Red Tractor Survey

[SilliamWhale]

Is the review not taking responses from other representative organisations? I would expect the TFA and NSA to be responding, just from bodies I'm a member of, and I would expect the BFU to do likewise.

Or you can all just moan on hear that nobody listens to the voice you don't let them hear of course...

Believe me there has been plenty of not listening from the Red Tractor ownership group!

But I absolutely agree that the BFU and its members should be responding and they will be. I do have concerns about the transparency of the review however

 

[RJ1]

It's perfectly fine for the NFU to canvass its members' opinions before formulating its response.

The real problem is that the NFU and only the NFU provides the representatives to Red Tractor boards etc effectively on behalf of ALL farmers. It should have a duty to act on behalf of all farmers in that situation.

 

[Frank-the-Wool]

I have just completed the survey and I must say that it has been logically drawn up.
However it will be interesting to see the results.
I liked the fact that you are able to add large comments, hopefully someone will read these and split them off from the main questions.
An interesting section on regulatory requirements, which I believe is irrelevant in FA as it is a legal and statutory duty on food producers so should be accepted that all farmers comply.

The most important section is the last one as to what your views of the future of FA. My answer was very simple and I suggest that for most of us is the same:-
Farm Assured produce should be at a premium price and not the default level as it is at present. If there is no price benefit then it is pointless.

 

[topground]

The process will be designed to provide outcomes which support the continuation of assurance. NFU are in too deep to their supermarket cartel masters for there to be any other outcome.

 

[neilo]

Sounds like lots of anti-NFU moaning going on, as is usual in the TFF echo chamber, but we have all been given a chance to respond to the review on RT.
I would suggest that the best course of action is to use that chance, rather than moan that the NFU aren’t listening to non-members voices when they formulate the response from their members.

 

[Grass And Grain]

I would suggest BFU should be doing a similar exercise in gathering members' views and TELLING the survey organisers, not waiting to be asked.

One of the next wet day jobs is to email BFU members and invite thoughts/discussion to be collated and submitted to the assurance review.

 

[neilo]

One of the next wet day jobs is to email BFU members and invite thoughts/discussion to be collated and submitted to the assurance review.

Playing devils advocate, will you be accepting thoughts from non-BFU members to formulate that response, as the baying mob seem to be calling for on this thread?

Answer: no, of course you shouldn’t, any more than any other group should.

 

[Raider112]

One of the next wet day jobs is to email BFU members and invite thoughts/discussion to be collated and submitted to the assurance review.

You won't have to wait long then!

 

[Raider112]

I would suggest that the best course of action is to use that chance, rather than moan that the NFU aren’t listening to non-members voices when they formulate the response from their members.

A pity they didn't listen to all the former members.

 

[Jackov Altraids]

Playing devils advocate, will you be accepting thoughts from non-BFU members to formulate that response, as the baying mob seem to be calling for on this thread?

Answer: no, of course you shouldn’t, any more than any other group should.

But as @RJ1 alluded, this is slightly different. The NFU are not neutral. The have a vested interest in AFS and RT.

The NFU have lots hundreds, maybe even thousands of members because they have refused to engage with their membership about RT before. This will obviously mean that the current membership isn't very representative of our industry in this regard.

I just hope and pray this is a genuine attempt by the NFU to re-connect with their grass roots rather than just a ploy to sweep things under the carpet.
I also hope they try to engage with those farmers who aren't members or have left. Their future is limited if they don't.
The BFU certainly want to engage with ALL farmers.

 

[MrNoo]

So you don't want to be an NFU member, but you want to submit your views to the NFU?

No I don’t wish to be a member, I never will be ever again.
Originally the 2nd review was touted as open to all, which is in fact not the case is it? Just a “closed shop review”

 

[spin cycle]

The other thing to mention is they are probably not that interested in the answer anyway. Its about collating the answers and spinning it the right way.

A pity they didn't listen to all the former members.

I actually think the nfu realise what a 'tight spot' they're in (if they don't god help them)

they have to come out with some plausible/sellable outcome otherwise they'll face a further exodus/backlash

only trouble for them is that it seems 'mission impossible '

survey is OK but I don't like the way you have to select two options for questions which means you have to select one 'semi positive' answer in order to continue.....not good

 

[delilah]

In the GFC threads there are countless posts suggesting that a 'premium' for handing your carbon over will, in fact, be a penalty if you don't.

Can someone saying that RT is fine so long as you get a premium, explain in what way this will work differently from GFC.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

Anyone thinking that the NFU puts the interests of farmers ahead of those of the NFU is a bloody fool.

And the same is true of the dead tractor. This £2.5 million advertising campaign is nothing more than an act of self preservation.

 

[Filthyfarmer]

I have just completed the survey and I must say that it has been logically drawn up.
However it will be interesting to see the results.
I liked the fact that you are able to add large comments, hopefully someone will read these and split them off from the main questions.
An interesting section on regulatory requirements, which I believe is irrelevant in FA as it is a legal and statutory duty on food producers so should be accepted that all farmers comply.

The most important section is the last one as to what your views of the future of FA. My answer was very simple and I suggest that for most of us is the same:-
Farm Assured produce should be at a premium price and not the default level as it is at present. If there is no price benefit then it is pointless.

My comments pretty much all the way through the survey were that all that was needed was the legal statutory minimum unless the processors wanted to pay a premium.
Plus that all RT has done over the years has made bigger liars out of a lot farmers with many of the pointless regulations imposed.

 

[Grass And Grain]

The other thing to mention is they are probably not that interested in the answer anyway. Its about collating the answers and spinning it the right way.

Let's hope that's not the case, but the language coming from NFU and AHDB isn't particularly reassuring. Nicholas Saphir in particular seems to already be saying farm assurance is essential.

The process will be designed to provide outcomes which support the continuation of assurance. NFU are in too deep to their supermarket cartel masters for there to be any other outcome.

If I was a betting man, I'd wager the outcome will be a slight paring back of RT rules, but general theme will be... "The importance to have a single assurance brand for the consumer to recognise, and the usefulness of this for farmers as it gives access to all markets. Oh, and by the way, one already exists called Red Tractor, and we happen to own it. And farmers shouldn't have choice of any other assurance scheme because we know what's best for them."

^ Whilst NFU/AHDB own RT, I just can't see them coming out and saying RT needs competition.

Playing devils advocate, will you be accepting thoughts from non-BFU members to formulate that response, as the baying mob seem to be calling for on this thread?

Answer: no, of course you shouldn’t, any more than any other group should.

Hmm, well, I know that was maybe a rhetorical question, but here goes....

Reading through this thread I was pretty much agreeing with you Neil, that the NFU consultation is for NFU members.

Then Jackov Altraids made a good point, alluding that NFU partly own RT, it's mostly NFU people on the RT boards/committees, and whatever NFU decide about RT will affect all farmers. It will affect NFU members, non NFU farmers, Welsh grain farmers, RT members, farmers who aren't RT assured.

So NFU are actually a somewhat unique organisation in this context. If, for example, we were talking about other national representative farming bodies such as CLA, or TFA, who don't own RT and aren't anything like as influential over RT, then I'd say consultation should probably only be with CLA/TFA members.

So it's actually a big question. Should NFU invite thoughts from ALL farmers? I'll let everyone come to their own personal conclusions on that one.

So what about the BFU?

Well I suppose it's not for me to decide. It's for the committee and for the BFU members to decide. Ok, so that's a cop out!

I'd say the BFU should first and foremost consult BFU members. But I'd also think it sensible to keep an open ear to any other thoughts or opinions from the wider farming community.

e.g. BFU members might highlight say 15 good points which we'd like to feed in to the review, but what if we read an opinion/thought in the Farmers Weekly and it's particularly pertinent, but wasn't on our list of 15. In that case, we may like to consider adding point number 16.

 

[Grass And Grain]

I actually think the nfu realise what a 'tight spot' they're in (if they don't god help them)

they have to come out with some plausible/sellable outcome otherwise they'll face a further exodus/backlash

only trouble for them is that it seems 'mission impossible '

survey is OK but I don't like the way you have to select two options for questions which means you have to select one 'semi positive' answer in order to continue.....not good

They are in a tight spot aren't they.

I suspect a big part of our problem is that RT are a monopoly and the retailers through BRC want that monopoly to continue so they can add in any new standards they like. I'm just not sure how we could end this monopoly situation, and although I understand the opinion of why it's good to have a single assurance scheme, I think it might be better to have different options.

We particularly see this with cereals, where NFU and their pals haven't wanted to support UK farmers having the option to sell using Gatekeeper style equivalence (to imports).

I imagine NFU will just want to suggest RT standards are pared back a bit, and they won't want any healthy competition to the Red Tractor assurance scheme which they partly own. This is the true test isn't it. Particularly for grain. If they don't back Gatekeeper lab tests as an OPTION for us, then their assurance review would be a charade.

 

[Laggard]

I am not an NFU member anymore, but being a British Sugar beet grower i have to pay a levy to NFU Sugar for every ton of sugar beet i grow and be Red tractor assured. I will be filling in the survey, NFU member or not. Proud to be a member of BFU.

 

[onesiedale]

Log in

www.nfuonline.com

Just to let those who don't get the NFU emails that there is a survey for NFU members "to help develop and inform the NFU’s response to the independent ‘Farm Assurance Review’ – a comprehensive industry-wide assessment of farm assurance" so the more replies they get, the better. I found it very slow to load, but worked eventually.

for those of us who don't have access, would you mind posting the questionnaire please?

 

[willyorkshire]

for those of us who don't have access, would you mind posting the questionnaire please?

I have access but survey doesn't work. Keeps telling me I've selected other rather than the box I ticked. Same on phone.
Tried last week too, same.