Red tractor power of entry

[traineefarmer]

Having seen your pictures on TAW thread I'd guess that you easily pass inspection anyway?
Is there anything you'd do different if not assured? other than paperwork perhaps.
So the only cost is the fee the scheme charges?
Which I suppose could be thousands, which would destroy my argument

This is my argument in favour of FA. It is basically statutory law (spray records, pesticide storage, medicine records, animal welfare, stocking rates and general good practice) + 20% b*ullsh*t (Vet authoured health plans, anal pest control recording which even our fastidious contractor moans about, etc..).

If you are complying with the law of the land, you would probably go through an FA inspection with some easily rectified minor and major non-compliances.

My justification for having been a member for 20+ years is not only the value added to our product (and yes, it more than covers membership fee + costs of compliance) but also the ease that you can dismiss callers from Trading Standards, EA, RPA and the rest by dumping the FA folders in front of them and showing them you have complied with ALL their queries....

...Plus 20%.

 

[roscoe erf]

This is my argument in favour of FA. It is basically statutory law (spray records, pesticide storage, medicine records, animal welfare, stocking rates and general good practice) + 20% b*ullsh*t (Vet authoured health plans, anal pest control recording which even our fastidious contractor moans about, etc..).

If you are complying with the law of the land, you would probably go through an FA inspection with some easily rectified minor and major non-compliances.

My justification for having been a member for 20+ years is not only the value added to our product (and yes, it more than covers membership fee + costs of compliance) but also the ease that you can dismiss callers from Trading Standards, EA, RPA and the rest by dumping the FA folders in front of them and showing them you have complied with ALL their queries....

...Plus 20%.

if you comply with the law of the land why should you pay these thieving scum money for what you are already doing as for added value how's that working out when your all in the same boat getting the same money you know lemmings and farmers have so much in common

 

[traineefarmer]

if you comply with the law of the land why should you pay these thieving scum money for what you are already doing as for added value how's that working out when your all in the same boat getting the same money you know lemmings and farmers have so much in common

Marketing. Also I'd rather be given 28 days to correct a non-conformance error by an FA inspector than be told I will forfeit 25% of my BPS for the same error by the RPA during a check.

This is all about checks and traceability which are prevalent in all other industries, from CE marking on equipment or the certification of a plumber or electrician.

It's modern life, politics and bureaucracy. But it's here to stay. In my opinion the worst thing to happen to FA was RT. By homogenising the standards under one banner, competition was removed and whilst it may have made admin more profitable for the NFU and assurance providers, it removed the tiered system that came before where you had something like entry level FABBL and could bolt-on additional standards to get access to certain buyers.

 

[gone up the hill]

This is my argument in favour of FA. It is basically statutory law (spray records, pesticide storage, medicine records, animal welfare, stocking rates and general good practice) + 20% b*ullsh*t (Vet authoured health plans, anal pest control recording which even our fastidious contractor moans about, etc..).

If you are complying with the law of the land, you would probably go through an FA inspection with some easily rectified minor and major non-compliances.

My justification for having been a member for 20+ years is not only the value added to our product (and yes, it more than covers membership fee + costs of compliance) but also the ease that you can dismiss callers from Trading Standards, EA, RPA and the rest by dumping the FA folders in front of them and showing them you have complied with ALL their queries....

...Plus 20%.

I have never read such bulls**t in a post on TFF until I read the above post.

There is NO premium for farm assured produce/ animals, in fact at most markets NON FA prime animals make as much if not more than FA animals.

Just because you are FA does NOT mean you can tell Trading standards/ RPA etc to sling their hook if they turn up at the farmgate, by all means try that and see what happens... ( and you wont like the outcome )

 

[ollie989898]

And to continue this line of thinking, what were the exact grounds for Sainsburys to withdraw their interest in Red Tractor ?

It's a pile of steaming fudge that provides no tangible benefit for them or their customers?

 

[Tarw Coch]

This is my argument in favour of FA. It is basically statutory law (spray records, pesticide storage, medicine records, animal welfare, stocking rates and general good practice) + 20% b*ullsh*t (Vet authoured health plans, anal pest control recording which even our fastidious contractor moans about, etc..).

If you are complying with the law of the land, you would probably go through an FA inspection with some easily rectified minor and major non-compliances.

My justification for having been a member for 20+ years is not only the value added to our product (and yes, it more than covers membership fee + costs of compliance) but also the ease that you can dismiss callers from Trading Standards, EA, RPA and the rest by dumping the FA folders in front of them and showing them you have complied with ALL their queries....

...Plus 20%.

You certainly won’t dismiss the likes of the EA or animal health by dumpin a bit of farm assurance bumf in front of them, I’ve had inspections off both in the last couple of years and both took longer than a FA inspection and were only concentrating on one specific topic

Yet whilst they found nothing wrong in their specialist areas the FA inspector allways seems to find some minor non conformance to pull me up on such as some leaves blown in front of the dairy door or the fact that I’d mislaid a bill for disposal of waste.........yet he had parked right next to the waste skip and could easily see where it was going. It’s my experience and opinion and that of others I know that they like to find something wrong just to prove they are doing their job but is essentially nit picking at technicalities. I’ve never had that feeling with any of the official inspections, infact quite the opposite as they allways seem keen to give helpful feedback and advice .

 

[JP1]

It's a pile of steaming fudge that provides no tangible benefit for them or their customers?

It was a genuine question. I believe I can recall that they said it didn't have enough teeth and was therefore worthless

 

[kiwi pom]

I have never read such bullpoo in a post on TFF until I read the above post.

There is NO premium for farm assured produce/ animals, in fact at most markets NON FA prime animals make as much if not more than FA animals.

Just because you are FA does NOT mean you can tell Trading standards/ RPA etc to sling their hook if they turn up at the farmgate, by all means try that and see what happens... ( and you wont like the outcome )

Seemed like a reasonable post to me, they claim its a financial benefit to them, which is all that matters.
I suspect the non assured animals magically becoming assured at a compliant finishers, loophole will be closed soon too. Seems like a good idea to me.
I don't imagine it helps that much with other inspections but does show that you have at least passed one before.

I do think RT should be scrapped though if its not working. Just let buyers, processors and supermarkets run their own compliance schemes, which they will have to do if RT disappears. They only use it now as its easier for them.
Why rock the boat if its easy to pass now?

 

[traineefarmer]

I have never read such bullpoo in a post on TFF until I read the above post.

There is NO premium for farm assured produce/ animals, in fact at most markets NON FA prime animals make as much if not more than FA animals.

Just because you are FA does NOT mean you can tell Trading standards/ RPA etc to sling their hook if they turn up at the farmgate, by all means try that and see what happens... ( and you wont like the outcome )

I never said that you can tell other inspecting agencies to "sling their hook", I was more pointing out that you have little to no concerns of falling foul of them if your FA records are in order.

As for the FA premium, I may have worded my post badly. Maybe I should have said non-FA Penalty. Certainly your experience in markets goes against mine selling dead, where you will get at least £1/Kg less for non FA stock if you can even find a taker.

Sugar beet for food use is all FA, non FA I think can still go for industrial use but again demands several £/kg less.

We do not sell any cereals, but a neighbour who is not FA has had a hard time selling his in this area, with his only market being export.

 

[Henarar]

£1/Kg less for non FA stock if you can even find a taker.

What stock are you talking about ?

 

[Tarw Coch]

As for the FA premium, I may have worded my post badly. Maybe I should have said non-FA Penalty. Certainly your experience in markets goes against mine selling dead, where you will get at least £1/Kg less for non FA stock if you can even find a taker.

A few years ago I took some Barrens into market, there was some confusion over farm assured status, computer said no despite the fact we’d passed our inspection fairly recently so a bit of an argument ensued over farm assured status, the auctioneer came by and just laughed, sell them as non assured he said, it doesn’t make any difference, it certainly didn’t seem to.

 

[Grass And Grain]

My justification for having been a member for 20+ years is not only the value added to our product (and yes, it more than covers membership fee + costs of compliance) but also the ease that you can dismiss callers from Trading Standards, EA, RPA and the rest by dumping the FA folders in front of them and showing them you have complied with ALL their queries....

...Plus 20%.

I'm not entirely certain about the added value.

I've seen my FA barley price slide since Christmas, as non-assured maize imports have undercut our feed barley price. The hailed FA premium/rules say that UK produced grain MUST be farm assured to go to an assured feed mill, BUT imported grains don't need to be assured. Hence no premium at all, but in fact a reduction in price AND increased costs associated with being assured.

As you say though, when the government inspector comes knocking, all the paperwork is in place.

 

[4course]

I think what sticks in the claw is that imported grain wether with some form of assurance or not can come in and compete i.e reduce the market price and so we the farmer are penalised , also imported food products. So the farmer does not gain any benefit from assurance plus the schemes are constantly increasing their recquirements thus cost so in effect the farmer is paying for an assured product which creates no benefit to him ,other than the ability to enter a market place that is structured against him,

 

[roscoe erf]

Marketing. Also I'd rather be given 28 days to correct a non-conformance error by an FA inspector than be told I will forfeit 25% of my BPS for the same error by the RPA during a check.

This is all about checks and traceability which are prevalent in all other industries, from CE marking on equipment or the certification of a plumber or electrician.

It's modern life, politics and bureaucracy. But it's here to stay. In my opinion the worst thing to happen to FA was RT. By homogenising the standards under one banner, competition was removed and whilst it may have made admin more profitable for the NFU and assurance providers, it removed the tiered system that came before where you had something like entry level FABBL and could bolt-on additional standards to get access to certain buyers.

going to have to disagree your biggest problem is your not in a big livestock area so your choice of market is poor to start with f.a means f**k all round here with beast making as much if not more thought f.a was supposed to be voluntary just like the krays protection racket don't join at your peril

 

[7610 super q]

How much would RT actually cost you though? I don't think you have stock? so just crops and if I remember right you use a contractor for spraying? So you just need a copy of there paperwork.
Would it be that hard to pass the rest? and it would give you more options when selling.

Costs. That's an interesting one. The only known cost is the inspection itself.
I must spend at least 3 days on pointless paperwork ( chem store record, and another duplicate in the store itself, etc ) How do I value that ? any other industry would charge at least £20 / hour.
The biggest issue is the hassle factor. I've a small shed which passes for long term storage, but it's low, and can only tip grain out of 4 ton trailers. So by October, if the grain isn't sold, I cart it from the temporary store and move it to the other shed, then cart it back again when a wagon is due ( temp store is large enough to load wagons inside in wet weather ). In practice, the last few years, I just sold the grain post harvest... As it happens last season, the price was best post harvest. Normally you'd expect at least £10 / ton less ? You could argue this is a cost ?
TBH, I pass fairly easily. My main bone of contention is what's in store for the future ? MOT's and certificates for fert spreaders and drills have been mentioned. What else is in store ? One new rule requiring a major spend could finish me.

 

[Pieces_of_Eight]

Yes name and address of farm on the email

The ICO would be all over that like flies round sh!t.

And they are not shy about prosecuting, because they have no budget.

https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/ne...in-first-ico-computer-misuse-act-prosecution/

 

[Henarar]

going to have to disagree your biggest problem is your not in a big livestock area so your choice of market is poor to start with f.a means fudge all round here with beast making as much if not more thought f.a was supposed to be voluntary just like the krays protection racket don't join at your peril

FA lambs are about 3p/kg lw more at the collection centre, barren cows 5p/kg dw more where we send them sometimes at market though fa as you say means fa

 

[traineefarmer]

going to have to disagree your biggest problem is your not in a big livestock area so your choice of market is poor to start with f.a means fudge all round here with beast making as much if not more thought f.a was supposed to be voluntary just like the krays protection racket don't join at your peril

You make a very good point. Dead weight is our only realistic option for selling finished stock round here and being surrounded by 1000ac + farms means FA is the norm in this area.

It would be very interesting to see a UK map showing FA uptake across the regions. I expect it would closely mirror average farm size.

My defence of farm assurance is because I genuinely believe it is a good thing for the industry, but it is being badly administered, with huge opportunities to improve the industry being missed in favour of duplicated record keeping.

What we are very conscious of on our farm is that we couldn't remain in business without being members, because the lower prices we know we would get would make it unsustainable. On the other hand if some of the speculation about the directions FA may be going turn out to be true, our costs of membership would outweigh the benefits and it would still spell the end.

Our hope is that we and the rest of the industry can evolve at the same rate to keep up with the changes.

 

[fieldfarmer]

But the fact is the end user at the supper market doesn't seam to worry about red tractor,, just price, what gets me wound up is I sell milled corn to a few guys who want the farm assurance number on the invoice to show at their inspection, and rightly so, but they then buy more loads from non assured growers because they have one sticker.

 

[Tarw Coch]

The ICO would be all over that like flies round sh!t.

And they are not shy about prosecuting, because they have no budget.

https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/ne...in-first-ico-computer-misuse-act-prosecution/

Potentially a big fine then?

No doubt recovered by increasing membership fee.