory committee worked extremely hard with industry stakeholders to ensure that the development of these standards took into account the views of our members and growers, and continued to demonstrate the value of Red Tractor to the whole supply chain.”
Guy Smith, Red Tractor crops and sugar beet sector board chair, said: “Aside from some minor technical changes and some removals, the only substantive change in the version five Red Tractor audit for arable farmers is the requirement to show a Health and Safety policy to the auditor.
“Given that having such a policy is a legal requirement and given the latest appalling figures for deaths on farms we have seen this week, I think it only right we should add this check to the audit.”
- Location
- Darlington
So all this new Cr%p they have dreamed up will help safety, More stress, more costs,more time to fill forms in, Less time to do the work, so more corners being forced to cut. Obviously they think all farmers are like them with plenty of minions beneath them to do all the work for nothing
Feldspar
Member
- Location
- Essex, Cambs and Suffolk
Yes, we have had deafening silence on this question. A lot of "I'll come back to you" as far as I can see.
- Location
- Yorks
I've sort of stolen your post, thinking it would be nice to have a dedicated thread for it. Think worthy of a dedicated thread when head man at RT has basically just agreed with us that 'equal to imports' is a better standard than RT.Apparently imported grain is even better than our own according to Jim Mosely anointed expert on everything:
Secondly, at the safety level, there is probably no difference – in fact, some millers would actually say the safety standards of imported grain are higher than Red Tractor, because they are subjected to huge amounts of lab testing.
New Red Tractor standards aim to improve farmyards - Farmers Weekly
Enhancing human safety and improving animal health and welfare are two of the main objectives behind the latest review of Red Tractor farm assurance
If this is the case what the fudge are we bothering with the RT paperchase for, if imported stuff is better than ours thanks to a few arbitrary and untraceable "tests" per boatload of grain? Doesn't say a lot for the RT scheme does it?
Has Jim Moseley discredited RT?
Quote from Farmers Weekly... What is the latest state of play with ‘comingling’ Red Tractor assured grain with non-assured imported grain? JM First of all, grain is not “comingled” as such. It is actually kept very separate, so it is possible to track Red Tractor grain all the way back to the...
thefarmingforum.co.uk
- Location
- Northumberland
Another example yesterday that rt means nothing to the consumer. Dropping the cattle trailer off to have its brakes serviced. Lads in the garage asking what we were doing. F A inspection this afternoon. What's that, they asked. You know the red tractor. Hadn't heard of it. Quick run through the list of things we had to do left them open mouthed. No idea you had to all that stuff on top of all the work you do looking after you cows.
Tarw Coch
Member
- Location
- Bottom of Wats Dyke
Can’t say a RT inspector has ever inspected my stock trailer in that detail, they have a look at it’s general condition, i allways assumed at least from an animal health and welfare point of view to check it’s fit for purpose but have never been questioned or asked for any invoices for maintenance.
Sounds like more evidence were not all inspected to the same standard.
They do make a note of the serial number though which I presume they must cross reference as I was told they check that someone hasn’t borrowed the neighbours trailer for the inspection.
- Location
- Northumberland
No, Trailer in for brake service was nothing to do with FA inspection
