Robert Sheasby, CEO at AIC - what world does he live in?

[Chris F]

I have just seen this quote from Mr Sheasby:

“The importance of planning, setting long-term on-farm goals, and ensuring the buy-in of all decision makers to a farming business as well as policy makers is central to the success of the agricultural transition over the next decade. The link between all professional advisers in industry and through the public sector is key to joining up ambitions and delivery, ensuring the UK develops a dynamic, sustainable and competitive farming sector

This is from the same AIC that have refused to meet with farmers about the testing issues around grain.

Thus I guess when he says "buy-in of all decision makers to a farming business" he means everyone in the industry except for farmers. But that will make it a "competitive farming sector.

Maybe, Mr Sheasby, if you want to make statements like that, you shouldn't also refuse to sit in the same room as farmers just because you fear what they might have to say to you.

Or

Does the above statement mean the AIC have changed their position and will now be meeting with farmers or do those farmers have to be the like of NFU vice President Tom Bradshaw, for you to sit in a room with them?

 

[texelburger]

I have just seen this quote from Mr Sheasby:



This is from the same AIC that have refused to meet with farmers about the testing issues around grain.

Thus I guess when he says "buy-in of all decision makers to a farming business" he means everyone in the industry except for farmers. But that will make it a "competitive farming sector.

Maybe, Mr Sheasby, if you want to make statements like that, you shouldn't also refuse to sit in the same room as farmers just because you fear what they might have to say to you.

Or

Does the above statement mean the AIC have changed their position and will now be meeting with farmers or do those farmers have to be the like of NFU vice President Tom Bradshaw, for you to sit in a room with them?

I think he's saying,in code,that all the farming organisations such as AIC,NFU,AHDB,RT should unite more against those pesky farmers to maintain salaries and the status quo.

 

[warksfarmer]

I have just seen this quote from Mr Sheasby:



This is from the same AIC that have refused to meet with farmers about the testing issues around grain.

Thus I guess when he says "buy-in of all decision makers to a farming business" he means everyone in the industry except for farmers. But that will make it a "competitive farming sector.

Maybe, Mr Sheasby, if you want to make statements like that, you shouldn't also refuse to sit in the same room as farmers just because you fear what they might have to say to you.

Or

Does the above statement mean the AIC have changed their position and will now be meeting with farmers or do those farmers have to be the like of NFU vice President Tom Bradshaw, for you to sit in a room with them?

The bloke is corrupt and doesn’t know his head from his arse. Panarama is coming after the bozo.

 

[deleted user 837354]

The AIC, again a pack of suits who do nothing but cost the industry money and for fudge all return.

Look, the acid test for these organisations are these two simple questions:

Do the consumer understand their role, have awareness of them and value their input?

OR

Does the producer understand their role, have awareness of them and value their input?

If it is a sound 'NO' to one or both then why does such an organisation exist? Explain it to me. As a tax payer and consumer, why the fudge I should care about the AIC or ADHB? They don't pass any commercial tests. They don't add value. The existence of bodies that exist by statutory levy or surcharges or the like is clearly anathema within a wider capitalist society. If the powers that be value such organisations, they should be funded by government spending. It is wrong to insist that any body or organisation should exist through levies or moneys siphoned off from producers who don't want their input. If TESCO et al value the AHDB or AIC then fine, let them pay for it.

ALL of these organisations should immediately be forced into funding themselves by voluntary subscriptions should people value their existence. End of story.

 

[Chris F]

I have sent Mr Sheasby, who I have never met, this thread directly on LinkedIn. Will report back on any response I get.

 

[Grass And Grain]

I think that statement was a load of waffle. Still, the last sentence "ensuring the UK develops a dynamic, sustainable and competitive farming sector" is where we have a gripe with AIC.

They insist OUR OWN farmers are farm level assured (extra cost), but not for imported grain.

The gatekeeper system is simply a load of nonsense, made up to make it look like it's assured, so the UK assurance industry (that included RT and AIC) can justify charging farmers and mills for assurance.

No way on this earth is one lab tested GAFTA 124 sampled sample (blended and diluted) for 60,000 tonnes of grain, of any use at all.

They either need to lab test each and every 30t load for the full suit of tests, or agree that it's all a smoke screen and there's nothing wrong with UK grain and we don't need a RT inspector simply checking our records. Our records which are a self-declaration in the first place, and RT just check they exist.

Mark our words. We're not going away.. We've asked politely, slowly, incrementally, and logically for some fairness.

The AIC/NFU grain contract says the grain must be farm assured. AIC are members/owners of SQC, and NFU are owners/guarantors of RT. The very two organisations which benefit from that contract clause.

I think AIC need to let feed mills decide for themselves what assurance status they require of grain. I think AIC need to change that contract clause in the AIC grain contract.

If we don't get what we want, we're going to take market share away from RT - to the point it will be irrelevant in the grain sector.

 

[teslacoils]

No farmers coops should send a representative to the AIC.

 

[Grass And Grain]

No farmers coops should send a representative to the AIC.

I think farmers are now watching with interest. I'm member at BATA / Thompson feeds. Our CEO Andy Richardson is on the AIC board.

So I'd like to know, do BATA support the unlevel playing field where UK farmers must be RT etc assured to sell to a feed mill, when imports don't. Or would BATA like to see AIC let mills decide their own intake standards. At the moment BATA have to abide by the AIC UFAS rules. Wonder what Andy thinks? BATA members are not only livestock farmers, but also cereal or mixed farmers. In this case our CEO has a seat in the AIC boardroom, so can influence decisions.

 

[teslacoils]

Farmer coops, if asked, should tell their members how they voted on AIC matters to see if they are representing their farmer members.

 

[deleted user 837354]

I find it amusing that the AIC clearly state they want a: dynamic, sustainable and competitive farming sector but their sole benefit appears to be in syphoning off money at all levels through assurance schemes which somehow have become mandatory.

The industry would be a whole lot more competitive if it had none of this bilge to contend with. Farmers don't need assurance schemes- assurance schemes need them.

As producers, you are already regulated by trading standards, the HSE, food hygiene laws and environmental laws. You gain nothing from anything else save those few assurance schemes that are created by retailers and for which a very clear premium is offered if you so choose to join them.

 

[Flat 10]

I think it should be remembered that AIC members do largely want to shaft farmers as they maximise their profits. I think he and his predecessors have been very smart at manipulating adhb and Nfu (and the government because how the hell they aren’t a cartel I don’t know. I recommend you all write to your MP and the competition and markets commission) to get what they want. The crime here is with the Nfu and adhb as they don’t act in their members interests. AIC certainly do and it’s not for the benefit of the farmer!!!!

 

[spin cycle]

i must live in a 'different world' cos his quote just looks like 'gobbidly gook' to me

 

[Suffolk Serf]

i must live in a 'different world' cos his quote just looks like 'gobbidly gook' to me

Just corporate rubbish speak. Nothing of note (probably, if I understood what he's on about).

 

[ajd132]

I think it should be remembered that AIC members do largely want to shaft farmers as they maximise their profits. I think he and his predecessors have been very smart at manipulating adhb and Nfu (and the government because how the hell they aren’t a cartel I don’t know. I recommend you all write to your MP and the competition and markets commission) to get what they want. The crime here is with the Nfu and adhb as they don’t act in their members interests. AIC certainly do and it’s not for the benefit of the farmer!!!!

It’s the NFU who are really letting us down

 

[Suffolk Serf]

And I said "ballcocks" not rubbish.

 

[texelburger]

Just corporate rubbish speak. Nothing of note (probably, if I understood what he's on about).

I just love this corporate waffle.My brother has been a CEO of several PLC companies and he would laugh at young execs approaching him with all this corporate,city lingo,bul#sh!t waffle.His reply would be "Say that in Fu##ing english" He said it was a disease of junior execs with egos who thought they had made it.
Dim from RT is guilty of the odd outburst of corporate rubbish speech too.

 

[An Gof]

I have sent Mr Sheasby, who I have never met, this thread directly on LinkedIn. Will report back on any response I get.

perhaps you should have let @warksfarmer edit his post first.

 

[bitwrx]

That really is a terribly worded pair of sentences. I've read it three or four times, and I think I get what he's pushing at, but it's essentially meaningless.

 

[Grass And Grain]

i must live in a 'different world' cos his quote just looks like 'gobbidly gook' to me

Lots of big words, but not certain it meant much.

To me, this bit...

"The link between all professional advisers in industry and through the public sector is key to joining up ambitions and delivery"

...probably meant "let's put ourselves between buyer and seller, make up rules so everyone has to pay, put extra layers of cost onto farmers and mills and fertiliser blenders and haulage firms, and put those professional fees into our bank account so we can pay ourselves a good salary. Let's hook up with other professionals and make up rules so our mates also get lots of wonga. That will work well because our mates will put rules into their schemes which mean we are guaranteed lots of fees from the defenceless feed mills who will have their markets cut off unless they pay to be in a feed mill assurance scheme (oo woops, sorry, didn't mean to say defenceless feed mills; meant to say "our members")

 

[Grass And Grain]

To be fair, Mr Shearsby is doing his job.

It's just that mills and ultimately farmers are paying for someone to sit there to write that sort of stuff.

Maybe we can forget about the past, accept mistakes have been made and bring AIC on-side...

First of all RT have asked AIC if they will allow non-assured UK grain into the feed mills. Most of that feed will end up back at RT livestock farms, so if RT are happy with that, then AIC should be.

RT allow a grower declaration (to say feed is safe, free from contamination etc) for non-assured grain to go from farm to farm. RT wrote the declaration wording, so would AIC please allow that same declaration for UK grain supplying to a feed mill?

Let's face it, imports are used in the feed mills and blended into the final compound feed. Possibly one lab test done on a X,000 tonne boat. And that sample will have been via GAFTA 124 sampling, which blends all the samples together, so really it's a load of rubbish. But AIC have been happy with it.

Our grain is grown to UK legislative standards, which are very high standards.

Let's get over our differences, and consult to agree a way forward.