Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
The Red Tractor ACCS referendum
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dave645" data-source="post: 7420821" data-attributes="member: 55822"><p>While as you say he cannot stop you he may also know if you are breaking the rules, and if you want any level of cert even import level, you are limited to what is Registered for use and, at the correct rate, as suggested by its manufacture. That is a minimum on all schemes even imports, the only way around this is testing of the crop to get it certified as safe.</p><p></p><p>So how do you intent to do that without an agronomist simply? Your swopping a simple signature from an agronomist from lots of paper work where you have to prove what you put on and a what rate based on the amount to buy in and what you have in stock. Maybe even force mandatory sample testing.</p><p>Baisically if your in red tractor now, or any scheme, that is a minimum, they ask for spray records to be kept which is no big deal. And you have to use an agronomist. If you stick to what your agronomist has recommended and read the labels on the products to see if the application rates suggested are within the guide lines then your fine.</p><p></p><p>I would go for a agronomist sign off, he has a choice, they either sign off or not, it would be up to them.</p><p>if you change the recommendations or increase the rates and timing of applications you run the risk he will not sign off at harvest time which is likely the best time to do it. As all applications on that crop end</p><p>Just like any scheme you can lie and do what you want but if your actually interested in actually having a scheme that meets uk law and is simple, what’s easier than doing what you need to to get your agronomy signed off on by your agronomist or field Walker, if you chose to go self agronomy then you open the door to having to prove what you did was right and maybe if you fail that, actually having to have your crop tested at harvest.</p><p></p><p>As for, you as a farmer being Responsible that’s true, if you were found to be in beach only you would be at fault, all regulation even those on imports have minimum standards, and chemical applications is top of that list.</p><p>Direct testing on crops or assurance schemes, this is not a flexible requirement.</p><p></p><p>All the agronomist is doing is saying is that he gave you recommendations and likely told you want chemicals to use and in what quantities if he signs he is saying he trusted you to have done what he recommended, and nothing else, if your found in breach of the law and he didn’t put in on the sheets, but you did it on the sly, it comes back to you not him even if he signed off for you, but I bet he would not sign them off for you the next year, as it’s trust your trading just as it should be.</p><p></p><p>everything is trust, all systems rely on it, a scheme where trust is used with minimal paper work, and testing, is what we are after, we still do have to meet the rules of law, proving that in a very simple way is what we are after, for a new assurance scheme, all an assurance scheme is even those needed by importers, need either, trust or direct testing of crops, I would avoid expensive direct testing if at all possible</p><p></p><p>if your happy not being assured then just don’t join any scheme it’s simple. And zero paper work, but you will find it harder to sell crops without even import levels of assurance on your crops.</p><p></p><p>I cannot see a simpler system than getting your agronomy signed off each year, while they are vouching for you they are not liable for your actions, you are and always will be, but it’s not a red tractor inspectors it’s your agronomist who you deal with all the time.</p><p>I will add no system even red tractor operates with any value outside of trust, we are saying that the agronomist is vouching for our work instead of a red tractor inspector. Neither system made anyone but the farmer the last buck stop for blame. And he only has his word outside of paper work and testing. Even then it’s still your word that’s key.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dave645, post: 7420821, member: 55822"] While as you say he cannot stop you he may also know if you are breaking the rules, and if you want any level of cert even import level, you are limited to what is Registered for use and, at the correct rate, as suggested by its manufacture. That is a minimum on all schemes even imports, the only way around this is testing of the crop to get it certified as safe. So how do you intent to do that without an agronomist simply? Your swopping a simple signature from an agronomist from lots of paper work where you have to prove what you put on and a what rate based on the amount to buy in and what you have in stock. Maybe even force mandatory sample testing. Baisically if your in red tractor now, or any scheme, that is a minimum, they ask for spray records to be kept which is no big deal. And you have to use an agronomist. If you stick to what your agronomist has recommended and read the labels on the products to see if the application rates suggested are within the guide lines then your fine. I would go for a agronomist sign off, he has a choice, they either sign off or not, it would be up to them. if you change the recommendations or increase the rates and timing of applications you run the risk he will not sign off at harvest time which is likely the best time to do it. As all applications on that crop end Just like any scheme you can lie and do what you want but if your actually interested in actually having a scheme that meets uk law and is simple, what’s easier than doing what you need to to get your agronomy signed off on by your agronomist or field Walker, if you chose to go self agronomy then you open the door to having to prove what you did was right and maybe if you fail that, actually having to have your crop tested at harvest. As for, you as a farmer being Responsible that’s true, if you were found to be in beach only you would be at fault, all regulation even those on imports have minimum standards, and chemical applications is top of that list. Direct testing on crops or assurance schemes, this is not a flexible requirement. All the agronomist is doing is saying is that he gave you recommendations and likely told you want chemicals to use and in what quantities if he signs he is saying he trusted you to have done what he recommended, and nothing else, if your found in breach of the law and he didn’t put in on the sheets, but you did it on the sly, it comes back to you not him even if he signed off for you, but I bet he would not sign them off for you the next year, as it’s trust your trading just as it should be. everything is trust, all systems rely on it, a scheme where trust is used with minimal paper work, and testing, is what we are after, we still do have to meet the rules of law, proving that in a very simple way is what we are after, for a new assurance scheme, all an assurance scheme is even those needed by importers, need either, trust or direct testing of crops, I would avoid expensive direct testing if at all possible if your happy not being assured then just don’t join any scheme it’s simple. And zero paper work, but you will find it harder to sell crops without even import levels of assurance on your crops. I cannot see a simpler system than getting your agronomy signed off each year, while they are vouching for you they are not liable for your actions, you are and always will be, but it’s not a red tractor inspectors it’s your agronomist who you deal with all the time. I will add no system even red tractor operates with any value outside of trust, we are saying that the agronomist is vouching for our work instead of a red tractor inspector. Neither system made anyone but the farmer the last buck stop for blame. And he only has his word outside of paper work and testing. Even then it’s still your word that’s key. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
The Red Tractor ACCS referendum
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top