Red Tractor Officially Scrap The GFC

[graham mc]

It’s scratching each others back to keep the position of power. The more things like that they get the harder it is to get rid

 

[Homesy]

Can the next immediate target please be to get RT to make an exception and let us use unprotected urea at least until the end of April as a one off derogation? It’s not like it’s been exceptionally wet is it? As per FW defra insist they won’t help us, but surely since defra have given (how that was allowed I’ll never know) the policing of it to RT we can get them to give the derogation? Sorry @Grass And Grain another little job for you but it’s really getting rather urgent……
Also it’s not like most of the imported cereals will have used unprotected urea all through their growth

No restriction on foliar urea in fact you cannot use protected for foliar mixes. If you have a sprayer tell them that you are applying it as a foliar mix. Complete cobblers of a rule. They use unprotected urea in Australia for gods sake

 

[L P]

I actually think the AIC is the big problem, they run the majority of mills, and if they continue to state RT only then they are the stumbling block, non members of the BFU maybe haven’t seen Steve’s emails and response from them, they are acting as gate keepers of what assurance, all there mills will take.
Yet they happily import feed from all over the world if the price is right.
They just internally assure it with systems they have in place the 1 sample from a boat load way, yet this is in no way equal to RT.
So, this is the door that needs kicking down now.
But I also agree with Clive the AHDB should help a new light touch scheme get setup.
One that is ok with statutory checks for assurance, like Steve has done. So we can push the AIC to take that in appropriate cases. A scheme run by the AHDB but site visits from statutory free visits. So we are meeting uk law, should be fine but it’s not for the AIC as they want years visits and the basic scheme is not likely to offer that. As how often the council visits is up to them, every 3 years is common.

one down which is great, but plenty more to go. And if RT wants to exist then they need to make big changes.

I also think we need an end to one size fits all assurance, as that was great for those needed it gold plated, those suppling places that needed it, but feed doesn’t even need to be RT assured to be fed to RT assured animals. They told us that because they understood they couldn’t demand that because the AIC don’t actually provide that from there mills when they use imports as part of the feed mix.

So, how do we get the AIC to shift its possition?

You go to them with a mirror assurance scheme to RT to be owned and run by farmers, they can't not accept it. Once you get all the farmers aboard and RT sinks we then start setting our own terms for premiums

 

[Drillman]

red tractor may have backed down over GFC due to pressure but it seems reading what others have posted we have either directly or indirectly paid for it.

One of our next steps must be a serious focus on value for money from rt. They need to provide a quantifiable and worthwhile premium for the hoop jumping we do as members of there scheme.

And we all know this is something that in its current form red tractor will never be able achieve

 

[Barleymow]

No restriction on foliar urea in fact you cannot use protected for foliar mixes. If you have a sprayer tell them that you are applying it as a foliar mix. Complete cobblers of a rule. They use unprotected urea in Australia for gods sake

Easy to liquefy, I bag in 1500l of water. Small submersible pump for 25 hrs will mix it .we do it for headlands

 

[slackjawedyokel]

red tractor may have backed down over GFC due to pressure but it seems reading what others have posted we have either directly or indirectly paid for it.

One of our next steps must be a serious focus on value for money from rt. They need to provide a quantifiable and worthwhile premium for the hoop jumping we do as members of there scheme.

And we all know this is something that in its current form red tractor will never be able achieve

Of course, any extra work done, records kept etc above legal minimum should attract a premium that at least makes membership worthwhile. Will we ever see that from RT? I’m skeptical, as it appears to have been designed as a barrier to market access.
I can’t understand how NFU and AHDB can continue to support RT when the ramifications of the GFC going ahead would clearly have been so disastrous for their members/levy-payers; allowing as it would the supermarkets to strengthen their strangle-hold on UK-AG. (And this on top of many, many years of poor/zero value from RT).

 

[Homesy]

Easy to liquefy, I bag in 1500l of water. Small submersible pump for 25 hrs will mix it .we do it for headlands.

I now just use foliar on all my grass.

 

[SilliamWhale]

How on earth the NFU ever agreed to allow Red Tractor to police the use of urea is beyond me. Oh yes I remember, all on the same train, indeed in the same carriage.

Because they own it. They also wanted the GFC until the pressure forced a u turn. That's what was planned

 

[Flat 10]

will it not all be spread by 31st March?

In a dream world. It would be great to see some farmer friendly leadership in “our” assurance scheme…. However I haven’t seen any flying pigs recently

 

[Grass And Grain]

Of course, any extra work done, records kept etc above legal minimum should attract a premium that at least makes membership worthwhile. Will we ever see that from RT? I’m skeptical, as it appears to have been designed as a barrier to market access.
I can’t understand how NFU and AHDB can continue to support RT when the ramifications of the GFC going ahead would clearly have been so disastrous for their members/levy-payers; allowing as it would the supermarkets to strengthen their strangle-hold on UK-AG. (And this on top of many, many years of poor/zero value from RT).

Both GFC and standalone RT are barriers to market access and are deliberate control of farmers imho, and NFU, DEFRA, AIC mills, flour millers etc. use it to control us. If any of those organisations want something from us they put it in the "voluntary" Red Tractor, but then make RT compulsory of we want to supply to those mills.

NRoSO = theoretically voluntary, but they've made it mandatory through RT.

DEFRA urea policy, it's not the law, but DEFRA/NFU/RT have basically made it mandatory for any sizeable cereal growers
because they know we have to be RT assured.

Gov also use RT as a free inspection service, and the farmer pays

Mills didn't think 36 mth sprayer testing was good enough, and they could get 12 mth for free using RT.

I recon even DEFRA were pushing for the GFC because they could get 5% environmental habitat, and low behold that would have meant more uptake of SFI and more net zero boxes ticked.

Thankfully NFU probably thought they'd lose even more members if GFC went ahead, so they put the NFU's future before the GFC. Many people commented the only way to get change was to hurt these organisations in their wallets. It worked. NFU either had to end the GFC, or end of the NFU was looming imho.

Everything which was going to be wrong with the GFC (in a really dramatic way), is also wrong with RT's core standards. Lots of it is unnecessary claptrap, we have to pay to join, we have to pay to do the things they tell us, they won't let us sell our produce unless we're in RT, and then they add in any new rules they're wanting us to follow....

....urea policing is a pertinent example, and was the first emissions reductions action they got us to do through RT. And farmers have had to carry the cost of it, whilst the large processors and retailers got the free emissions reduction.

 

[slackjawedyokel]

Everything which was going to be wrong with the GFC (in a really dramatic way), is also wrong with RT's core standards. Lots of it is unnecessary claptrap, we have to pay to join, we have to pay to do the things they tell us, they won't let us sell our produce unless we're in RT, and then they add in any new rules they're wanting us to follow....

The other thing that’s profoundly wrong with RT is that it’s forgotten its core founding principle of ensuring premiums for RT produce:

I wonder at what point they ‘forgot’ about that principle? Was it started with the best of intentions all round or did they view it from the start as a way for regulatory bodies to get what they wanted without the hassle of bringing it into law, while the retailers could get high quality ‘added value’ products for zero premium?

 

[Barleymow]

that very quickly was ditched

 

[L P]

The other thing that’s profoundly wrong with RT is that it’s forgotten its core founding principle of ensuring premiums for RT produce:
View attachment 1171741
I wonder at what point they ‘forgot’ about that principle? Was it started with the best of intentions all round or did they view it from the start as a way for regulatory bodies to get what they wanted without the hassle of bringing it into law, while the retailers could get high quality ‘added value’ products for zero premium?

They probably take the view that, by blocking the open market RT assurance creates the premium over feed and we are very lucky to have RT as an outlet....

 

[slackjawedyokel]

that very quickly was ditched

That was the basis on which RT was sold to us. As such isn’t it a case of false advertising?

 

[slackjawedyokel]

They probably take the view that, by blocking the open market RT assurance creates the premium over feed and we are very lucky to have RT as an outlet....

Oh Yay!

Instead of selling on the open market as we did before, we have to pay and spend significant amounts of time and money jumping through often pointless hoops in order to be allowed to sell at all. For no premium.

Huzzah!

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

Oh Yay!

Instead of selling on the open market as we did before, we have to pay and spend significant amounts of time and money jumping through often pointless hoops in order to be allowed to sell at all. For no premium.

Huzzah!

That's actually one of the selling points of RT. "It gives you access to markets".

It gives you access to the same markets as imports.

It gives access to the same markets that we had before red tractor was invented.

 

[slackjawedyokel]

That's actually one of the selling points of RT. "It gives you access to markets".

It gives you access to the same markets as imports.

It gives access to the same markets that we had before red tractor was invented.

While making you pay for the privilege (of keeping ‘clever’ people in very well paying jobs).

If there’s no premium to a scheme, there’s no point being a member. It seems to me that RT has been operating as a protection racket (“Pay me and I’ll let you stay in business”) for far too long.

 

[Breckland Boy]

Red tractors aim when introduced was never really about assuring the consumer, it was never about achieving premiums for producers. It was/ is a vehicle to achieve control. Food manufacturers and the retailers know that they can't afford to buy into food production, to buy land , to farm. There is no money in it. But they do want control over it.
It would be nieve to think this will change despite the short term success of withdrawing gfc.

 

[warksfarmer]

red tractor may have backed down over GFC due to pressure but it seems reading what others have posted we have either directly or indirectly paid for it.

One of our next steps must be a serious focus on value for money from rt. They need to provide a quantifiable and worthwhile premium for the hoop jumping we do as members of there scheme.

And we all know this is something that in its current form red tractor will never be able achieve

That will never happen.

It needs to be shut down.

 

[slackjawedyokel]

Red tractors aim when introduced was never really about assuring the consumer, it was never about achieving premiums for producers. It was/ is a vehicle to achieve control. Food manufacturers and the retailers know that they can't afford to buy into food production, to buy land , to farm. There is no money in it. But they do want control over it.
It would be nieve to think this will change despite the short term success of withdrawing gfc.

So why do NFU and AHDB think a monopolistic RT is such a great idea?

Clearly RT needs either massive reform or disbandment, and surely some reform will happen after review 2, but the fact that NFU and AHDB are in charge of the reviews, and also the fact that the same groups as set up RT will be in charge of its reform (including BRC) gives me little hope for real change.

With GFC, the BRC massively over-reached in terms of what it wanted farmers to provide to retailers (for no return). It’s a big setback for BRC/retailers in terms of their 2030 commitments, but this is likely far from the end. Us farmers should be taking this opportunity to try to break the monopoly RT has on the industry before they come back with their next strongarm scheme.