Red Tractor

Drillman

Member
Mixed Farmer
Are there any alternatives to rt?

Anything in the pipeline?

Can’t be healthy or possibly even legal for one private company to have a monopoly in the farm assurance market?

Nothing wrong with a bit of healthy competition. The only people I can see worrying are the rt management and employees as they had it too easy and have let there business drift along with no real thought or focus.

Be a hell of a shock for them if they actually had to justify there existence and offer farmers something in return for the outlay we make!
 
Not entirely certain about this, but I think you can use Global Gap if you want farm level assurance. Looks easier than RT to me. Just everyone swapping to GG would give RT a bloody nose, and finish them for grain assurance.

Watch this space though, there's work being done for acceptance by AIC and the end users for UK grain to not require RT assurance. Something similar to how imported grain currently (magically) becomes assured. Maybe a few lab tests on a heap of grain, or maybe just a declaration that it has been grown to UK legal standards. The latter would probably give a similar level of assurance that the grain was at least as good as the imported grain, especially as we know it has been grown with ONLY UK approved pesticides (negating need to test for pesticides, like imported might get tested for), pesticides applied by NPTC PA1/2 operator with a NSTS tested sprayer, and grain handled and stored to HACCP protocols. Job done.

No need for RT at all. The millers, bakers and feed mills currently readily accept imported grain with no RT equivalent farm level of assurance.
 

tullah

Member
Location
Linconshire
Are there any alternatives to rt?

Anything in the pipeline?

Can’t be healthy or possibly even legal for one private company to have a monopoly in the farm assurance market?

Nothing wrong with a bit of healthy competition. The only people I can see worrying are the rt management and employees as they had it too easy and have let there business drift along with no real thought or focus.

Be a hell of a shock for them if they actually had to justify there existence and offer farmers something in return for the outlay we make!
More of a shock to them when they go into liquidation.
 
There's at least one assurance scheme I can think of that has negotiated a specific price premium with the processors. It's added to the invoice.

What have RT achieved in this respect? Nothing.

Why haven't they done this?
 

Drillman

Member
Mixed Farmer
There's at least one assurance scheme I can think of that has negotiated a specific price premium with the processors. It's added to the invoice.

What have RT achieved in this respect? Nothing.

Why haven't they done this?
That’s a massive fail for rt. must be very poor management to not realise that in these uncertain times they need to go above and beyond to retain members!

End of the day rt market themselves as a premium scheme, except there’s no premium? I can’t see how they can retain membership once an alternative is in place u less they have a USP!
 
Last edited:

Pigless

Member
Location
Cornwall
Not entirely certain about this, but I think you can use Global Gap if you want farm level assurance. Looks easier than RT to me. Just everyone swapping to GG would give RT a bloody nose, and finish them for grain assurance.

Watch this space though, there's work being done for acceptance by AIC and the end users for UK grain to not require RT assurance. Something similar to how imported grain currently (magically) becomes assured. Maybe a few lab tests on a heap of grain, or maybe just a declaration that it has been grown to UK legal standards. The latter would probably give a similar level of assurance that the grain was at least as good as the imported grain, especially as we know it has been grown with ONLY UK approved pesticides (negating need to test for pesticides, like imported might get tested for), pesticides applied by NPTC PA1/2 operator with a NSTS tested sprayer, and grain handled and stored to HACCP protocols. Job done.

No need for RT at all. The millers, bakers and feed mills currently readily accept imported grain with no RT equivalent farm level of assurance.
I think we need to see a bit of evidence of things changing, a lot of farmers wishing things would change isn't going to make it change.
It's a favourite line of the NFU that change is in the pipeline, but it seems a very long pipe!
I'm not knocking all the work you have put into this, just wishing we could see some progress.
Thank you for the work you have put in so far. We need a TFF new year's Honours list😁
 
I think we need to see a bit of evidence of things changing, a lot of farmers wishing things would change isn't going to make it change.
It's a favourite line of the NFU that change is in the pipeline, but it seems a very long pipe!
I'm not knocking all the work you have put into this, just wishing we could see some progress.
Thank you for the work you have put in so far. We need a TFF new year's Honours list😁
Think we've all been busy on-farm last few weeks. We're sort of waiting for information to come back from the discussions that have been going on.

If we don't get the level playingfield, then I think plan B will come into play.
 
There's at least one assurance scheme I can think of that has negotiated a specific price premium with the processors. It's added to the invoice.

What have RT achieved in this respect? Nothing.

Why haven't they done this?

Because they don't have the skills to do it. 20 years is long enough to prove this
 

Drillman

Member
Mixed Farmer
Because they don't have the skills to do it. 20 years is long enough to prove this
Hmm the more I look at this the more I think we need an alternative

rt just don’t have the ability, skills or knowledge to give a return on our investment in them. They been left behind. Whether that’s due to poor management, complacency or just the belief they can extract money and offer nothing in return ive no idea. could well be all 3.

If we’re to compete on a global stage with world beating standards we need rt to get us a world beating premium to go with it.
They currently have failed spectacularly in that department.

An Alternative would give competition and give rt the chance to up there game. If they don’t they go under simple as that.
 
Hmm the more I look at this the more I think we need an alternative

rt just don’t have the ability, skills or knowledge to give a return on our investment in them. They been left behind. Whether that’s due to poor management, complacency or just the belief they can extract money and offer nothing in return ive no idea. could well be all 3.

If we’re to compete on a global stage with world beating standards we need rt to get us a world beating premium to go with it.
They currently have failed spectacularly in that department.

An Alternative would give competition and give rt the chance to up there game. If they don’t they go under simple as that.

There's only 20 people employed at RT HQ apparently. They rent expensive offices' to ponce about it but they clearly don't have the skills to generate premiums.

Its dodgy as hell. Shoehorning the odd nfu bod into the system for a bit of daily cash may look as if they are doing something constructive but its just utter testicles.
 

Drillman

Member
Mixed Farmer
There's only 20 people employed at RT HQ apparently. They rent expensive offices' to ponce about it but they clearly don't have the skills to generate premiums.

Its dodgy as hell. Shoehorning the odd nfu bod into the system for a bit of daily cash may look as if they are doing something constructive but its just utter testicles.
Poor business model run badly by sounds of it, sooner we’re all out of it and not associated with such a badly run thing the better, Big risk that we will get dragged down with them as times goes on!
 

kiwi pom

Member
Location
canterbury NZ
Hmm the more I look at this the more I think we need an alternative

rt just don’t have the ability, skills or knowledge to give a return on our investment in them. They been left behind. Whether that’s due to poor management, complacency or just the belief they can extract money and offer nothing in return ive no idea. could well be all 3.

If we’re to compete on a global stage with world beating standards we need rt to get us a world beating premium to go with it.
They currently have failed spectacularly in that department.

An Alternative would give competition and give rt the chance to up there game. If they don’t they go under simple as that.

You could have all the schemes you want but you need to get your customers to agree to them otherwise you end up needing them all if you sell onto the open market.
It would work well if you only sold to one buyer though but if you did that you could perhaps negotiate a private contract anyway?
The Dairy boys and girls have to jump through whatever hoops their buyer requires. Arlagarden being one that springs to mind.
Imagine how much of a pain in the arse it would be if all the mills had different standards.
 

Drillman

Member
Mixed Farmer
You could have all the schemes you want but you need to get your customers to agree to them otherwise you end up needing them all if you sell onto the open market.
It would work well if you only sold to one buyer though but if you did that you could perhaps negotiate a private contract anyway?
The Dairy boys and girls have to jump through whatever hoops their buyer requires. Arlagarden being one that springs to mind.
Imagine how much of a pain in the arse it would be if all the mills had different standards.
There is a massive amount more to all this than a farmer like yourself from another country could possibly realise. It’s not a case of wether the customer will accept another scheme or not, it’s more down to various trade bodies skewing the markets. Putting domestic producers at a disadvantage.

If you we’re in the same position we are in trust me you would be making just as much noise about it as we are!
 

spin cycle

Member
Location
north norfolk
There is a massive amount more to all this than a farmer like yourself from another country could possibly realise. It’s not a case of wether the customer will accept another scheme or not, it’s more down to various trade bodies skewing the markets. Putting domestic producers at a disadvantage.

If you we’re in the same position we are in trust me you would be making just as much noise about it as we are!

their time is coming ;) ...decades behind us in terms of red tape but jucinda is out to change that😁
 
You could have all the schemes you want but you need to get your customers to agree to them otherwise you end up needing them all if you sell onto the open market.
It would work well if you only sold to one buyer though but if you did that you could perhaps negotiate a private contract anyway?
The Dairy boys and girls have to jump through whatever hoops their buyer requires. Arlagarden being one that springs to mind.
Imagine how much of a pain in the arse it would be if all the mills had different standards.
Reaonable thought @kiwi pom

Thing is though, these UK mills that require our grain to be RT will also readily purchase grain from Ukraine, Canada, USA, Brazil, etc. and none of that is RT or equivalent. The merchant can buy 1000 lorry loads worth of stickers for £40, then it becomes assured. The shipper has to have done some lab tests on the cargo, but there's no specific list or requirements for these tests, so they could just test moisture and BW if they want to.


Going back to your point, in Scotland they have SQC, RT in England (and Wales I think), equivalent schemes in Ireland. Mills accept them all - as being recognised.

Reason feed mills require RT,SQC etc is because AIC say they've got to, and RT livestock schemes say RT farms can only buy feed from AIC approved mills.

Perfect business model for both RT/SQC and AIC, as basically all cereals farmers need to be RT/SQC and all mills need to be AIC UFAS accredited.

The smell gets worse when you start digging. AIC have members of staff on the RT boards. AIC are part owners of SQC. AIC are on technical committees of Scottish Quality Meats. SQM also specify animal feed must come from an AIC UFAS mill.

Now they do say UFAS mill, or equivalent scheme. However, there are no other mill assurance schemes.

And the hauliers can't move the grain or the feed unless they are TASCC approved. That's in the RT/SQC rules, and in the AIC UFAS rules. Have a guess who owns the TASCC scheme? I'll give you a clue, it has the letters A, I and C in the word.

This leads one to ponder if these schemes are in existence to provide assurance, or simply to provide fees for the assurance providers.

AIC have been repeatedly asked if we can 'assure' UK grain by same method as they allow for imported grain. AIC have repeatedly said 'no', or made up hopeless excuses as to why not.

Draw your own conclusions from those facts.
 

robs1

Member
One of my liveries was talking about Jeremy Clarkson's new farming programme the other day and how it had opened her eyes to the costs and issues andcred tape we face, I mentioned red tractor labels on produce in shops, she had no idea about it couldnt really remember seeing it and had no idea what it meant , she is no dopey hirse woman but her lack of knowledge about rt shows what a sh!t job its doing for all the cash they take off us.
 
Location
Devon
You could have all the schemes you want but you need to get your customers to agree to them otherwise you end up needing them all if you sell onto the open market.
It would work well if you only sold to one buyer though but if you did that you could perhaps negotiate a private contract anyway?
The Dairy boys and girls have to jump through whatever hoops their buyer requires. Arlagarden being one that springs to mind.
Imagine how much of a pain in the arse it would be if all the mills had different standards.

A fair post that is similar to a point which the NFU made when it introduced Red Tractor.

@Grass And Grain has given you an excellent response on behalf of the arable side so I will try to respond for Beef & Lamb.

Red tractor is a failure because it falls between the positions you've highlighted. It isn't a premium scheme, most of the supermarkets do have their own standards which have to be met.
Red tractor could be a low cost self certificated assurance of meeting legal requirements but they refuse that. As with arable, this is because it is controlled by the processors and buyers who have the luxury of demanding things from which they might not see any benefit but know they will not bare the cost.
If there was a proper 'market' in assurance then supermarkets would have to curtail their demands or increase premiums to secure supply. It's cheap when they can insist all produce is to a standard.
It should also be borne in mind that the NFU said the introduction of RT was essential for exports yet Christine Tacon [RT Chairman] said in a meeting this year that the reason for there being no premium for assured Lamb is that there was no requirement for the exports.

The government view RT as their future control of farmers after BPS goes and it will be obvious that we are just paying private companies for an ever increasingly expensive licence to farm.
 

tullah

Member
Location
Linconshire
Reaonable thought @kiwi pom

Thing is though, these UK mills that require our grain to be RT will also readily purchase grain from Ukraine, Canada, USA, Brazil, etc. and none of that is RT or equivalent. The merchant can buy 1000 lorry loads worth of stickers for £40, then it becomes assured. The shipper has to have done some lab tests on the cargo, but there's no specific list or requirements for these tests, so they could just test moisture and BW if they want to.


Going back to your point, in Scotland they have SQC, RT in England (and Wales I think), equivalent schemes in Ireland. Mills accept them all - as being recognised.

Reason feed mills require RT,SQC etc is because AIC say they've got to, and RT livestock schemes say RT farms can only buy feed from AIC approved mills.

Perfect business model for both RT/SQC and AIC, as basically all cereals farmers need to be RT/SQC and all mills need to be AIC UFAS accredited.

The smell gets worse when you start digging. AIC have members of staff on the RT boards. AIC are part owners of SQC. AIC are on technical committees of Scottish Quality Meats. SQM also specify animal feed must come from an AIC UFAS mill.

Now they do say UFAS mill, or equivalent scheme. However, there are no other mill assurance schemes.

And the hauliers can't move the grain or the feed unless they are TASCC approved. That's in the RT/SQC rules, and in the AIC UFAS rules. Have a guess who owns the TASCC scheme? I'll give you a clue, it has the letters A, I and C in the word.

This leads one to ponder if these schemes are in existence to provide assurance, or simply to provide fees for the assurance providers.

AIC have been repeatedly asked if we can 'assure' UK grain by same method as they allow for imported grain. AIC have repeatedly said 'no', or made up hopeless excuses as to why not.

Draw your own conclusions from those facts.
Spot on. They will all get their comeuppance together with the individuals involved with these organisations.
 

LIVE - DEFRA SFI Janet Hughes “ask me anything” 19:00-20:00 20th September (Today)

  • 17,155
  • 128
Hello, I’m Janet Hughes. I’m the Programme Director for the Future Farming and Countryside Programme in Defra – the programme that’s phasing out the Common Agricultural Policy and introducing new schemes and services for farmers.



Today (20 September) between 7pm-8pm, I and some of my colleagues will be answering your questions about our work including the Sustainable Farming Incentive, Farming in Protected Landscapes, and our test and trials.



We’ll try to answer at least 15 of your top voted questions, so please vote on the questions you’d most like me to answer.



You can read more about our Future Farming policy on our blog.



I’ve answered some of your questions previously: you can watch the videos on...
Top