Red Tractor sector board passes leadership vote of no confidence

[slackjawedyokel]

At the minute, RT is just making the job of NFU (and AHDB) harder. If the senior management went, NFU could make a good show of reforming RT into something they can at least make a good argument for being beneficial to UK farmers.
With the current ‘team’ in place, that’s a very difficult task because farmers see them as a big part of the problem with what RT has become.

Virtually every NFU and AHDB statement on RT has been couched in terms of ‘RT is a good thing for UKAG and…’. I think that more recently they have been talking about FA being the good thing, which currently means RT because it’s the only kid on the block for most of us.

That COULD change.

Unfortunately I couldn’t get to the NFU meeting on FA the week before last (just too busy a time of year to take the afternoon off). Would’ve liked to have gone to express my opinions.

Like I’ve said- I’m more hopeful about NFU now than previously.

 

[texelburger]

I suppose, looking on the bright side, there is more chance of NFU doing something about the RT situation under it’s current management than previously.
I can’t imagine the previous president would ever have pulled the plug on GFC.
Presumably that has already caused a bit of friction between NFU and any corporate sponsors.

It’s up to the NFU to decide where its allegiances lie. Hopefully it’s with us. I’m sure that if it’s seen to be wholeheartedly behind farmers then their farming membership would increase. I’d rejoin for a start!

I hope the NFU change under the new President, as currently their allegiances are clearly with the corporate members and not the farmers.
The Problem we have is the NFU,AHDB have a vested interest in the RT cosy club so they would like to maintain the status quo.Fortunately the NSA actually represent their farmer members and not the retail sector who seemed to have gained influence on the RT board in recent years .
I ,personally, see no value whatsoever in RT assurance as
- imported ,non assured,non traceable feed and milling wheat foods into the UK and is freely mixed with our assured uk wheat.As a result no RT logo can be applied.
The same could be said of most imported food leaving very little RT logo to be seen on the Supermarket shelves. I ,occasionally, look at our weekly Supermarket shop (Sainsburys) and the ONLY item with a RT logo is Mcains frozen chips !

 

[slackjawedyokel]

I ,personally, see no value whatsoever in RT assurance as
- imported ,non assured,non traceable feed and milling wheat foods into the UK and is freely mixed with our assured uk wheat.As a result no RT logo can be applied.

I agree about the value of RT.

We joined when it was still FABBL with the promise of premium pricing (and when the cost of inspection/compliance was minimal). Unfortunately we then discovered that the premium promise was not true but we couldn’t leave because it had been arranged that there was no market for our main products outside of RT (fat organic cattle and grain). (Could sell our sheep non-RT)

If NFU is serious about RT reform, they need to:

1) Get rid of the RT stranglehold on the market. (So we CAN leave if it’s not working for us).

2) Show us a true premium for RT produce (so we will WANT to be members rather than being FORCED to for zero premium.).

 

[texelburger]

I agree about the value of RT.

We joined when it was still FABBL with the promise of premium pricing (and when the cost of inspection/compliance was minimal). Unfortunately we then discovered that the premium promise was not true but we couldn’t leave because it had been arranged that there was no market for our main products outside of RT (fat organic cattle and grain). (Could sell our sheep non-RT)

If NFU is serious about RT reform, they need to:

1) Get rid of the RT stranglehold on the market. (So we CAN leave if it’s not working for us).

2) Show us a true premium for RT produce (so we will WANT to be members rather than being FORCED to for zero premium.).

Spot on.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

I suppose, looking on the bright side, there is more chance of NFU doing something about the RT situation under it’s current management than previously.

Tom Bradshaw was on the board of AFS as vice president. He voted for the GFC..

I wonder whether the NFU are now dependent on the corporate membership for survival. If that's the case, they can't afford to stick up for farmers anymore.

 

[Rnold]

At the minute, RT is just making the job of NFU (and AHDB) harder. If the senior management went, NFU could make a good show of reforming RT into something they can at least make a good argument for being beneficial to UK farmers.
With the current ‘team’ in place, that’s a very difficult task because farmers see them as a big part of the problem with what RT has become.

Virtually every NFU and AHDB statement on RT has been couched in terms of ‘RT is a good thing for UKAG and…’. I think that more recently they have been talking about FA being the good thing, which currently means RT because it’s the only kid on the block for most of us.

That COULD change.

Unfortunately I couldn’t get to the NFU meeting on FA the week before last (just too busy a time of year to take the afternoon off). Would’ve liked to have gone to express my opinions.

Like I’ve said- I’m more hopeful about NFU now than previously.

I have been to one of the county meetings laid on by the NFU. It was poorly attended but those there did have a good discussion and put forward their views on RT ,corporate sponsorship money and the need to heed the concerns of the farmer membership.

I think that the rising stars within the NFU understand and I too my more hopeful than I was.

 

[Birdlipper]

I hope the NFU change under the new President, as currently their allegiances are clearly with the corporate members and not the farmers.
The Problem we have is the NFU,AHDB have a vested interest in the RT cosy club so they would like to maintain the status quo.Fortunately the NSA actually represent their farmer members and not the retail sector who seemed to have gained influence on the RT board in recent years .
I ,personally, see no value whatsoever in RT assurance as
- imported ,non assured,non traceable feed and milling wheat foods into the UK and is freely mixed with our assured uk wheat.As a result no RT logo can be applied.
The same could be said of most imported food leaving very little RT logo to be seen on the Supermarket shelves. I ,occasionally, look at our weekly Supermarket shop (Sainsburys) and the ONLY item with a RT logo is Mcains frozen chips !

Not massively surprising as Sainsburys stated that while using the assurance scheme, they would not be using the RT logo

 

[Grass And Grain]

I hope the NFU change under the new President, as currently their allegiances are clearly with the corporate members and not the farmers.
The Problem we have is the NFU,AHDB have a vested interest in the RT cosy club so they would like to maintain the status quo.Fortunately the NSA actually represent their farmer members and not the retail sector who seemed to have gained influence on the RT board in recent years .
I ,personally, see no value whatsoever in RT assurance as
- imported ,non assured,non traceable feed and milling wheat foods into the UK and is freely mixed with our assured uk wheat.As a result no RT logo can be applied.
The same could be said of most imported food leaving very little RT logo to be seen on the Supermarket shelves. I ,occasionally, look at our weekly Supermarket shop (Sainsburys) and the ONLY item with a RT logo is Mcains frozen chips !

They'll insist on RT spuds as being essential, but then probably forget about provenance of the sunflower oil.

I agree about the value of RT.

We joined when it was still FABBL with the promise of premium pricing (and when the cost of inspection/compliance was minimal). Unfortunately we then discovered that the premium promise was not true but we couldn’t leave because it had been arranged that there was no market for our main products outside of RT (fat organic cattle and grain). (Could sell our sheep non-RT)

If NFU is serious about RT reform, they need to:

1) Get rid of the RT stranglehold on the market. (So we CAN leave if it’s not working for us).

2) Show us a true premium for RT produce (so we will WANT to be members rather than being FORCED to for zero premium.).

I agree with the two points above. Question is, how do we do that?

Could NFU force retailers to accept a more standard baseline product e.g. local authority inspected. Then tell the retailers to offer a premium price for RT. There would then be a balance between price premium and hassle factor of being RT assured.

Price premium is high enough and retailers got loads of RT produce. Premium too low and they get hardly any RT produce.

Supermarkets won't want to do the above, because NFU have given them plentiful supplies of RT for free.

Maybe now's the time to get tougher. Let's see them put their money where their mouths are.

I have been to one of the county meetings laid on by the NFU. It was poorly attended but those there did have a good discussion and put forward their views on RT ,corporate sponsorship money and the need to heed the concerns of the farmer membership.

I think that the rising stars within the NFU understand and I too my more hopeful than I was.

What was the general feeling do you think?

Not massively surprising as Sainsburys stated that while using the assurance scheme, they would not be using the RT logo

They have to pay to use the logo, so it sort of disincentives use of the logo, then consumers don't see it, so no chance of a price premium.

 

[teslacoils]

They have to pay to use the logo, so it sort of disincentives use of the logo, then consumers don't see it, so no chance of a price premium.

I mean....they could obligate purchasers to use the logo ...it would be free brand awareness. Why make them pay to use it?

 

[slackjawedyokel]

I mean....they could obligate purchasers to use the logo ...it would be free brand awareness. Why make them pay to use it?

Also, if retailers didn’t pay to use the logo, there would be no need to have retailers representatives having any say in the running of RT.

 

[Rnold]

They'll insist on RT spuds as being essential, but then probably forget about provenance of the sunflower oil.


I agree with the two points above. Question is, how do we do that?

Could NFU force retailers to accept a more standard baseline product e.g. local authority inspected. Then tell the retailers to offer a premium price for RT. There would then be a balance between price premium and hassle factor of being RT assured.

Price premium is high enough and retailers got loads of RT produce. Premium too low and they get hardly any RT produce.

Supermarkets won't want to do the above, because NFU have given them plentiful supplies of RT for free.

Maybe now's the time to get tougher. Let's see them put their money where their mouths are.


What was the general feeling do you think?


They have to pay to use the logo, so it sort of disincentives use of the logo, then consumers don't see it, so no chance of a price premium.

Its the general feeling outside the room that bothers me. As I said it was poorly attended and having spoken to other farmers since the meeting ,a lot are failing to get the importance of this opportunity to make change. Too much focus on how an inspection is carried out. Only one or two in the room had done the NFU survey.

There seems to be too much focus on standards as they are and removing the standards that aggravate us most instead of striping the scheme right back to a base level and forcing the end user to stump up a premium for any requirements they may have. I don't think we will ever have a situation where we have no scheme.
The old argument came up about each mill will have its own set of standards and it will be chaos if we cut back RT standards. I personally think this is mistake. I think they will have to work together to create a set of uniform standards for a particular product like bread wheat and pay a premium for this service from the farmer. A farmer would have the ability to choose to meet the standards or not. A miller is not going to want to exclude their business from purchasing in the market place because they have higher or different standards to other mills in the same market.

If the mills set themselves these high standards then morally it should make it harder for them to justify substandard imports taking the place of a product of a standard they say is an essential requirement to meet there customers demands. This is different to the current situation where we provide them with a marketplace full of high standard produce as the norm that they take for granted for no extra premium.

Import standards, traceability, testing of imports , use of chemistry no longer deemed acceptable here and making the inspections less stressful were all discussed.

 

[ajd132]

Its the general feeling outside the room that bothers me. As I said it was poorly attended and having spoken to other farmers since the meeting ,a lot are failing to get the importance of this opportunity to make change. Too much focus on how an inspection is carried out. Only one or two in the room had done the NFU survey.

There seems to be too much focus on standards as they are and removing the standards that aggravate us most instead of striping the scheme right back to a base level and forcing the end user to stump up a premium for any requirements they may have. I don't think we will ever have a situation where we have no scheme.
The old argument came up about each mill will have its own set of standards and it will be chaos if we cut back RT standards. I personally think this is mistake. I think they will have to work together to create a set of uniform standards for a particular product like bread wheat and pay a premium for this service from the farmer. A farmer would have the ability to choose to meet the standards or not. A miller is not going to want to exclude their business from purchasing in the market place because they have higher or different standards to other mills in the same market.

If the mills set themselves these high standards then morally it should make it harder for them to justify substandard imports taking the place of a product of a standard they say is an essential requirement to meet there customers demands. This is different to the current situation where we provide them with a marketplace full of high standard produce as the norm that they take for granted for no extra premium.

Import standards, traceability, testing of imports , use of chemistry no longer deemed acceptable here and making the inspections less stressful were all discussed.

The ‘multitude of audits’ argument is utter nonsense and just a poor attempt at self justification.
I welcome multiple audits. This will then drive a premium. If the burden is too much for the ££/hassle then no one will do it. This is how you drive value out of the market to the farm gate. A monopoly assurance scheme is a cast iron guarantee that there will never be a premium, GFC was another attempt at this on a much more valuable scale. I wish more farmers would wake up.

 

[Drillman]

The message we need to get across to these people is simple, No Premium No Audit.

And the premium must be financially quantifiable and be more than the audit costs.

red tractor in its current format is unable to deliver a premium and therefore unable to deliver a benefit in any way shape or form to primary producers.

 

[Grass And Grain]

The ‘multitude of audits’ argument is utter nonsense and just a poor attempt at self justification.
I welcome multiple audits. This will then drive a premium. If the burden is too much for the ££/hassle then no one will do it. This is how you drive value out of the market to the farm gate. A monopoly assurance scheme is a cast iron guarantee that there will never be a premium, GFC was another attempt at this on a much more valuable scale. I wish more farmers would wake up.

Somehow I think we need to get them to accept different standards/schemes. Some sort of basic standard which you might judge to be similar to imports, to put us on a similar footing.

^^they should accept this standard, and then if they want RT or any other premium scheme they'll have to offer a sufficiently attractive payment.

Problem is at moment they're getting all the RT grain they want from us, so they won't want to change anything.

From grain store/merchant perspective AJD, how comfortable would a storage business be with having different assurance standards floating about? Problematic? Storage segregation? Awkward to shift grain between destinations? Or opportunity to get premiums for premium assurance schemes.

I can see why some merchants don't want multiple standards, but equally it's not right if the whole industry colludes to ensure there's only a single choice of commercial assurance scheme.

Plus if vast majority of mills are buying non-assured imports, then we should be able to supply something of similar standard. Time we stood up to the mills, 'cos at moment they're getting RT provenance for world price. And that's true, our grain prices track world prices, so RT definitely provides no premium.

 

[Grass And Grain]

Somehow I think we need to get them to accept different standards/schemes. Some sort of basic standard which you might judge to be similar to imports, to put us on a similar footing.

^^they should accept this standard, and then if they want RT or any other premium scheme they'll have to offer a sufficiently attractive payment.

Problem is at moment they're getting all the RT grain they want from us, so they won't want to change anything.

From grain store/merchant perspective AJD, how comfortable would a storage business be with having different assurance standards floating about? Problematic? Storage segregation? Awkward to shift grain between destinations? Or opportunity to get premiums for premium assurance schemes.

I can see why some merchants don't want multiple standards, but equally it's not right if the whole industry colludes to ensure there's only a single choice of commercial assurance scheme.

Plus if vast majority of mills are buying non-assured imports, then we should be able to supply something of similar standard. Time we stood up to the mills, 'cos at moment they're getting RT provenance for world price. And that's true, our grain prices track world prices, so RT definitely provides no premium.

Conclusion. Mills are laughing at us at the moment. We should be able to supply them a really basic due diligence assurance. Local authority inspections would do it in my mind. It's better than imports and checks pretty much same as RT, although on a wider inspection frequency. Also no charge for the service

I mean we're talking about grain, the imports aren't getting the same checks, and they're accepted by mills/crushers.

We don't need anything other than legal checks. That should be accepted. Then if someone wants RT we should still be able to supply basic grain, and they can offer a premium (but our choice if we supply RT or basic).

 

[Clive]

It would be good to see some concrete evidence of corporate membership and what they are paying, would need to be many many thousands each for the supermarkets etc to have an effect on the finances of the nfu.

such a membership category exists - it’s on the nfu website

also no doubt many professors / retails sponsor their event like AGM etc

……. but in reality i suspect it’s more about the caring that next career move, just look at what Ali Capper earns as a part time none exec board member at the mutual for example

 

[gatepost]

Just got around to reading the FG, I'm with Norman Bagley, Head of Independent meat supplies, consign it to the dustbin of history, I quote New Zealand's Bill Jolley, via the article, 'Third party audit is little more than a money making scam' .

 

[slackjawedyokel]

Just got around to reading the FG, I'm with Norman Bagley, Head of Independent meat supplies, consign it to the dustbin of history, I quote New Zealand's Bill Jolley, via the article, 'Third party audit is little more than a money making scam' .

I’ve got no objection to RT existing in principle (same as any other VOLUNTARY scheme farmers may join to get a premium).
The problem is that RT does not exist on its own merit. It exists because it’s in a monopoly position. It can bring in whatever rules it wants within reason and we have the choice to either buckle under or go out of business. GFC was a massive overstep because it wasn’t ‘within reason’- we’d have all said “stuff you” and left en-mass.

To continue to exist, RT has to be voluntary not a monopoly and the premium for RT produce has to be above the costs associated with being an RT member.

Just removing/modifying some of the more onerous rules isn’t going to cut it.

 

[Charles.]

Well done NSA, hopefully BRC members won't be giving you backhanders to change sides. For the time being, NFU and AHDB are in cahoots with BRC members.

BRC members, AIC, RT, millers and crushers are happy for us to talk about premiums as nothing will change the gravy train. What they fear is farmers having the legal right to choose how to sell their produce, whether it be farm assured, trade assured, possibly no assurance or sell direct to consumer. The game is up when farmers have choice, RT and AIC money supply will collapse, millers and crushers will ditch UFAS and BRC members won't be able to impose their agendas on farmers for free via farm assured RT.

Minette Batters has said nobody will pay a premium, why pay a premium when farmers are forced into a supposedly voluntary RT scheme and farmers must have choice how to sell their produce before any chance of a premium.

Legal advice has indicated AIC are operating illegally and AIC will know it. Common sense dictates it's illegal for AIC, BRC members, UFAS millers and crushers to reject UK trade assured if that, meat, vegetables,grain etc. yet import trade assured if that food from abroad sometimes illegally produced under UK law.

Once farmers legally have choice to dip in and out of selling their produce I will not be surprised if AIC,BRC members,UFAS millers and crushers and RT lie about the standards of imported produce in an attempt to convince UK farmers it's easier to be RT farm assured rather than trade assured. We already know AIC are lying about meticulous standards of imported grain

because it's 600:1 dilution rate and loopholes where don't even test imported grain.

 

[Charles.]

When we get the choice to sell our meat, vegetables,grain etc. as UK trade assured if that, we must be vigilant the buyer does not illegally discount the price compared to the free market price for UK and from abroad trade assured produce if that, in an attempt by the buyer to pretend they are offering a premium for farm assurance when they are just offering the free market trade assured if that price for farmers who choose to join farm assured RT.