The Red Tractor ACCS referendum

[Bury the Trash]

I don't think anybody is asking for UK legislation to be rolled back. I am only asking for RT rules to roll back to be equal to UK legislation and for imported products to meet the same UK legislation.

As a simple example my sprayer should only be tested once every 3 years in line with UK legislation, not annually as presently required by RT. All imported cereals should also be produced using sprayers that are tested at least once every 3 years which would comply with UK legislation.

To me this would be simple and fair. We wouldn't be at a competitive disadvantage with imports or paying for something that doesn't bring a return or exceeds actual legal requirements. If the government thinks sprayers should be tested every year, then change the law. I respect and live under the rule of law. I am not so keen on accepting rules made up by a commercial organisation that has no real mandate.

the sprayer point is a classic, the cost of annual mots just another reason making it less and less viable to be kept on the smaller acreage, ok no problem on bigger outffits and more work for the contractor i guess ......oh hang on a minute ...hmm

Btw. to whom it may concern, ive had my spraying ticket for 30 yrs as well so know whats what as well as the engineering side.

 

[Drillman]

The whole point of RT was a premium

now if RT can come up with solid facts and figures to support there scheme in way of premiums to producers we can then see if it’s worth bothering or not On a cost V gain basis. We seems to be able to find lots of solid evidence that there’s no gain of being in RT

we need facts, something that RT seems very unwilling to provide. Although the fact that the head honcho of RT has been in touch with @Clive says to me there not only reading all these threads but it’s rattling there cages at last. although I suspect there more concerned with there jobs and bonuses than UK ag!

 

[Bury the Trash]

The whole point of RT was a premium

now if RT can come up with solid facts and figures to support there scheme in way of premiums to producers we can then see if it’s worth bothering or not On a cost V gain basis. We seems to be able to find lots of solid evidence that there’s no gain of being in RT

we need facts, something that RT seems very unwilling to provide. Although the fact that the head honcho of RT has been in touch with @Clive says to me there not only reading all these threads but it’s rattling there cages at last. although I suspect there more concerned with there jobs and bonuses than UK ag!

the cost of it would be the premium , instead its collected by the RT company.

To us its a premium cost , on top of normal costs

 

[Bury the Trash]

Or another play on words , An.... insurance premium..... that is for an insurance policy that never never ever gets made a claim against, ......

 

[DrWazzock]

Or another play on words , An.... insurance premium..... that is for an insurance policy that never never ever gets made a claim against, ......

And if it is claimed against its worthless. The customer rejected my load because they said it was 16.9. I tested it three times out the spout when they offloaded here and it was never above 15.0 with my RT assured tested moisture meter. Of course nobody would take any notice of my readings and neither my meter or the end customers meter falls under any legal jurisdiction. So what’s the point of any of us having to have a moisture meter test certificate? A good idea to have it tested now and again but there is no way it should be an RT suspension issue. The control point in the process is intake sampling. End of.

 

[tullah]

the sprayer point is a classic, the cost of annual mots just another reason making it less and less viable to be kept on the smaller acreage, ok no problem on bigger outffits and more work for the contractor i guess ......oh hang on a minute ...hmm

Btw. to whom it may concern, ive had my spraying ticket for 30 yrs as well so know whats what as well as the engineering side.

If small man is forced to give up his sprayer and call contractor in to spray then spraying will undoubtedly be done in unsuitable and unsafe conditions because said contractors are fully stretched. This defeats the object of being able to spray when conditions are right. Small man is already to go any evening or early morning. We've all seen contractors under pressure spraying in a gale. All not conducive and counter productive to the aims of the RT inspectorate. So makes sense to get things in proportion and allow small man to continue spraying without the stringent rules.

 

[Brisel]

If small man is forced to give up his sprayer and call contractor in to spray then spraying will undoubtedly be done in unsuitable and unsafe conditions because said contractors are fully stretched. This defeats the object of being able to spray when conditions are right. Small man is already to go any evening or early morning. We've all seen contractors under pressure spraying in a gale. All not conducive and counter productive to the aims of the RT inspectorate. So makes sense to get things in proportion and allow small man to continue spraying without the stringent rules.

I'm sure that all spraying contractors will love that comment! It's like saying that all truck drivers murder prostitutes...

 

[Brisel]

Or another play on words , An.... insurance premium..... that is for an insurance policy that never never ever gets made a claim against, ......

That assumes that it pays out some times. I can't think of an instance when it has. Can you?

 

[Brisel]

The whole point of RT was a premium

now if RT can come up with solid facts and figures to support there scheme in way of premiums to producers we can then see if it’s worth bothering or not On a cost V gain basis. We seems to be able to find lots of solid evidence that there’s no gain of being in RT

we need facts, something that RT seems very unwilling to provide. Although the fact that the head honcho of RT has been in touch with @Clive says to me there not only reading all these threads but it’s rattling there cages at last. although I suspect there more concerned with there jobs and bonuses than UK ag!

The original point of RT was to improve consumer confidence in UK produce after food scares like BSE, Sudan 1, water injection into chicken (none caused by UK farmers).

 

[7610 super q]

Apparently I've slipped up and missed out on the " premium " given to Red Tractor grain producers over the last few years. Can I claim back dated payments for the last decade ?

 

[tullah]

I'm sure that all spraying contractors will love that comment! It's like saying that all truck drivers murder prostitutes...

Let's say some and not generalise. But broadly speaking contractors with big commitments tend to be forced into spraying when others who are not so pushed would be holding back.

 

[tullah]

The original point of RT was to improve consumer confidence in UK produce after food scares like BSE, Sudan 1, water injection into chicken (none caused by UK farmers).

I still think the original purpose of it had nothing to do with standards. Supermarkets and mills were egged on by the quango to set this up and sort of justify it's existence to gets jobs for its boys and directors. We sold non assured malting barley and milling wheat for several years after the inception of crops assurance with no problem until more and more mills and malsters went along with crops assurance boys.

 

[Drillman]

@Clive i think the cage rattling is working!

last few days I’ve had a barrage of emails about the consultation from various RT and NFU bodies. Inviting me to tell them my thoughts along with a weak half arsed attempt at justifying there position.

there not gonna like what I’m gonna tell them I don’t think!

 

[marcot]

I'm sure that all spraying contractors will love that comment! It's like saying that all truck drivers murder prostitutes...

Hmmmm I suppose there must be one or two who haven't yet bagged themselves a hooker....

 

[MrNoo]

Snap, had an e-mail this afternoon..

It would be very interesting of the 380 or so who have voted so far to know roughly how much tonnage of cerials are produced a year by them, or total area farmed

 

[Clive]

@Clive i think the cage rattling is working!

last few days I’ve had a barrage of emails about the consultation from various RT and NFU bodies. Inviting me to tell them my thoughts along with a weak half arsed attempt at justifying there position.

there not gonna like what I’m gonna tell them I don’t think!

oh its working alright ! I have my moles within both the NFU and RT who keep me up to date !!!

i’ve been told to make sure my life insurance is up to date ! (in jest of course !)

ive been very busy with some conference speaking etc this week so have my reply to Jim Moseley’s email to send yet

I’ve a bit more time now to put into this, i’m
just catching up on the various threads running

i honestly think if we ALL keep up the presure to be listened to we may actually force some changes this time

 

[nick...]

I’ve had 3 emails from them in last couple days too
nick...

 

[Bury the Trash]

If small man is forced to give up his sprayer and call contractor in to spray then spraying will undoubtedly be done in unsuitable and unsafe conditions because said contractors are fully stretched. This defeats the object of being able to spray when conditions are right. Small man is already to go any evening or early morning. We've all seen contractors under pressure spraying in a gale. All not conducive and counter productive to the aims of the RT inspectorate. So makes sense to get things in proportion and allow small man to continue spraying without the stringent rules.

Our Local specialist contract Sprayer man is excellent and wouldnt do a job unless it was as spot on as possible butyes like you say there will be a limit to how much he can do/take on , literally and im not sure that spraying a small area of Fodder beet or the like a time or 2 will appeal to him with the pressure on

 

[Clive]

While I had been busy elsewhere @Chris F asked Red Tractor if they would like to engage / comment with their many farmers members here and this the reply ......... so don't hold your breath !!!...................

From: Press <[email protected]>
Sent: 14 January 2021 13:43
To: Chris Fellows
Subject: RE: Red Tractor Official Comment


Dear Chris



Thank you for your email. Please see below our comment.



A spokesperson for Red Tractor said: ‘The consultation is open to all our members and stakeholders. Farmers have been an intrinsic part of the process in drawing up the proposals we are seeking views on. They are proposals.. The final proposition of the Standards will reflect the views of those in the industry who engage with the process. The consultation is open until the 5th March.’



All the best,



Rebecca









From: Chris Fellows
Sent: 14 January 2021 11:42
To: Press <[email protected]>
Subject: Red Tractor Official Comment


Good Morning,



Do Red Tractor have an official comment on all the threads currently running on The Farming Forum with farmers in uproar about the new consultation?



You will see from this thread - https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/the-red-tractor-accs-referendum.336271/ that over 95% of ACCS farmers would leave the Red Tractor scheme if it was an option.



Will Red Tractor be altering or withdrawing their consultation based on this farmer feedback?



Kind regards,



Chris Fellows

The Farming Forum, Farm Marketplace, Farm Classifieds and Direct Driller Magazine

 

[Clive]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You all see the email address above ?

Why not copy and paste Chris's email and send it them as well ? Can they really ignore you ALL ?

They seem to like sending members emails this week !