The Relationship between NFU and Red Tractor – The Facts

  1. NFU and NFU Scotland are 2 of 6 guarantors of Red Tractor. UFU work v closely with the NFU too. So 3 of the guarantors are farmer "owned" unions. Not sure if its 50% or not but they have no casting role as they admit.
  2. Another guarantor the AHDB is funded from Farmer levys.
  3. The 18 board of directors has only 5 farmer members, and Backstabber Blenky of course, who it appears is just representing himself. Stuart Roberts, is only farmer on there to represent the 3 farming unions. So 3 out of the 6 guarantors have only one bloke to represent them. Guy appears to be is a sector director rather than a famer representative and is recompensed by RT for this. Again no casting role. This isn't Guys fault as but there is a strong chance he may be pulled both ways (for want of a better phrase)...
  4. Lots of the other directors are on the RT payroll. This structure doesn't seem to allow any room for those who disagree with the direction of travel (sometimes known as backstabbers) to be heard. This is really unhealthy and top down.
I know it may be unpopular to point out such discrepancies or even considered disloyal to the club, but its just not right. No wonder farmers don't support this if they are voiceless. Its not whinging, its about integrity.

This talk of lobbying the supply chain to make sure imports are they same standard as Red Tractor is pie in the sky. AIC are not asking for imports to be of the same standard. Farmers are not even asking that, its like saying you wanted your the person who made your telly in China to have a pension and a safe space for their lunch hour. Nice, but its not going to happen. We are continually changing our standards anyway and yet the end product it still the same as it always has been.

Rather than looking to continual raise the pretend standards, the simplest solution would be to pack it up or bring it back to its core ethos. Of course retailers want "greater assurance" we are forced to offer it for free.

The not for profit thing is a bit overplayed. We can all create a not for profit business by spending the fixed income. Furthermore with all that fixed income you need to keep creating a "need" to be able to spend it - hence reviews, meetings and development of more "standards". At no cost to RT!
 
Last edited:

Clive

Staff Member
BASE UK Member
Location
Lichfield
Waffle and more waffle, NFU basically backs RT but at the same time is trying to distance itself or to believed to be seeen to from our point of view. Just push the can a bit further down the road. Pretty poor in my opinion but then to be expected
I honestly think history will look back at all this as the end for the NFU if they don’t start doing what farmers want

the RT issue had highlighted to many that they don’t REALLY listen to their membership and its all a little self-serving

resignation of membership the only way to get their attention -rejoin when you feel they are listening!
 
Last edited:
Location
Devon
Why is the NFU always so quick to admit guilt and commit self flagellation.
TB is our fault
Climate change is our fault.
Foot and mouth is our fault.

And now we suggest that it was very bad form for the NFU to create an assurance body to protect farmers from processors and supermarkets and then hand them control.......
......We get 4 pages of how they no longer have any control because they given it away.
 

Bramble

Member
What a load of waffle.

Question 1. Does the NFU own Red Tractor? No.

OK that’s a pretty clear opening statement, and then 5 lines later in the SAME answer they say they are co-owners😡😡

Perhaps I was supposed to have lost interest after their first word a skipped straight to question 2???

Putting out a statement like that really gets my back up and will be a big reason why I won’t rejoin the NFU, which is a shame as some stuff they do is really good. Our local secretary has been a great help the last 12 months and has been trying hard to persuade me to join again.
 

Early moves to target wild oats

  • 692
  • 0
Growers and agronomists now face the dilemma of an early application to remove competition from emerged wild oats, or holding off to allow more weeds to germinate.

Syngenta grassweeds technical manager, Georgina Wood, urges Axial Pro treatment as soon as conditions allow, once weeds are actively growing.

“That offers the chance to control wild oats more cost effectively at lower rates, whilst there is still the flexibility to tailor application rates up to 0.82 l/ha for larger or over wintered weeds and difficult situations.

“The variability of crops and situations this season means decisions for appropriate Axial Pro rates and application techniques will need to be made on a field-by-field basis,” she advised.

1617958650096.png


Miss Wood urges...
Top