The Red Tractor ACCS referendum

[Drillman]

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?

How do I access this premium by been a RT member?

Ive never had one yet?

is there a claim form or something we have to fill in?

Will RT accept claims backdated to when I joined?

 

[DRC]

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?

You keep missing the point.
Imports are mixed and it’s still being sold as red tractor .
you say your not an inspector, but it’s pretty obvious your involved somewhere in these scams. Maybe a consultant that offers to do all the paperwork for good money, like farm xs.

 

[DRC]

How do I access this premium by been a RT member?

Ive never had one yet?

is there a claim form or something we have to fill in?

Will RT accept claims backdated to when I joined?

That’s an interesting point about back dating claims for a premium. Every felt we’d been mis sold too, like a PPI claim.

 

[Grass And Grain]

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?

Good questions Stu, particularly this bit...

"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?"

Only reason we need some sort of scheme is because the mills and merchants are tied into AIC assurance schemes, otherwise they can't supply RT livestock farms.

So, a scheme needs to satisfy AIC. If AIC don't play ball and agree to a new 'light' scheme, then we would have to set up a competitor scheme to AIC. AIC charge a small fortune to mills, hauliers and merchants for UFAS, FEMAS or TASCC. So shouldn't be too hard to compete with AIC.

We'd have to take on RT and AIC to compete for business. Not impossible. I'd quite enjoy it.

 

[tullah]

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

Your last para....I think if something is written down then you are more likely to be breaking a rule.
Ask those wonderful 4% in favour when and how they fill in the counting insects and mice droppings box. It's laughable.

 

[FarmyStu]

You keep missing the point.
Imports are mixed and it’s still being sold as red tractor .
you say your not an inspector, but it’s pretty obvious your involved somewhere in these scams. Maybe a consultant that offers to do all the paperwork for good money, like farm xs.

Are you stating that RT assured grain is allowed to be mixed with non-assured grain and then sold as RT assured? Are you sure about this? Really sure?

You're right, I do have skin in the game. My father in law "asks" that I complete his fert plans and records etc. I'm paid in tea and biscuits. If he wasn't RT I guess I'd dip out on the tea and biccies.

 

[Drillman]

Are you stating that RT assured grain is allowed to be mixed with non-assured grain and then sold as RT assured? Are you sure about this? Really sure?

Prove it isn’t?

I would happily bet money that even RT wouldn’t answer that one!

 

[FarmyStu]

Prove it isn’t?

I would happily bet money that even RT wouldn’t answer that one!

You obviously can't prove that a pile of wheat claiming to be RT assured is and that someone hasn't mixed it with non RT stuff, or even that non of it is. But I thought it was being suggested that the rules allow RT to be mixed with non RT stuff and then sold on as RT? The rules allow non assured livestock to be magically converted to RT by the miracle of time. But grain/crops cannot.

 

[Drillman]

You obviously can't prove that a pile of wheat claiming to be RT assured is and that someone hasn't mixed it with non RT stuff, or even that non of it is.

Thankyou

the above also demonstrates what a farce RT is.

 

[tullah]

Thankyou

the above also demonstrates what a farce RT is.

Yes, both a farce and a fraud.

 

[SilliamWhale]

Are you stating that RT assured grain is allowed to be mixed with non-assured grain and then sold as RT assured? Are you sure about this? Really sure?

You're right, I do have skin in the game. My father in law "asks" that I complete his fert plans and records etc. I'm paid in tea and biscuits. If he wasn't RT I guess I'd dip out on the tea and biccies.

I think he is saying RT assured grain gets mixed with non assured and then a livestock purchaser is unable to buy RT assured grain. Not much grain is sold on as RT assured because of the levels of what is called "comingling" aka double standards

But what is this talk of premiums you talk of? Where can we get them?

 

[bobk]

Easy way to tell

How much bread in the UK carry's the RT logo .

 

[FarmyStu]

Thankyou

the above also demonstrates what a farce RT is.

That applies to any assurance scheme of anything, ever! Just imagine how pointless a scheme would be that only required self certification via a tick box on a form. Nobody ever checking any of it. Just the word of the producer.........

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

That applies to any assurance scheme of anything, ever! Just imagine how pointless a scheme would be that only required self certification via a tick box on a form. Nobody ever checking any of it. Just the word of the producer.........

No different to what you choose or choose not to tell the red tractor man.

What you and red tractor are assuming is that farmers don't care about what they produce, their effect on the environment or staying within the law.

 

[tullah]

That applies to any assurance scheme of anything, ever! Just imagine how pointless a scheme would be that only required self certification via a tick box on a form. Nobody ever checking any of it. Just the word of the producer.........

You mean like the imports the mills purchase and mix with RT grain which for some reason, unbeknown to man, is ultra special? What a joke, a farce, a waste of everyone's time and above all more seriously a fraud. A fraud that even my RT inspector acknowledges.

 

[FarmyStu]

No different to what you choose or choose not to tell the red tractor man.

What you and red tractor are assuming is that farmers don't care about what they produce, their effect on the environment or staying within the law.

No I'm not. But that's what you're assuming about them, which is why you get so angry. They are an assurance group. Part of assurance is an independent audit. That's the main part of an assurance scheme in any industry. Nobody is assuming you're a liar, or not trusting you or trying to catch you out. But any assurance scheme (worthy of the name) requires audit.

You may claim that RT is too easy to pass and anyone can con their way through the inspection. I think you may well be right. But that invites tighter standards, not lower ones. Basically you don't want inspections. That's fine (although very naïve in this day and age IMO for a food producer) but many of the buyers of your produce along the chain want assurance. That's a statement of fact. So you either give them what they want or they go elsewhere. Supply and demand CANNOT be ignored. You are a seller so you must dance to the buyers tune, whether that be a consumer, a supermarket, a slaughterhouse or a grain mill. I don't see how you can alter that?

 

[Old apprentice]

I would say not many ag firms dance to the tune of farmers when we are purchasing in puts.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

No I'm not. But that's what you're assuming about them, which is why you get so angry. They are an assurance group. Part of assurance is an independent audit. That's the main part of an assurance scheme in any industry. Nobody is assuming you're a liar, or not trusting you or trying to catch you out. But any assurance scheme (worthy of the name) requires audit.

You may claim that RT is too easy to pass and anyone can con their way through the inspection. I think you may well be right. But that invites tighter standards, not lower ones. Basically you don't want inspections. That's fine (although very naïve in this day and age IMO for a food producer) but many of the buyers of your produce along the chain want assurance. That's a statement of fact. So you either give them what they want or they go elsewhere. Supply and demand CANNOT be ignored. You are a seller so you must dance to the buyers tune, whether that be a consumer, a supermarket, a slaughterhouse or a grain mill. I don't see how you can alter that?

Fine, I accept all that except the bit where you say: the buyers want it, at no extra cost to themselves. You must provide it free of charge.

"They go elsewhere" means buying imported with no assurance but more importantly, lower standards than UK produced.

What you are deliberately misunderstanding is that there is no such auditing of farms exporting to the UK but that doesn't seem to matter. It's the lack of premium and double standards that's winding the farmers up.

 

[FarmyStu]

"They go elsewhere" means buying imported with no assurance but more importantly, lower standards than UK produced.

In this case the "they go elsewhere" means they don't buy UK grain produced to your "new scheme" standard, they simply buy from those that produce to RT standard. You can't make them buy your grain. It would be ironic if you're new scheme had the effect of pushing RT grain up in price!! That said, if you're correct that nobody REALLY wants RT, then your new scheme will put them of of business quite quickly. Although if true, wouldn't non assured UK grain be doing that already?

 

[SilliamWhale]

That applies to any assurance scheme of anything, ever! Just imagine how pointless a scheme would be that only required self certification via a tick box on a form. Nobody ever checking any of it. Just the word of the producer.........

Like the AIC scheme for imports you mean? Nothing radically wrong with it is there?

Besides its more than the word of the producer - its the word of the producer adhering to the regulations of his country and the specifications on his buyer. The presumption that everyone is out to lie unless inspected by RT is just ridiculous