Its a shame really as it could have been something good for the farmers that pay for it rather than a stick to beat them with, if they spent their time and money promoting the brand so end customers actively sort out RT products and would pay a bit more for them rather than concentrating their efforts on ever more finicky rules farmers would be falling over each other to join
The Red Tractor ACCS referendum
- Thread starter Clive
- Start date
- Location
- Yorks
Thank you. I hope it was OK for me to put his details on here? I figured it was, as they are published on the FW website.
I echo what steevo said, it's good of Farmers Weekly to print a balanced article, and thank you for letting us be heard on a mainstream farming media publication. It's much appreciated.
20 years of failure is long enough to have given it a chance - just think how many farmers ££££ its consumed over that period !
they are in a unsustainable position now with clearly almost no support from farmers (their income source!)
things have to change dramatically here
good to see you here Andrew
yes I quite agree
I was just saying its a shame its got so bad that nobody will defend it
It is a shame, and the way i see it , is that its bad leadership, the ones who lead it are just not right for the job.
The big problem these days seems to be lack of proper leaders in all sorts of fields,.
Steevo
Member
- Location
- Gloucestershire
After this comment I opened up the cover of the latest FW currently resting between my keyboard and monitor and peeped at the page 3 "Editorial". The penny dropped - I didn't realise @AM_Arable had moved positions from the Arable pages.
It then seemed fitting that I had only the second before read the post above....
Doesn't seem FW are facing this "big problem".
pass me the whip, I want to self flaggelate. Why do we put up with these clowns that think up these 'standards'?
- Location
- Yorks
It was like a breath of fresh air on this thread wasn't it, when the FW editor (in his first post) engaged in the most positive way with the farmers.Doesn't seem FW are facing this "big problem".
RT and NFU ought to take a publicity lesson from Farmers Weekly on how to work with their customers. 1 minute of work and a couple of sentances from Andrew on this thread, and I immediately warmed to him.
Organisations have got to move with the times.
FW editor moves with the times and engages on sociam media (tff in this case). FW reach larger audience, we all go and read FW articles and buy the mag. FW print Clive's thoughts on RT and even mention tff. Tff and FW share some readers and therefore each grow their readership. Win win.
RT and NFU seem intent to stand on their pedestals, bury their head in the sand, and not modernise or react to a changing landscape. Farmer customers tell them there's no justification for gold plating standards above imported produce which the UK customers (mills) are happy to buy. RT and assurance insustry don't listen and don't change. Farmers leave RT, farmers leave NFU. Lose lose.
Listen, react to your customers and evolve (or wither and die).
I dislike RT, and think it brings nothing to the party for UK arable farmers. However, if it was easy, simple, much less burdensome, cheaper, kess gold plating, only cost me £30, then I think many farmers might actually support it.
It needs radically overhauling. Upload a few docs to a system. Computer system checks we've all uploaded the documents, RT do random document assessment and random farm visits so our grain stores must be clean and tidy 24/7 (not just on the day of pre-arranged inspection). Everyone reasonably happy.
As I said, personally I'd prefer no RT scheme for cereals, but think if we had a 'Produced To UK Standards' scheme for £30, then many farmers might actually support it, mills happy, customers like Weetabix happy, farmers not overly disadvantaged with gold plating.
- Location
- Yorks
My previous post has got me thinking. We have to move forward.
Existing RT is as whole load of nonsense rules and regs. The vast majority of the time, they do a pre-arranged visit. So farmer has got time tolie and make up his records get his records ready, clean rodent dropping up off top of grain store, make up recording if disinfecting grain bucket etc.
Would it be more assuring to the customer to have a £30 scheme where farmer uploads UK legislation records up to a system as he goes along through the season. Random spot checks on grainstore, pesticide store etc. So might expect to be visited every 3-4 years at short notice.
Only need to upload documents like PA1 once only. When it's on the system, that's it. No need for an inspector to look at it each and every year like happens now. That saves time and money.
This way farmer has to be working to the standards constantly. Equals better more truthful assurance to Weetabix. Also equals less gold plating for UK farmer, less unnecessary cost, happier farmer.
Jim and Guy still get their £30/farmer and nice salaries.
Danish Crown (approved bacon supplier to UK supermarkets) has a 36 month farmer inspection interval. No need for RT to gold plate imported competitor standatds.
Existing RT is as whole load of nonsense rules and regs. The vast majority of the time, they do a pre-arranged visit. So farmer has got time to
Would it be more assuring to the customer to have a £30 scheme where farmer uploads UK legislation records up to a system as he goes along through the season. Random spot checks on grainstore, pesticide store etc. So might expect to be visited every 3-4 years at short notice.
Only need to upload documents like PA1 once only. When it's on the system, that's it. No need for an inspector to look at it each and every year like happens now. That saves time and money.
This way farmer has to be working to the standards constantly. Equals better more truthful assurance to Weetabix. Also equals less gold plating for UK farmer, less unnecessary cost, happier farmer.
Jim and Guy still get their £30/farmer and nice salaries.
Danish Crown (approved bacon supplier to UK supermarkets) has a 36 month farmer inspection interval. No need for RT to gold plate imported competitor standatds.
- Location
- Yorks
Am I rigjt in thinking AHDB are co-owners of RT? Can we force change through AHDB. Can we get a referendum for levypayers, if we want AHDB to fund RT or not.
If RT don't change, we force AHDB to pull out. We stop paying NFU membership.
The EU didn't make change when the UK asked for it. Result, UK left the EU. I see a comparison here.
If RT don't change, we force AHDB to pull out. We stop paying NFU membership.
The EU didn't make change when the UK asked for it. Result, UK left the EU. I see a comparison here.
Nfu and ahdb are co-owners. This is where many people get pee'd off, it’s the same faces moving between various position on boards in these 3 organisations.
Steevo
Member
- Location
- Gloucestershire
Paying my tax yesterday got me thinking....
My accountant works out how much I pay. I sign the form. Pay the tax. Many people just fill the form in themselves.
It’s a very trusting process, because HMRC doesn’t have the resources to check EVERY persons records. But if something isn’t right then an inspection may follow. This is a system that deals with many thousands of pounds worth of payments for individuals.
Same is true for HSE, EA, etc. They can go and do inspections themselves is something isn’t right.
In the grand scheme of things, with or without RT farmers are pretty low risk for a lot of things. Sadly though, that is what RT has now morphed into....a scheme that helps the government check up on farmers, and by definition suggests that farmers need checking up on. No trust. No reputation. Not “Our farmers produce the best food in the world and we are proud of them” but instead “Mr Government we’ll help you check up on those pesky farmers”. From our own farming Union no less.
Before Any more standard are added to RT I firmly believe that the NFU should get their house in order based on their “Produced to our standards” imports stance. If the government won’t listen (which they won’t but it gives NFU/RT another body but them to blame) then the default should be UK produce should meet imported standards.
Farmers just want a level playing field. We will produce to whatever standard required provided the rules are the same for all.
Must have been the day for it.........! Will it do any good I wonder!
I have been giving this some thought....
Is it going to be the case that NFUM would say that the Premium remains a constant, but the Bonus discounts is lost if one is not an NFU member? In other words, the "discount", is similiar to their promo schemes of, buy a new truck, and get 10% off?
This would I assume be legal and above board. However, I do need to read the T&C properly.
tullah
Member
- Location
- Linconshire
I disagree with the proposal of short notice inspections. Nobody should have to make themselves available without prior appointment and reasonable notice to let these people in. We all have more important ongoing other commitments.
- Location
- West Midlands
Surely someone or a company is out there that could help us set up a new assurance scheme for combinable crops. Is there enough farmers that would back a new scheme financially? Just thinking out loud.