The Red Tractor ACCS referendum

[stroller]

Farmers split on Red Tractor standards proposals - Farmers Weekly

Farmers are fairly evenly split in their approach to the Red Tractor consultation on standards – and the organisation in general – a recent Farmers Weekly

www.fwi.co.uk

Where the f**k did they get that from?

 

[An Gof]

Can’t read the article, behind a pay wall.

 

[stroller]

Don't know why i can read it as i don't subscribe to fw but it says 56% for and 44% against the changes, across facebook twitter and Instagram, they obviously didn't look on here, just when I was thinking about renewing my sub after their recent foray on here they print this.

 

[DrWazzock]

A couple of things that I’ve been thinking about. If the mills really valued the assurance sticker then surely rejected loads wouldn’t exist. To my way of thinking it’s either assured and 100% ok or the sticker means nothing, I don’t think they can have it both ways. It’s obvious that the mills aren’t ever going to give up their right to refuse a load, I don’t think they should, but I’d like to know how you can justify having to be assured and then reject loads because they’re not up to scratch.
Wildly I wonder whether we should insist on higher standards at the mill intake. Quite a bit of imported wheat has high levels of cadmium which appears in bread at levels that are thought to have health implications. Rejecting loads for cadmium would probably increase the value of uk group 1 wheat quite dramatically although it would be good argument for keeping RT but at least we’d be getting our added value.

And this is where a lot of confusion lies with what RT actually means.
It’s not “quality” assurance in the round, it’s only quality assurance from the safety aspect. I’m not sure a lot of consumers understand that.
My neighbours lovely high bushelweight , high protein clean dry wheat fails to qualify for an RT sticker because he hasn’t tested his moisture meter so goes to the rat poison factory, while my drought ravaged pink shrivelled rubbish has an RT sticker because I’ve jumped through all the RT hoops and into the mill it goes.... well sometimes.
To satisfy RT I do a mycotoxin risk assessment. Even if it comes out with a score of 57 i have still satisfied RT! Which is probably why mills take no notice of the sticker.
A real quality mark, that included not only safety requirements by thresholds for bushelweight, screenings, protein level, DON and ZON, would have real commercial value .... but would really make us sweat rather than just being just a costly irritation.

 

[DrWazzock]

That’s the saddest thing about RT. Real quality producers have been excluded because they don’t subscribe to a certain mentality. I know at least one producer of excellent wheat on the wolds who stopped growing because of RT. He spent time on the crop not on stupid bureaucracy. It’s replaced the artisan with the corporate minded bureaucrat and we are all the poorer for at.

 

[Breckland Boy]

I do have enough brains to realise that if you come onto a chat room and mention that chat rooms are chat rooms and they don’t achieve much, then you are not going to make yourself flavour of the month with people in the chat room let alone the owner of the chat room. So to make myself even more unpopular I’d make a few points

1. One complaint I often hear on here is that RT bods or NFU bods don’t come on here. The fact is no ‘bods’ from any organisations come on here to post in their capacity of the office they hold. As one of the bods who used to be a NFU bod and I’m now a RT bod, I can understand why.

2. TFFers and the owner of TFF have been banging on as to how terrible Red Tractor or the NFU is for a number of years now. And yet at the same time admit they think things gets worse.

3. I’m a believer that you can get more done in the tent than outside the tent. I’ve only been in this tent 30 days.

No doubt this post will cause even more bile to be poured down on me but I’ve got quite thick skin and don’t cry myself to sleep at night because someone said something nasty about me on TFF. But I like to think my record shows I do listen to farmers. I actually think some of the points on here are well made and well researched. I’ve been looking at some of the stuff on import standards for sometime now and I continue to do so because it’s quite complex.

I would urge anyone to respond to the current consultation. For what it’s worth my advice is to keep your arguments reasoned and factually correct, don’t get personal and keep your language moderate - that way they are more likely to be listened to.

Thanks

Guy

I'd like to respond to the consultation. Trouble is I can't even answer the first question. There isn't a box that represents my view. I can't move forward because computer says no. Therefore it isn't a consultation. I cannot express my opinion and in frustration I, probably like many others vent that frustration on here.

 

[Grass And Grain]

After reflecting on all the points raised in this thread, I am going to write to the AIC in the next couple of days, hopefully start a constructive dialogue with them, and request that they change their rules so that the UK cereal farmer is not discriminated against in their standards.

I am also going to write to the RT cereals board, and ask them to publish an official policy statement on this issue. I will ask them to back their RT farmer members and request change to the AIC standards.

I will point out to RT that the RT scheme should be working for their farmer members, and must have policies which give the members a marketing and promotional advantage over the competing imported produce. A marketing advantage for UK farmer members was, afterall, the premise under which the scheme started.

I trust that the RT board will form this policy so that their farmer members get a competitive and marketing advantage over their non-UK competitors from being scheme members.

I trust that the RT board will then promote this policy statement to the AIC, their farmer members and the wider farming media through various channels.

I'm doing this because I want to see a UK cereal sector which is not competitively disadvantaged by its own UK assurance industry. I also trust that the NFU will back the campaign to create a level playing field, and will fight for a structure and standards in the UK cereal assurance industry which does not descriminate against the UK farmer in the way that it currently does.

 

[Breakthru]

Rather than go round in circles why does @Clive ask for short concise subjects that TFFrs' would like to put to RT through @Guy Smith and hold a vote on them either on this thread or another. I welcome the fact that I got a reply and like him have no time for abuse. Lets stay Factual and maybe we will be heard at Board level on RT due to TFF. I do believe that Guy is now wondering what kind of poisoned chalice he has picked up. The answer to that is that's what you are paid for however unlike previous occupants, like the Hedge Funds, he is going to have to listen very closely to the disparate individuals who make up Farming.
Too easy in the past to dismiss unwelcome comments as an individual whinge.
Social media in this case TFF has changed all that forever.
Congratulations for Guy putting his head over the parapet to answer your comments now it is time to start on all the others hiding in the shadows.

 

[SilliamWhale]

I can't find the results of the poll on the FW Facebook page. Can anyone?

Furthermore of the 29 comments on the fb page of the recent red tractor article, the comments were overwhelmingly negative.

I haven't looked for their twitter poll but I wonder what it shows?

Remember Red Tractor sacked Lucy Neville Rolfe for voting against the measures for parliament to stop low grade imports. Yet they are happy to allow the situation to what we put as "just a little bit of comingling". Perplexing and not defensible

 

[Clive]

Where the fudge did they get that from?

maybe they should have asked some of the pro RT farmers to contribute to the article i took part in

last week they apparently could find no one

i’ve honestly NEVER met a farmer who likes ACCS or feels it adds value to their business

and i’ve met a lot of farmers

 

[Steevo]

Ripostes

• Farmers only foot half the bill for Red Tractor and it secures access to a far wider range of customers
• Farmers are engaged in setting standards and inspections can be reduced with “earned recognition”
• Commingling with imported grain is inevitable when the UK is less than self-sufficient and supply is so variable

1. I haven’t seen anywhere published facts illustrating farmers pay for half of Red Tractor. Securing access to a “far wider range of consumers” is a joke too. If RT mean Weetabix, Carling etc. then that’s a closed shop for all but a few individuals who deserve to be paid a premium for whatever standard required. If they mean UK mills, that’s because they are forced to buy RT only, by RT/AIC, so actually it’s more like “a far fewer range of markets for those not signing up to the protection racket”.

2. Farmers engaged in setting of standards - a few farmers, on the board, paid to keep the heavy train running. Or do they mean the loaded/biased consultation that is just rubber stamping the will of RT?
Inspections reduced - inspections are actually increased as farmers are guaranteed a visit every year. I pay several thousand pounds of tax a year, and as yet (fingers firmly crossed!) I have not had an inspection in decades. RT has not created this because it is outside the remit. But HSE, EA, etc haven’t visited either. The real reason is that I am low risk, and they (like HMRC) target their funding where is likely to deliver best value. I (and all other farmers) have earned recognition myself, not by having a little sticker!

3. If co-mingling with lower quality produce is inevitable, please explain to me the purpose of RT. I don’t see how diluting champagne with cheap white wine, and selling it at £3.99 a bottle benefits anyone at all. It’s a fine line between this and food fraud, like mixing horse meat with beef.

 

[Clive]

The question / poll asked on here intentionally focuses on ACCS - the most nonsensical aspect of Red Tractor where absolutely no marketing advantage is offered and a where a UK producer is placed at clear competitive disadvantage to import.


That FW article fails to focus and generalises far to much vs the very specific issue being discussed in this thread ... ACCS

 

[Cowski]

That’s the saddest thing about RT. Real quality producers have been excluded because they don’t subscribe to a certain mentality. I know at least one producer of excellent wheat on the wolds who stopped growing because of RT. He spent time on the crop not on stupid bureaucracy. It’s replaced the artisan with the corporate minded bureaucrat and we are all the poorer for at.

Exactly the same with dairy, some of the best herdsmen/women are not great at paperwork but fantastic with cows, get the job done to a much higher standard but wouldn’t keep the RT inspector happy because they don’t tick the boxes.

 

[Chris F]

Are you sure that is the right remuneration for the Chair? Have you the reference to back that up?

It's a total guess. But based on other roles in farming organisations, a full time role would carry this sort of remuneration. @Guy Smith has already said he ears £10k a year for 20 days, so Full time salary (220 days a year) for a more senior position would be £130k plus.

If this surprises you then you really don't want to know what the top jobs in the AHDB get paid.

 

[Steevo]

It's a total guess. But based on other roles in farming organisations, a full time role would carry this sort of remuneration. @Guy Smith has already said he ears £10k a year for 20 days, so Full time salary (220 days a year) for a more senior position would be £130k plus.

If this surprises you then you really don't want to know what the top jobs in the AHDB get paid.

I would put up the "1 million dollars!" meme but I don't want to ruin the serious and important tone of this thread.

 

[Bury the Trash]

I can't find the results of the poll on the FW Facebook page. Can anyone?

no ive searched. but cant find anything.

 

[Worsall]

I have sent an email to Farmers Weekly to substantiate their claim:
"Farmers are fairly evenly split in their approach to the Red Tractor consultation on standards – and the organisation in general – a recent Farmers Weekly poll suggests.
Using our various social media channels, we asked if farmers supported the proposed changes as set out in the consultation launched in early January, which seeks to strengthen standards in some areas, but also to simplify and streamline the regime in others.
Across all three platforms (Facebook, Instagram and Twitter) we found that, out of the 1,527 who took part, 56% said they did support the changes, while 44% said they did not."

Lets see if they respond!

 

[dontknowanything]

Wow, I haven't posted on here in ages.

Red Tractor is a disaster zone, in more ways than one. I just wrote out a thread on Twitter about it, I'm not going to repate it all here, although this is the link to the posts:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1356200019968331776

 

[Chris F]

I have sent an email to Farmers Weekly to substantiate their claim:
"Farmers are fairly evenly split in their approach to the Red Tractor consultation on standards – and the organisation in general – a recent Farmers Weekly poll suggests.
Using our various social media channels, we asked if farmers supported the proposed changes as set out in the consultation launched in early January, which seeks to strengthen standards in some areas, but also to simplify and streamline the regime in others.
Across all three platforms (Facebook, Instagram and Twitter) we found that, out of the 1,527 who took part, 56% said they did support the changes, while 44% said they did not."

Lets see if they respond!

I doubt it was farmers who replied - firstly how would you police that on Instagram and also how was the question phrased. FW have stated they think the question was phrased badly on this thread. I'd be interested to know the question as well.

 

[An Gof]

It's a total guess. But based on other roles in farming organisations, a full time role would carry this sort of remuneration. @Guy Smith has already said he ears £10k a year for 20 days, so Full time salary (220 days a year) for a more senior position would be £130k plus.

If this surprises you then you really don't want to know what the top jobs in the AHDB get paid.

I have a very good handle on payments to people in these organisations
But i believe you are seriously out of touch with the remuneration you stated for the RT Chair. However I am happy to be proved wrong
Just to be clear I am referring to the Chair, not the CEO.