The Red Tractor ACCS referendum

[FarmyStu]

I think why your not seeing what others are trying to tell you is because, you under some false assumptions.
1. You think mills treat RT feed wheat differently to imported wheat.
2. You think that RT wheat and crops are not mixed with imported crops to make feed for animals. That get RT approval to be used by RT animal producers.
3. You think RT creates premiums.
4. You think without RT we all become cowboys that break every rule going.
While those are my guesses, I guess these because from your posts so far that is the impression your giving.


Ok 1
Under current rules mills can buy crops that have been imported and self assure them and mix them with RT assured crops and they are allowed to sell them to RT animal producers. A note here animal producers have no option but to buy RT assured feed, that includes any crops they grow them selves, which will actually be RT assured while feed they buy in can have imported crops blended in or can be entirely made up from imported crops and sold as Assured.
2. Mixing crops in mills, ok the only segregation at mills is crop type, everything else goes in stores and is mixed because under current rules they can self cert any crop they take in, under the the imported crop assurance schemes.
That self cert the only barrier is if imported then it has to be tested (supposedly) I say supposedly as I doubt very much every 30t load is the way ours is tested.
3. Under RT there are no premiums, only assurance schemes that offer premiums are the ones that are run by supermarkets themselves, so the M&S assurance but that’s because they are required if you want to do business with M&S and the farmer will have a contract and part of that contract will require they comply to M&S assurance.
But again even then it’s not a premium for the farmer as much as it’s a cost of doing business.

4. I see that you think RT as making things better and actually creating a premium product through paper pushing and inspections.
This is like saying having a police force means we have no crime, and that without one, everyone will become a criminal.
This has never been the case criminals will be criminals regardless, of if there is a police force or not, and law abiding citizens will not become criminals if the police force disappeared. That is our point, we are saying that even without a policing of us to make sure we have paper work proof of every aspect of the rules RT require, that the majority of farmers are not being criminal when it comes to actual crop safety, we don’t import illegal agrochemicals and are applying to crops which is what imports are tested for and the only thing they are tested for!
Next the very simple rules to avoid in store crop contamination are very simple anyone that has had a single RT inspection will be complying, for ever from a buildings point of view.
That only leaves controlling vermin and bugs, these are a basic and only good management of stores can do, but it’s in the farmers own interest to do if, if they don’t they run the risk of there crop being rejected at the mill if crop contamination is found. So even when we are assured the mills don’t take our word for it they test it per load, which is more than can be said for imported crops that come in in 9000t bulk boat loads.

I'll keep this short as I said I wasn't posting any more. But the post is aimed directly at my perceived "thoughts". I don't think what you accused me of. I know exactly what the rules are and how they are applied. Not because of insider knowledge, but because the standards are there for all to see.

P.S. you might want to look at the standards yourself. Your home grown feed does not have to be assured. In fact you can buy non assured wheat from the farm next door for your animal feed and be within the RT rules.

 

[tullah]

At least Farmerstu continues with his posts giving us more ammunition to show what a fraud RT is.
Lets hope those on RT and the NFU reason things like him.
RT will soon be over and behind us anyway.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

At least Farmerstu continues with his posts giving us more ammunition to show what a fraud RT is.
Lets hope those on RT and the NFU reason things like him.
RT will soon be over and behind us anyway.

I was just going to say something similar, thanks for persevering Farmy Stu, you have been a good devil's advocate.

 

[Breakthru]

At least Farmerstu continues with his posts giving us more ammunition to show what a fraud RT is.
Lets hope those on RT and the NFU reason things like him.
RT will soon be over and behind us anyway.

I admire him taking the position of defending the indefensible. That's why neither Guy or Blenkinsop will get involved. Flogging a dead horse. The one thing about board members is they keep their comments to the board where they are among like minded people. God forbid they would do something democratic like speaking to the plebs. Unfortunately their achilles heel of NFU
resignations and 5 figure insurance losses shows maybe the voices are not just little people making farts in the distance. As stated transparency may even change the archaic way the NFU works. Only ever went to two meetings and saw through it right away.

 

[manhill]

I admire him taking the position of defending the indefensible. That's why neither Guy or Blenkinsop will get involved. Flogging a dead horse. The one thing about board members is they keep their comments to the board where they are among like minded people. God forbid they would do something democratic like speaking to the plebs. Unfortunately their achilles heel of NFU
resignations and 5 figure insurance losses shows maybe the voices are not just little people making farts in the distance. As stated transparency may even change the archaic way the NFU works. Only ever went to two meetings and saw through it right away.

don't knock farts in the distance! A butterfly flapping it's wings in Brazil could tip an unstable weather system into chaos and start typhoons in the China sea!

 

[warksfarmer]

What a load of twaddle that was from that bunch

 

[Clive]

What a load of twaddle that was from that bunch

it was always going to be propaganda hours want it


2 "farmers" - one a velcourt manager (so, not typical) ironically speaking about farm story ( google "Velcourt HSE" if you like irony !!)

the other a "farmer" who was actually a Mcdonalds employee -m google "Mcdonalds / Red Tractor" if you want to see just how much they value the brand!

 

[Doc]

If RT is a requirement of ELMS, you will effectively be paying them to get your subsidy. This is a way of increasing membership and guaranteeing RT survival in one go and saves Defra from getting too involved.

 

[Richard Budd]

Red Tractor seem to be extremely good at dodging the main point that until British Food across the board attracts a premium for being RT assured its taking away from British Agriculture. Now if RT assured food attracted a meaningful premium I doubt this debate would have got off the floor. British food has to be produced to legal standards, and that should be the end of it; until a processor or end customer comes along and requires RT but will in turn give the producer a premium.
Jim Moseley's assertion today that it is the most recognised brand in UK agriculture is false, the Union Jack is the biggest brand logo British Agriculture has and always will have.
The only ray of light I saw today was it doesn't look like DEFRA will allow RT to police ELMs
Otherwise I feel that as Jim Moseley suggested when talking about funding, farmers are becoming less important as we will make up less than 50% of red tractor funding by next year, so we are going to become takers of more and more regulation by RT. Only way to stop it is to destroy it.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

Is there a link to the webinar/ consultation?

 

[traineefarmer]

P.S. you might want to look at the standards yourself. Your home grown feed does not have to be assured. In fact you can buy non assured wheat from the farm next door for your animal feed and be within the RT rules.

Incorrect. I do not have to be Combinable Crops assured to feed home grown cereals to my RT assured cattle, but if I buy in any cereals to top up stocks, that MUST be from an assured source, ie, either a RT farm or AIC recognised assured merchant or mill.

 

[FarmyStu]

Incorrect. I do not have to be Combinable Crops assured to feed home grown cereals to my RT assured cattle, but if I buy in any cereals to top up stocks, that MUST be from an assured source, ie, either a RT farm or AIC recognised assured merchant or mill.

I only know what's in the manual. The beef and lamb manual states that:

"FW.e.1 Recommendation When sourcing cereals, fruit or vegetables from another farm it is recommended that the supplying farm is a member of a farm assurance scheme. "

It's a recommendation, not a rule according to the book. Or are you saying this has changed?

 

[farmerm]

If RT is a requirement of ELMS, you will effectively be paying them to get your subsidy. This is a way of increasing membership and guaranteeing RT survival in one go and saves Defra from getting too involved.

BPS was subsidy. ELMS will by and large not be a subsidy. ELMS will be payment for cost incurred and income foregone in supplying a "public good" The only farm subsidies we will see going forward will be in the form of capital grants.

 

[snipe]

Nfu webinar today on red tractor consultation. I Asked Stuart Roberts (industry director on red tractor board and Nfu deputy president ) would the Nfu hold a vote on an equal to imports scheme run by the AHDB, and if it was found to be in favour by the majority of members would the Nfu back the out come. Answer. l don’t think we need a separate scheme and moved onto next question Very quickly, Every other question got at least a 2 minute response.

 

[DrWazzock]

BPS was subsidy. ELMS will by and large not be a subsidy. ELMS will be payment for cost incurred and income foregone in supplying a "public good" The only farm subsidies we will see going forward will be in the form of capital grants.

I don’t think that’s sunk in with a lot of farmers TBH.

 

[Dave645]

I was just going to say something similar, thanks for persevering Farmy Stu, you have been a good devil's advocate.

That’s interesting as an actual RT animal producer on this thread said he was informed he had to be in RT crops, if he wanted to feed his own oats crops to his animals. Than he could whole crop it and bale in but he could not combine it.

As I am not in the Animal RT I will leave this aspect to those that know. It just seems odd an actual RT inspector told a farmer he could not do something that’s allowed in the rules, or was it just his own combinable crops he had to have RT assured to feed to his own animals? It seems like a RT joke if he is free to buy non assured from anyone he wanted and still feed it to his animals, but not his own.

 

[FarmyStu]

That’s interesting as an actual RT animal producer on this thread said he was informed he had to be in RT crops, if he wanted to feed his own oats crops to his animals. Than he could whole crop it and bale in but he could not combine it.

As I am not in the Animal RT I will leave this aspect to those that know. It just seems odd an actual RT inspector told a farmer he could not do something that’s allowed in the rules, or was it just his own combinable crops he had to have RT assured to feed to his own animals? It seems like a RT joke if he is free to buy non assured from anyone he wanted and still feed it to his animals, but not his own.

If you look back, the person you referred to wasn't in RT, he was in another scheme. RT farmers can feed their own, or others, non assured grain to their RT stock.

You'd only have to look at the actual standards, rather than some of the made up guff written in here, to establish this fact.

 

[Dave645]

If you look back, the person you referred to wasn't in RT, he was in another scheme. RT farmers can feed their own, or others, non assured grain to their RT stock.

You'd only have to look at the actual standards, rather than some of the made up guff written in here, to establish this fact.

The fact that’s true makes RT crops pointless. (The whole point of what we are saying in this thread)
the only reason I am in RT is to sell feed wheat, if RT assured animal users can use non RT crops in their feed why am I required to be RT assured to sell my wheat?

Ok these are them, well the second rule says FW.e bought in feed should be assured?

The next rule your quoting is classed as a recommendation, at a guess, it is a get out of jail for a producer that breaks rule FW.e they would only under very bad circumstances stop livestock being sold under a RT passport most likely if medication rules were broken.
I think you will find that FW.e 1 a so called recommendation is just a loop hole in the rules for anyone found to have broken the rules when you put it in full context when it follows rule FW.e and not doing FW.e 1 will lead to a non conformity when your having a RT inspection. Because your breaching rule FW,e and the recommendation of FW.e 1 which can lead to a suspension.
RT actually are basically hinting that assurance on feed wheat, barley, and oats from the uk are perfectly fine to use and RT assurance is virtually pointless.

My guess RT already know that any crop produced in the uk is perfectly fine if it’s RT or not, but they want all us arable farmers to pay to be in there assurance scam.
What it didn’t say is if the farmer needs to be in RT cereals to use there own cereals as feed, which is what I read and said.
The whole point of RT is to secure the food chain, I will note FEMAS is one assured source, and it can be assured by the importer via a simple chemical test, so this is why we cereals growers say RT is an OTT joke.
When quoting rules alway quote in context.

 

[Grass And Grain]

The whole point of RT is to secure the food chain, I will note FEMAS is one assured source, and it can be assured by the importer via a simple chemical test, so this is why we cereals growers say RT is an OTT joke.
When quoting rules alway quote in context.

Well put.

And at the moment, the importer doesn't even need to do a lab test. Just make a declaration that it's grown using pesticides licensed in the EU, and not over max dose rates etc.

 

[Grass And Grain]

Some reasoning as to why UK farmer declared cereal assurance might work....

Firstly, it would give choice to the marketplace. If millers or maltsters wanted to continue purchasing RT for their brand, then they could. Equally, if they thought a farmer declaration scheme was OK, then they could choose to accept that as a reasonable standard for what they purchase. It would, after all, give a similar or better level of assurance to the imports that many of the users currently use.

Farmers could continue to be RT assured if they so wished, therefore not creating any risk for their businesses. After a year or two, the farmer would get to know if their customers still required RT, or would be quite happy to accept the famer declaration. Most users do, of course, currently accept the AIC imported standards. If Weetabix want to stick to RT assured, then they can. Competition in the assurance sector wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. It would be up to RT to work harder to create a brand that provided a premium for their farmer members. That's something which many farmers have suggested that RT has failed to do. RT would have the opportunity to prove themselves in this respect, and to retain farmer members if they are able to achieve this. That could be an opportunity for the premium end of the market.

It would, though, need to be nimble enough to cope with the smaller lot sizes that a UK farmer might sell - potentially a 10 tonne trailer load. The AIC imported standards revolve around sampling and testing large shipments for pesticides, mycotoxins, heavy metals etc. which is obviously prohibitively expensive at a UK farm level. That's a scientific and quantitative method of determining safe food, but does of course rely on good sampling methods. Let's say when a boat is sampled they take 800 samples (1 for each lorry load on the boat). If those samples are blended together and the pesticide residues tested, that dilutes the samples that might have passed with the samples that might have failed. So, unless each lorry load leaving the boat is tested, quantitative testing is of limited food safety assurance. Indeed, testing is inherently difficult to achieve meaningful assurance.

Up until this time, AIC have also accepted a simple declaration from the shipper that the shipment was grown with only pesticides registered in the UK, and to our maximum dose rates etc. as a perfectly acceptable method of ensuring food safety which AIC have been happy with. After our discussion with AIC, they have now said they intend to remove this method as being acceptable, and will in future probably only accept shipments which have gone through the quantitative testing procedure. AIC have, however, been perfectly happy with this method for the past 15 years. Whole combinable crops have entered the UK feed/food chain using this method, and in fact the only criteria the imported goods NEED to meet is that they are safe.

If you look at how RT assures feed/food safety of combinables, there is no such pesticide residue testing. And that's reasonable, as we are only using UK licensed pesticides, our sprayers are tested and operators trained. RT essentially uses a risk and procedural based approach to ensure quantitative food safety parameters would likely be met. So any simplified farmer declaration scheme working to the same principals should be just as acceptable by AIC and our customers. AIC are concerned about upholding food/feed safety standards. That's fine, and they are obviously happy with their import standards and RT standards, so a farmer declaration is not totally dissimilar to providing assurance.

RT inspect that certain things have been done and recorded by the farmer. e.g. recorded that the grain trailer and grain bucket were washed prior to use, or grain store cleaned, or machinery maintained, or rat bait stations filled up. But all the inspector does is check the farmer has written it down. So in effect, the farmer has self-declared that he has in fact cleaned the grain trailer etc. And of course, there are no such checks whatsoever with the imported. It therefore makes perfect sense that it should be possible for AIC to accept a scheme which is a self-certified declaration by the farmer. RT and AIC, do already accept self-certified aspects of RT. e.g. that the crop was grown on land that satisfies the Renewable Energy Directive, or the farmer filled in mycotoxin risk assessment correctly.

It follows, therefor, that all we really need is a tick box declaration on the passport, to confirm something along the lines of - only UK approved pesticides applied by NPTC trained operator with NSTC tested sprayer, mycotoxin risk assessment completed, grain drying, handling and storage HACCP principles followed. That's most of it to declare grains are safe and equals or goes beyond the AIC imported standards, albeit using a procedural and risk based approach vs the lab testing or pesticide use declaration of the shipment for imported. Furthermore, that UK simplified assurance declaration would be for each and every load produced, compared to the shipment sampling and testing which is inherently difficult to get any meaningful assurance of food safety.

And of course our purchasers are TASCC or UFAS accredited. Our TASCC grain buyers know our farms, they visit our grain stores for samples, they analyse the samples, they see our grain stores several times a year. Sales direct to a UFAS mill, or through a TASCC merchant, does, in itself, provide a level of assurance that is constant throughout the year (vs the RT inspectors annual visit).

It would open up markets for non-assured farmers - certainly into feed and oilseed markets. That's something AHDB should strive to achieve for their levy payers. There's also a lot of mixed farmers who home mill most of their crop, but maybe have a couple of loads left each year to sell. It would be a sensible way for them to get a simplified level of assurance, open UFAS feed mill doors for them, and that would increase the overall tonnage of assured UK produced grain - this would be in line with AIC's goals to ensure feed safety.

The whole concept seems to make a lot of sense. The concept could be developed very easily, quickly and for little cost, and should have little or no ongoing costs going forward.

Lastly, it would create that elusive thing UK cereal farmers have long been calling for. A level playing field.