Red tractor traceability.

[neilo]

Your missing the point here!

we’re paying collectively an awful lot of money to a private company for assurance accreditation yet that very assurance stops as goods leaves the farm gate due to there shoddy practices and attitude.

No, you are paying RT to show that your product is produced to a certain standard (supposedly). It's up to the buyer as to what they do with it after they've bought it, or whether they value the RT assurance when they buy your product.

 

[Drillman]

No, you are paying RT to show that your product is produced to a certain standard (supposedly). It's up to the buyer as to what they do with it after they've bought it, or whether they value the RT assurance when they buy your product.

Well If the buyer can do what the like with it and red tractor has no control over them why are we paying red tractor?

if the assurance status is going to be lost further down the line there is no need to pay red tractor in the first place!

 

[neilo]

Well If the buyer can do what the like with it and red tractor has no control over them why are we paying red tractor?

No, you are paying RT to show that your product is produced to a certain standard (supposedly). It's up to the buyer as to what they do with it after they've bought it, or whether they value the RT assurance when they buy your product.

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Drillman]

Nothing more, nothing less.

if the assurance status is going to be lost further down the line there is no need to pay red tractor in the first place!

 

[graham mc]

tell them one of your customers wants you to test your recall policy and you need to have full traceability of xxxx that will make them hit the panic button

 

[neilo]

RT certify that your stuff is produced to their standards (whether you agree with those standards is a different matter), and the buyers wish to see proof that your stuff is produced to those standards. That's it.

If however, retailers sell something with a little red tractor on it, then it should of course be fully traceable back through the chain.

 

[Farma Parma]

RT certify that your stuff is produced to their standards (whether you agree with those standards is a different matter), and the buyers wish to see proof that your stuff is produced to those standards. That's it.

If however, retailers sell something with a little red tractor on it, then it should of course be fully traceable back through the chain.

That is of course all correct but we are basically held to ransom over this.
Ive said it before 20+ year ago when there was none of this red tape box ticking & extra costs involved the grain leaving my farm was of no lesser quality in any way whatsoever than it is today
but as usual were forced to be in there club like it or not but its us that take the financial hit & thats whats so wrong with it.
the premium for being in this club should be passed on but nope its not & never will be

 

[neilo]

That is of course all correct but we are basically held to ransom over this.
Ive said it before 20+ year ago when there was none of this red tape box ticking & extra costs involved the grain leaving my farm was of no lesser quality in any way whatsoever than it is today
but as usual were forced to be in there club like it or not but its us that take the financial hit & thats whats so wrong with it.
the premium for being in this club should be passed on but nope its not & never will be

I don’t disagree, but that’s entirely different to what the OP appears to be getting his knickers in a not about.

If you want to change or dismantle RT (personally I’d opt for the latter), then concentrate on doing so, not blur the issue with arguments and rants that, quite frankly, don’t stack up.

 

[Farma Parma]

I don’t disagree, but that’s entirely different to what the OP appears to be getting his knickers in a not about.

If you want to change or dismantle RT (personally I’d opt for the latter), then concentrate on doing so, not blur the issue with arguments and rants that, quite frankly, don’t stack up.

Yeah your right there is no point in any of us trying to change what happens once the grain leaves our farm & our backs are covered
at the end of the day were powerless & its tech not ours anymore the second its bought by a 3rd party is it, its up to them what they then do with it.
I do however tell no farming friends that the meat side of the job is or should be better if its got the RT logo on.
No saying other cereal based products isnt but there is so few of them its hardly worth mentioning it
Big ups too Weetabix tho !! which i do buy & its still dearer than all the shops own brands which i cant get away with in any case.

 

[tullah]

No, you are paying RT to show that your product is produced to a certain standard (supposedly). It's up to the buyer as to what they do with it after they've bought it, or whether they value the RT assurance when they buy your product.

The buyer only values RT so he can then phob off his customers with it and so it carry's on down the chain.
It's all make believe rubbish.

 

[tullah]

Well If the buyer can do what the like with it and red tractor has no control over them why are we paying red tractor?

if the assurance status is going to be lost further down the line there is no need to pay red tractor in the first place!

Logical to me.

 

[thorpe]

Farm assurance was never about protecting the interests of the primary producer. Farm assurance is the means by which the supermarket cartel seek to provide a due diligence defence to proceedings under the Food Safety Act 1990 without having to bear the expense of monitoring their supply chain. The costs are born by the primary producer. The horsemeat scandal demonstrated what a nonsense these paper based schemes are, the price was right so the cartel didn’t care until they were caught.

was anybody bought to book over the horse meat scandle or was it brushed under the carpet?

 

[Drillman]

I don’t disagree, but that’s entirely different to what the OP appears to be getting his knickers in a not about.

If you want to change or dismantle RT (personally I’d opt for the latter), then concentrate on doing so, not blur the issue with arguments and rants that, quite frankly, don’t stack up.

That’s the crux of it all, if the red tractor accreditation isn’t enforced or valued or whatever after it leaves the farm there no point in it in the first place.

A complete waste of our time, effort and money.

 

[DrWazzock]

That’s the crux of it all, if the red tractor accreditation isn’t enforced or valued or whatever after it leaves the farm there no point in it in the first place.

A complete waste of our time, effort and money.

That’s right. I agree entirely. Throwing pearls before swine, almost literally. Do the pigs know the barley is RT?

 

[Goweresque]

@neilo is correct, you're missing the point here. The buyer of a RT assured commodity ex farm can do what he likes with it. He doesn't have to use it to create a special product that is marketed as RT if he doesn't want to. Now its quite obvious that the reason many buyers don't use the RT logo on their products is that they are mixing RT raw materials with non-RT ones, and thus the output cannot be marketed as RT, but thats a separate issue - the one of equal access for UK producers with foreign non-RT imports. But demanding that every grain of RT assured wheat ends up in a RT logoed product just can't happen, any more than an organic producer can demand the buyer of his output markets it as organic all the way down the line. Lets say for some reason you buy some organic barley and you use it on your non-organic farm to feed your non-organic cattle. Can the organic barley grower go to the Soil Association and demand they stop you doing this? Of course they can't once the buyer has the product he can use the assurance label if he wants, or not. Its his choice.

The problem is more that RT do not create a premium for their assured outputs, in the way the SA does for organic growers. If being RT assured had a value then the buyers would definitely use it, they'd have paid extra to get it. The fact is it has zero value - the buyers pay no more for RT assured produce than they did for the same products before RT was introduced. So some use the logo, some don't. There's no premium so its an afterthought.

 

[Grass And Grain]

@neilo is correct, you're missing the point here. The buyer of a RT assured commodity ex farm can do what he likes with it. He doesn't have to use it to create a special product that is marketed as RT if he doesn't want to. Now its quite obvious that the reason many buyers don't use the RT logo on their products is that they are mixing RT raw materials with non-RT ones, and thus the output cannot be marketed as RT, but thats a separate issue - the one of equal access for UK producers with foreign non-RT imports. But demanding that every grain of RT assured wheat ends up in a RT logoed product just can't happen, any more than an organic producer can demand the buyer of his output markets it as organic all the way down the line. Lets say for some reason you buy some organic barley and you use it on your non-organic farm to feed your non-organic cattle. Can the organic barley grower go to the Soil Association and demand they stop you doing this? Of course they can't once the buyer has the product he can use the assurance label if he wants, or not. Its his choice.

The problem is more that RT do not create a premium for their assured outputs, in the way the SA does for organic growers. If being RT assured had a value then the buyers would definitely use it, they'd have paid extra to get it. The fact is it has zero value - the buyers pay no more for RT assured produce than they did for the same products before RT was introduced. So some use the logo, some don't. There's no premium so its an afterthought.

I tend to agree with the above, and what @neilo said.

However, I think the OP has mentioned that the processor has to pay to use the RT logo on the packaging. To me this would appear to possibly disincentivise the use of the logo.