Red Tractor Fight, Campaign Resources

[Grass And Grain]

Yep, that's totally in tune with current consumer thoughts. "We want food produced without any checks of consequence".

Why haven't you all setup your own scheme yet? The strap line could be "Produced with promises to comply, but no checks!". I'm sure buyers would be queuing up........

That does seem to be the case. But it seems that they want assured grain from UK. They're your customers. Aldi etc succeed by giving customers what they want. I'm not sure I can think of an example of someone succeeding, who told the customers what they were going to get?

I don't think the feed mills are all so bothered if they purchase RT grain or not. They're simply obliged to do so, otherwise they get their UFAS accreditation revoked, then they can't sell to RT livestock farms.

AIC have been asked more than once if we can assure UK grain in EXACTLY same way as imports are assured. A UK version of the imports scheme.

AIC say 'no', but give no credible reason for saying 'no'. Personally, I'd describe it as obstructive.

Meanwhile, farmers have to keep paying RT membership to sell grain to a feed mill. Feed mills have to pay AIC for UFAS membership in order to sell compound feed to RT livestock farmers.

Everyone effectively has to pay. AIC won't accept UK grain assured in same way as imports, but insist on RT/SQC, whilst readily accepting imports assured by a method which we've asked to use for UK grain.

Can you see why we're not happy. Does the situation sound reasonable to you @FarmyStu ?

Make your own mind up why AIC are behaving like this.

 

[SilliamWhale]

Just looked on Companies House Red Tractor have £ 2.1 million cash in the bank. Not for profit ?
At least someone is making good money out of farming year on year regardless on good or bad years we have to put up with.

They will probably spunk that on an advertising campaign sometime but remember crucially it doesn't matter if the campaign achieves more sales or not because there is no benefit to those that fund them or mechanism to pay them from the fruits of any such campaign.

Maybe they can pay board members a bit more to keep them nodding?

 

[SilliamWhale]

I don't think the feed mills are all so bothered if they purchase RT grain or not. They're simply obliged to do so, otherwise they get their UFAS accreditation revoked, then they can't sell to RT livestock farms.

AIC have been asked more than once if we can assure UK grain in EXACTLY same way as imports are assured. A UK version of the imports scheme.

AIC say 'no', but give no credible reason for saying 'no'. Personally, I'd describe it as obstructive.

Meanwhile, farmers have to keep paying RT membership to sell grain to a feed mill. Feed mills have to pay AIC for UFAS membership in order to sell compound feed to RT livestock farmers.

Everyone effectively has to pay. AIC won't accept UK grain assured in same way as imports, but insist on RT/SQC, whilst readily accepting imports assured by a method which we've asked to use for UK grain.

Can you see why we're not happy. Does the situation sound reasonable to you @FarmyStu ?

Make your own mind up why AIC are behaving like this.

I know some merchants who feel AIC charge them a lot for very little so I don't think they are particularly loved.

 

[MrNoo]

"Produced with promises to comply, but no checks!".

You men like imports??? Wondered when you'd crawl out the woodwork

 

[tullah]

I don't think the feed mills are all so bothered if they purchase RT grain or not. They're simply obliged to do so, otherwise they get their UFAS accreditation revoked, then they can't sell to RT livestock farms.

AIC have been asked more than once if we can assure UK grain in EXACTLY same way as imports are assured. A UK version of the imports scheme.

AIC say 'no', but give no credible reason for saying 'no'. Personally, I'd describe it as obstructive.

Meanwhile, farmers have to keep paying RT membership to sell grain to a feed mill. Feed mills have to pay AIC for UFAS membership in order to sell compound feed to RT livestock farmers.

Everyone effectively has to pay. AIC won't accept UK grain assured in same way as imports, but insist on RT/SQC, whilst readily accepting imports assured by a method which we've asked to use for UK grain.

Can you see why we're not happy. Does the situation sound reasonable to you @FarmyStu ?

Make your own mind up why AIC are behaving like this.

Dont expect a rational reply to the points you raised.

 

[FarmyStu]

Can you see why we're not happy?

Of course I can see why you're not happy. Foreigners aren't subject to the same rules as you and yet get to sell and compete against you. But I doubt assurance schemes are the biggest differentiator. Surely the fact that some developing countries pay poverty wages, can buy tractors with low emission standards and are not restricted with health & safety laws that apply here is a far bigger factor? They'll always have that advantage unless you want to be able to apply those same standards here, to make it a level playing field? I assume you don't. So somehow you have to make purchasers want your produce despite the price. I personally doubt that an "equivalent to imports" standard will achieve this. In fact I think it would produce the opposite effect.

Several hundred pages ago I suggested it would be a shame if all the numerous threads about assurance, produced nothing more than increased footfall on Clives commercial venture, TFF. Despite all the suggested legal threats and actions, it seems that's exactly what's happened. RT it seems are going ahead with their changes and most buyers are still insisting on assurance. Clive himself has signed up to yet another assurance scheme in order to deal in carbon!!! Oh the irony...........

I'm sure there's room for a better assurance scheme than RT, perhaps owned by farmers. For a better organisation than the NFU for supporting farmers. But it will take somebody to actually step up to the plate and do something. Anybody?

 

[Barleymow]

Of course I can see why you're not happy. Foreigners aren't subject to the same rules as you and yet get to sell and compete against you. But I doubt assurance schemes are the biggest differentiator. Surely the fact that some developing countries pay poverty wages, can buy tractors with low emission standards and are not restricted with health & safety laws that apply here is a far bigger factor? They'll always have that advantage unless you want to be able to apply those same standards here, to make it a level playing field? I assume you don't. So somehow you have to make purchasers want your produce despite the price. I personally doubt that an "equivalent to imports" standard will achieve this. In fact I think it would produce the opposite effect.

Several hundred pages ago I suggested it would be a shame if all the numerous threads about assurance, produced nothing more than increased footfall on Clives commercial venture, TFF. Despite all the suggested legal threats and actions, it seems that's exactly what's happened. RT it seems are going ahead with their changes and most buyers are still insisting on assurance. Clive himself has signed up to yet another assurance scheme in order to deal in carbon!!! Oh the irony...........

I'm sure there's room for a better assurance scheme than RT, perhaps owned by farmers. For a better organisation than the NFU for supporting farmers. But it will take somebody to actually step up to the plate and do something. Anybody?

Ime sure the Canadian milling wheat French and German isn't produced in poverty stricken countries

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

Yep, that's totally in tune with current consumer thoughts. "We want food produced without any checks of consequence".

Why haven't you all setup your own scheme yet? The strap line could be "Produced with promises to comply, but no checks!". I'm sure buyers would be queuing up........

Food produced without any checks of consequence is exactly what we've got now; whether it's pointless, box ticking red tractor checks or no checks of any kind on imports.

I keep saying Farmystu, the real assurance is done by legislation and government bodies not someone from rt

You keep assuming that farmers are desperate to lower standards and break every rule in the book as soon as red tractor goes. You won't find many in this country using neonicotinoids, organophosphates or not looking after their stock properly because it's against the law.. All of these are common practice elsewhere and some of it even comes here with a union jack or red tractor sticker. You talk about irony.

Why isn't there another scheme? To do what? Say produced in the UK? Isn't that what red tractor means?

Farmers not renewing "membership" won't hit the headlines but I can assure you that people are leaving the scheme and finding outlets for their grain. I doubt that is a two way street.

 

[FarmyStu]

I keep saying Farmystu, the real assurance is done by legislation and government bodies not someone from rt

You keep assuming that farmers are desperate to lower standards and break every rule in the book as soon as red tractor goes.

Farmers not renewing "membership" won't hit the headlines but I can assure you that people are leaving the scheme and finding outlets for their grain. I doubt that is a two way street.

The law isn't assurance, its the law. Assurance requires regular, independent checks.

I DO NOT assume farmers are desperate to lower standards. I know plenty that would happily raise them in order to out compete other farmers. But some posters on this site do want lower standards. "Equivalent to imports" is exactly that.

If farmers are leaving assurance schemes and finding markets then that's great. Clearly then there is a non assured market. But others state that they "are forced" to join assurance schemes to sell. You can't both be right.

 

[7610 super q]

Can't see what's wrong with lower standards TBH. We're producing a commodity product, competing with world prices set at 1970's levels. Can't have it both ways, premium product sold at sh!te prices.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

Equivalent to imports is not lowering or raising standards here, it's expecting to be treated the same. As you well know, UK grain is discriminated against in favour of imports which require no checks despite continuing practices that are no longer legal here. That's the point.

At the moment it's still easier to sell farm assured, it's what the trade have come to expect. It's free to them so doesn't matter how pointless or costly it is. It seems inevitable that the non assured market will expand at the expense of farm assured, bearing in mind the cost and time involved, lack of premium and dissatisfaction among customers.

You have to hand it to the NFU and its co- owners though. They are pulling in all that money for no benefit to anyone apart from themselves and their employees. Well done them and more fool us for going along with it.

 

[Drillman]

@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

 

[SilliamWhale]

Several hundred pages ago I suggested it would be a shame if all the numerous threads about assurance, produced nothing more than increased footfall on Clives commercial venture, TFF. Despite all the suggested legal threats and actions, it seems that's exactly what's happened. RT it seems are going ahead with their changes and most buyers are still insisting on assurance. Clive himself has signed up to yet another assurance scheme in order to deal in carbon!!! Oh the irony...........

I'm sure there's room for a better assurance scheme than RT, perhaps owned by farmers. For a better organisation than the NFU for supporting farmers. But it will take somebody to actually step up to the plate and do something. Anybody?

Clive's carbon deal is voluntary and he gets a delivered premium into his bank account.

RT isn't really voluntary at any practical level unless you seek to defraud the market. Which is easily done but why should we lie?

One of the reasons for this is that various organisations have organised themselves as a sort of ring of steel - mainly Red Tractor and AIC to prevent others from introducing an alternative product to the market. As I've said we effectively have a private company with no official mandate, blocking market access. You are the only one on this thread who thinks that is healthy.

They have spent 20 years building up this sort of scenario from which you can only sell if you in effect pay to access the market. I think the efforts to shame the NFU into recognising their position are going to be drip drip away in terms of support for them - good people in that organisation have become laughing stocks and objects of derision which is really a shame.

So in terms of stepping up to the plate its quite tricky. I think we will get there eventually, but I have to say yes men like yourself who cannot see that monopolism festers resentment are probably the least likely to understand the challenge

 

[Old apprentice]

Clive's carbon deal is voluntary and he gets a delivered premium into his bank account.

RT isn't really voluntary at any practical level unless you seek to defraud the market. Which is easily done but why should we lie?

One of the reasons for this is that various organisations have organised themselves as a sort of ring of steel - mainly Red Tractor and AIC to prevent others from introducing an alternative product to the market. As I've said we effectively have a private company with no official mandate, blocking market access. You are the only one on this thread who thinks that is healthy.

They have spent 20 years building up this sort of scenario from which you can only sell if you in effect pay to access the market. I think the efforts to shame the NFU into recognising their position are going to be drip drip away in terms of support for them - good people in that organisation have become laughing stocks and objects of derision which is really a shame.

So in terms of stepping up to the plate its quite tricky. I think we will get there eventually, but I have to say yes men like yourself who cannot see that monopolism festers resentment are probably the least likely to understand the challenge

Exelent . Nfu don't or don't want to see what they have set up and allowed to snow ball to make uk farmers at a disadvantage to rest of farmers around the world ,just disadvantage uk farmers it doesn't mater I don't think so. Went to a meeting mentioned rt . This farm manager started on about children infected with salmonella implied rt were responsible to stop such . I said rt had nothing to do with as eggs vaccines are the best way to protect people he had nothing more to say. On another note I was told if you are basis registered you hAve to have 50 points a year the agronomist said it is a bit like rt if every body stop doing the points they could do nothing about it end of story.

 

[Grass And Grain]

FarmeyStu sort of makes a point. Are we suggesting lowering standards? FA gives a premium etc. On the face of it, makes some sense, or at least a reasonable view point.

But, it all falls down when we know that imports access the very same UK markets with no audited farm level assurance costs or quality assurance. We have to pay for FA, therefore added unecessary cost, undermines competitiveness, unlevel playingfield.

Always happy to openly listen to a different opinion or other side of a debate, but I'm quite certain our thinking on this issue is correct.

RT and AIC won't change the rules. If they did, they know farmers would leave the schemes and they'd lose revenue. Remember, AIC are also part guarantors/owners of SQC (can't exactly remember the structure).

Of course, it's all voluntary for farmers to join these schemes . We queue up to pay our RT membership because of the premium prices we get for RT grain .

 

[willy]

That does seem to be the case. But it seems that they want assured grain from UK. They're your customers. Aldi etc succeed by giving customers what they want. I'm not sure I can think of an example of someone succeeding, who told the customers what they were going to get?

We are RT customer, so surley we should get what we want in this case.

 

[No wot]

We are RT customer, so surley we should get what we want in this case.

We're RT customers? Paying them , so we can sell our produce , that we could sell anyway without their schemes (& for the same money) , basically they have the same business model principal that The Krays operated in sixties London over pubs , bars & clubs in order to trade ( obviously without the violence)

 

[Tarw Coch]

We're RT customers? Paying them , so we can sell our produce , that we could sell anyway without their schemes (& for the same money) , basically they have the same business model principal that The Krays operated in sixties London over pubs , bars & clubs in order to trade ( obviously without the violence)

They’ve improved the buisness model so now it’s legal

 

[Grass And Grain]

They’ve improved the buisness model so now it’s legal

What about moral?

 

[Tarw Coch]

What about moral?

I’m not aware that any immoral act is illegal