The Red Tractor ACCS referendum

Would you leave or remain a Red Tractor ACCS member ?

  • Yes, I would resign my Red Tractor (ACCS) membership and join a new "equal to imports" Scheme

    Votes: 566 96.3%
  • No, I would remain in the Red Tractor scheme

    Votes: 22 3.7%

  • Total voters
    588
Stop! Stop! Stop! They might get back with a price

I would be happy for RT to continue and be the premium assurance it pretends to be now.
Who knows some brands may pay a premium.

I have faith that AHDB will come up with a "free to levy payers" scheme for all sectors especially after the horticulture vote.

I would then expect to see no RT left in cereals but perhaps some meat brands would pay.
What you say makes a lot of sense. Let's see what AHDB have to say. I hope they give it serious consideration and see the benefits it would give to their levy payers, and then make it happen. I also hope their involvement in RT doesn't cloud their remit to work for levy payers.
 

FarmyStu

Member
Location
NE Lincs
Well this "new scheme" does seem to be getting some traction. More than I thought it would have anyway. But it does raise a few questions in my mind at least.

If the mills choose not to recognise/not accept grain grown under it, it what can you do about that?

I'm guessing there will be a cost to the mills as they'd have to store "new scheme" grain separately from RT grain? Who will pay for that?

As the "new scheme" rules will be less rigorous than RT, I assume all members would have to accept a lower price per ton/RT producers getting a premium (word it how you like!)

It sounds like the "new scheme" is a self declaration of abiding by the law. What value does the "new scheme" add to a ton of grain compared to a ton of UK grain grown under no scheme at all? Or is everyone who isn't in any other assurance scheme automatically in this one? In which case why do you need a "new scheme" at all?
 

silverfox

Member
Location
Shropshire
Well this "new scheme" does seem to be getting some traction. More than I thought it would have anyway. But it does raise a few questions in my mind at least.

If the mills choose not to recognise/not accept grain grown under it, it what can you do about that?

I'm guessing there will be a cost to the mills as they'd have to store "new scheme" grain separately from RT grain? Who will pay for that?

As the "new scheme" rules will be less rigorous than RT, I assume all members would have to accept a lower price per ton/RT producers getting a premium (word it how you like!)

It sounds like the "new scheme" is a self declaration of abiding by the law. What value does the "new scheme" add to a ton of grain compared to a ton of UK grain grown under no scheme at all? Or is everyone who isn't in any other assurance scheme automatically in this one? In which case why do you need a "new scheme" at all?
With any luck , red tractor will be gone for good .
 

Clive

Staff Member
BASE UK Member
Location
Lichfield
Well this "new scheme" does seem to be getting some traction. More than I thought it would have anyway. But it does raise a few questions in my mind at least.

If the mills choose not to recognise/not accept grain grown under it, it what can you do about that?

I'm guessing there will be a cost to the mills as they'd have to store "new scheme" grain separately from RT grain? Who will pay for that?

As the "new scheme" rules will be less rigorous than RT, I assume all members would have to accept a lower price per ton/RT producers getting a premium (word it how you like!)

It sounds like the "new scheme" is a self declaration of abiding by the law. What value does the "new scheme" add to a ton of grain compared to a ton of UK grain grown under no scheme at all? Or is everyone who isn't in any other assurance scheme automatically in this one? In which case why do you need a "new scheme" at all?

If mills do not accept it you get the CMA in involved and they start getting heavy with them - there are laws that already maybe being broken here and certainly would be if "equal to import" was not accepted


there should be no lower price - price is determined by global markets, RT doesn't currently offer any premium on cereals, if it could do in the future then there would still be a place for it maybe .................... can't see it on cereals myself however

No need for a mill to store separately - RT wheat is mixed with imports that are not RT in both animal and human consumption unless RT could create a genuine premium for higher-level assured cereals (something they have failed to do in 20 yrs now ) the standard would simply disappear on cereals


The question is when imports carry no farm-level assurance at all - what exactly do RT think they will need to inspect (and charge for) on our UK farms to be "equal to imports" ? - at most IMO its should a self-cert desktop exercise at minimal cost ...................... that would still be over and above what is done (and currently accepted) at farm level on imports
 

MrNoo

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Cirencester
Well this "new scheme" does seem to be getting some traction. More than I thought it would have anyway. But it does raise a few questions in my mind at least.

If the mills choose not to recognise/not accept grain grown under it, it what can you do about that?

I'm guessing there will be a cost to the mills as they'd have to store "new scheme" grain separately from RT grain? Who will pay for that?

As the "new scheme" rules will be less rigorous than RT, I assume all members would have to accept a lower price per ton/RT producers getting a premium (word it how you like!)

It sounds like the "new scheme" is a self declaration of abiding by the law. What value does the "new scheme" add to a ton of grain compared to a ton of UK grain grown under no scheme at all? Or is everyone who isn't in any other assurance scheme automatically in this one? In which case why do you need a "new scheme" at all?
I am amazed at your comments, where have you been for the last 128 pages??????
As Clive says they'll be no segregation, why should there be? Imports are mixed with RT.
RT never gives us or gave us any premium what so ever, zero, £0, nadda, if you werent assured you got £5-10 knock per tonne. We should be able to grow feed or Milling wheat and be able to sell it to mills for market price, I cannot even sell milling wheat to a mill if not assured. Why do you have this utterly absurd idea that we should take a "knock" just because we arent in Red Bloody Tractor????
Do you grow crops??? Do you have to put up with Red Tractor dictating your farming???? I suspect not the way you carry on
 

FarmyStu

Member
Location
NE Lincs
If mills do not accept it you get the CMA in involved and they start getting heavy with them - there are laws that already maybe being broken here and certainly would be if "equal to import" was not accepted


there should be no lower price - price is determined by global markets, RT doesn't currently offer any premium on cereals, if it could do in the future then there would still be a place for it maybe .................... can't see it on cereals myself however

No need for a mill to store separately - RT wheat is mixed with imports that are not RT in both animal and human consumption unless RT could create a genuine premium for higher-level assured cereals (something they have failed to do in 20 yrs now ) the standard would simply disappear on cereals


The question is when imports carry no farm-level assurance at all - what exactly do RT think they will need to inspect (and charge for) on our UK farms to be "equal to imports" ? - at most IMO its should a self-cert desktop exercise at minimal cost ...................... that would still be over and above what is done (and currently accepted) at farm level on imports
It seems like you will demand that buyers accept your new scheme, and pay the same for it, with the threat of going to court if they don't. Good luck with that. It's not how buyer/seller relationships work in my experience.

At the minute, buyers can choose to mix RT grain with non RT grain if they choose to. Obviously once mixed, it is no longer RT assured. It's a one way street (unlike livestock). Your "new scheme" grain will start off at "import standard" (I assume?) unless your scheme is slightly higher than no assurance at all?

As above, will you allow farmers to sell grain completely un assured as they can now? If so, will they be paid less for it compared to your "new scheme"? What will be different about your scheme compared to no scheme at all? Why bother with your scheme if there is no premium?
 
It seems like you will demand that buyers accept your new scheme, and pay the same for it, with the threat of going to court if they don't. Good luck with that. It's not how buyer/seller relationships work in my experience.

At the minute, buyers can choose to mix RT grain with non RT grain if they choose to. Obviously once mixed, it is no longer RT assured. It's a one way street (unlike livestock). Your "new scheme" grain will start off at "import standard" (I assume?) unless your scheme is slightly higher than no assurance at all?

As above, will you allow farmers to sell grain completely un assured as they can now? If so, will they be paid less for it compared to your "new scheme"? What will be different about your scheme compared to no scheme at all? Why bother with your scheme if there is no premium?
I think the argument about court is if buyers are acting unlawfully. It may come as a surprise to you but buyers don't really care that much about RT, evidenced by imports not being the same requirements and evidenced by mixing it all together anyway.

I don't think anyone in the practical farming world really feels a scheme is wanted or needed. Buyers would rather buy the right product for the job, at the right bushel weight with the right moisture.

The only reason to bother with a scheme is just confirmation of complying with the law. The Red Tractor brigade made most of the inference that unless something is proven (ie written down) then the you are likely to be breaking a rule, whereas most people just comply with the law anyway
 

Guide your way through spring agronomy decisions

  • 135
  • 0
The incessant and extreme wet conditions are now presenting huge challenges for every farm’s spring agronomy and cropping decisions.

Plans are being urgently reevaluated and rejigged to set priorities for treatment, with a watchful eye on deadlines for timely spring crop establishment when a window allows. And all against a backdrop of potential damage to soil structure to fields from traveling in waterlogged conditions.

1614597288695.png

Lessons learned from last year have proved invaluable, with the latest Syngenta Spring Guide giving an insight into some of the tips and ideas to help with this season’s decisions...
Top