Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
Red Tractor
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jackov Altraids" data-source="post: 7629915" data-attributes="member: 3566"><p>A fair post that is similar to a point which the NFU made when it introduced Red Tractor.</p><p></p><p>[USER=23184]@Grass And Grain[/USER] has given you an excellent response on behalf of the arable side so I will try to respond for Beef & Lamb.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jackov Altraids, post: 7629915, member: 3566"] A fair post that is similar to a point which the NFU made when it introduced Red Tractor. [USER=23184]@Grass And Grain[/USER] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
Red Tractor
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top