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: 7420907" data-attributes="member: 55822"><p>Ok imports still have standards to meet the primary one is that some chemical applications are restricted, if the imported crop is not assured it has to be tested. (This is not cheap)</p><p>That’s the minimum, I can tell you now, to have your crop tested every year for multiple chemical residues, will be way more expensive way of proving you meet import requirements than simple rules that by law you have to follow anyway, but without over sight you cannot prove in any way that could be described as assured.</p><p></p><p>all assurance by its nature is an oversight requirement, saying that someone is checking your following the rules.</p><p>Any less is basic non assured that would require testing to be used by any mill that meets Even the most basic import standards. And the testing would be at your cost. and it maybe required on every load you sell, without assurance, just like imports.</p><p></p><p>hope that helps you see assurance is not something that you as a farmer can give yourself. By its nature assurances always requires some level of Independent review, or trust, the only extra trust my version asks for is that your agronomist trust you are doing your job when you apply what they recommended.</p><p></p><p>and a few basic storage rules and meet the uk law on who is applying your chemicals.and a few clicks in a app every few weeks to say your looking after the crop in ways that make just good business sense, while it’s in storage. 95% of this is on trust. Just like RT is even if they don’t want to admit it.</p><p>Every rule that’s outside the remit of assuring the quality of the crop that’s the RT creep get dropped.</p><p></p><p>when you drop the ball, and a mill finds something that should not be there, that is the point you get suspended and have to prove you rectified the problem.</p><p></p><p>but off the top of my head unless you go about smashing glass into your stored crop or mix dressed seed with crop, or have small friends around for all night parties, I highly doubt that anything other than being out of spec will be a problem to mills. Not something that will trigger an assurance breach.</p><p>Even if you had a problem with the crop, what ever that maybe, there are still places that take non assured crop for uses like slug pellets and making rat baits etc, to get you out of a hole.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dave645, post: 7420907, member: 55822"] Ok imports still have standards to meet the primary one is that some chemical applications are restricted, if the imported crop is not assured it has to be tested. (This is not cheap) That’s the minimum, I can tell you now, to have your crop tested every year for multiple chemical residues, will be way more expensive way of proving you meet import requirements than simple rules that by law you have to follow anyway, but without over sight you cannot prove in any way that could be described as assured. all assurance by its nature is an oversight requirement, saying that someone is checking your following the rules. Any less is basic non assured that would require testing to be used by any mill that meets Even the most basic import standards. And the testing would be at your cost. and it maybe required on every load you sell, without assurance, just like imports. hope that helps you see assurance is not something that you as a farmer can give yourself. By its nature assurances always requires some level of Independent review, or trust, the only extra trust my version asks for is that your agronomist trust you are doing your job when you apply what they recommended. and a few basic storage rules and meet the uk law on who is applying your chemicals.and a few clicks in a app every few weeks to say your looking after the crop in ways that make just good business sense, while it’s in storage. 95% of this is on trust. Just like RT is even if they don’t want to admit it. Every rule that’s outside the remit of assuring the quality of the crop that’s the RT creep get dropped. when you drop the ball, and a mill finds something that should not be there, that is the point you get suspended and have to prove you rectified the problem. but off the top of my head unless you go about smashing glass into your stored crop or mix dressed seed with crop, or have small friends around for all night parties, I highly doubt that anything other than being out of spec will be a problem to mills. Not something that will trigger an assurance breach. Even if you had a problem with the crop, what ever that maybe, there are still places that take non assured crop for uses like slug pellets and making rat baits etc, to get you out of a hole. [/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