Why have AHDB commissioned NFU to chair the investigation into imported grain assurance standards and costs?

[Steevo]

Who from AHDB decided they could use levy payers cash for this? It’s easy to spend other peoples money…..

 

[tullah]

That stinks to high heaven - blood boiling!!

These people used to have my respect. Never mind it will soon be their turn to have their blood boiling with blue lights flashing down the road to their premises. Theirs no escape from what the stealers have got coming to them.

 

[ollie989898]

They won’t find anything out as it seems no one has a bloody clue what the tests on imported grain are.

The shippers and exporters will be the ones to ask. I know some raw materials need an aflatoxin guarantee but not all. The rest will be moisture and bugs- though to be fair they must be monitoring grain and the like as it is delivered to the ports else the cargo would be totalled fudged by the time it reached Europe.

 

[Drillman]

Who from AHDB decided they could use levy payers cash for this? It’s easy to spend other peoples money…..

Well they haven’t got my permission and as there likely be a vote on AHDB cereals soon…..

 

[Old apprentice]

And just where is the study going to be collecting the "evidence" from,

RT and AIC

 

[farmerm]

Being tasked to mark ones own homework.....

View attachment 988712

Careful you don't paint yourself into a corner their Tom as there are no "import testing requirements" beyond using "a risk based approach". A risk based approach where the the costs of any testing, and the costs and consequences of dealing with any failed grain, lie entirely at the feet of those making the risk assessment...

 

[tullah]

Rumour has it that press headlines will be..
"non f... Union in collusion with RT is charged with ...."

How Will these people show their faces again?

 

[traineefarmer]

There are several things very, very wrong here.

As already mentioned the NFU is a major stakeholder in RT and the AHDB, despite ending C & O funding to RT, still contributes over £200k via its other sectors. The conflict of interest between these two organisations "investigating" RT will make this study a complete irrelevance.#

That is before you consider the "revolving door" recruitment of senior management and board members at ADHB, RT and NFU. Many have held positions on at all 3 organisations, either individually or at the same time, Minette being a prime example.

Also why is it going to take a task force to expose the comparative costs of equivalent to import testing and assurance membership? With the right access and I could do this with 2 telephone calls and 1/2 and hour.

Step 1 - "Hello? Is that the AIC? Please could you email me a list of the test that imported cereals must pass to be allowed access to UK processors? Thanks!"

Step 2 - "Hello? Is that Independent UK Testing Labs Ltd.? Great, please could you quote me for a testing package on grain samples for the list of tests I've emailed to you. Great, thanks."

Step 3 - Compare testing quote to my previously calculated costs of RT membership.

Step 4 - Cancel RT membership.

 

[Steevo]

There are several things very, very wrong here.

As already mentioned the NFU is a major stakeholder in RT and the AHDB, despite ending C & O funding to RT, still contributes over £200k via its other sectors. The conflict of interest between these two organisations "investigating" RT will make this study a complete irrelevance.#

That is before you consider the "revolving door" recruitment of senior management and board members at ADHB, RT and NFU. Many have held positions on at all 3 organisations, either individually or at the same time, Minette being a prime example.

Also why is it going to take a task force to expose the comparative costs of equivalent to import testing and assurance membership? With the right access and I could do this with 2 telephone calls and 1/2 and hour.

Step 1 - "Hello? Is that the AIC? Please could you email me a list of the test that imported cereals must pass to be allowed access to UK processors? Thanks!"

Step 2 - "Hello? Is that Independent UK Testing Labs Ltd.? Great, please could you quote me for a testing package on grain samples for the list of tests I've emailed to you. Great, thanks."

Step 3 - Compare testing quote to my previously calculated costs of RT membership.

Step 4 - Cancel RT membership.

It's a little bit more complicated than that....

The merchants don't even have to do all the tests.....they can choose not to do any if they so wish.

I bet Tom Bradshaw doesn't mention that bit in his report though.

 

[Tim G]

There are several things very, very wrong here.

As already mentioned the NFU is a major stakeholder in RT and the AHDB, despite ending C & O funding to RT, still contributes over £200k via its other sectors. The conflict of interest between these two organisations "investigating" RT will make this study a complete irrelevance.#

That is before you consider the "revolving door" recruitment of senior management and board members at ADHB, RT and NFU. Many have held positions on at all 3 organisations, either individually or at the same time, Minette being a prime example.

Also why is it going to take a task force to expose the comparative costs of equivalent to import testing and assurance membership? With the right access and I could do this with 2 telephone calls and 1/2 and hour.

Step 1 - "Hello? Is that the AIC? Please could you email me a list of the test that imported cereals must pass to be allowed access to UK processors? Thanks!"

Step 2 - "Hello? Is that Independent UK Testing Labs Ltd.? Great, please could you quote me for a testing package on grain samples for the list of tests I've emailed to you. Great, thanks."

Step 3 - Compare testing quote to my previously calculated costs of RT membership.

Step 4 - Cancel RT membership.

I'm a non assured, non NFU member (although levy paying) farmer. I've read these threads thinking exactly the same thing. If there is a set of guidlines/standards to what should be tested and the frequency of the testing, how does it take a Committee to investigate the costs?
My only conclusion is that there is no standard, any tests are at the discretion of the merchant and not many are done.

 

[farmerm]

I'm a non assured, non NFU member (although levy paying) farmer. I've read these threads thinking exactly the same thing. If there is a set of guidlines/standards to what should be tested and the frequency of the testing, how does it take a Committee to investigate the costs?
My only conclusion is that there is no standard, any tests are at the discretion of the merchant and not many are done.

why would you test when you stand both the cost of the testing and the headache and cost of what to do with product that fails, its a farce

 

[Grass And Grain]

Being tasked to mark ones own homework.....




Careful you don't paint yourself into a corner their Tom as there are no "import testing requirements" beyond using "a risk based approach". A risk based approach where the the costs of any testing, and the costs and consequences of dealing with any failed grain, lie entirely at the feet of those making the risk assessment...

It's a little bit more complicated than that....

The merchants don't even have to do all the tests.....they can choose not to do any if they so wish.

I bet Tom Bradshaw doesn't mention that bit in his report though.

I'm a non assured, non NFU member (although levy paying) farmer. I've read these threads thinking exactly the same thing. If there is a set of guidlines/standards to what should be tested and the frequency of the testing, how does it take a Committee to investigate the costs?
My only conclusion is that there is no standard, any tests are at the discretion of the merchant and not many are done.

What use is it accepting lab tests (including possibly pesticide testing) as an assurance method, but leaving the merchant to decide what tests are done.

Basically it's a free for all, and no-one seems to check up on it.

Lab testing imports is an accepted method with no rules.


..and then there's the imported crops pesticide declaration method. Is anyone really going to tell the truth when they declare that only EU (yes, EU, not UK!) approved pesticides have been used.

Conversely, we are asking to have a declaration accepted that only UK approved pesticides have been used, and we've only got UK pesticides available to us. RT grain doesn't need pesticide testing, and that's fine, and it's for exactly same reasons that our non-RT grain doesn't need pesticide testing - we've only got UK approved pesticides available and we apply them under the UK regulatory framework, NSTS, PA1, PA2 etc.

But oh no, everyone is resisting it.

We've backed them into a corner, there's no way out, everything we've said makes perfect sense, they don't like it and they just don't want to lose control or stop the income coming in from the trapped farmers.

 

[Grass And Grain]

why would you test when you stand both the cost of the testing and the headache and cost of what to do with product that fails, its a farce

You're right it's a total farce. Dressed up as being robust, but no actual precise rules.

What a merchant does to supply a customer is up to them, the customer may request lab tests x,y,z. But it's the base minimum rules which we compete with, and our base minimum rule set by AIC etc is RT,SQC etc.

 

[beardface]

They still used Paraquat when I was in US in 2014. Sometimes pre harvest.........

 

[SilliamWhale]

What use is it accepting lab tests (including possibly pesticide testing) as an assurance method, but leaving the merchant to decide what tests are done.

Basically it's a free for all, and no-one seems to check up on it.

Lab testing imports is an accepted method with no rules.


..and then there's the imported crops pesticide declaration method. Is anyone really going to tell the truth when they declare that only EU (yes, EU, not UK!) approved pesticides have been used.

Conversely, we are asking to have a declaration accepted that only UK approved pesticides have been used, and we've only got UK pesticides available to us. RT grain doesn't need pesticide testing, and that's fine, and it's for exactly same reasons that our non-RT grain doesn't need pesticide testing - we've only got UK approved pesticides available and we apply them under the UK regulatory framework, NSTS, PA1, PA2 etc.

But oh no, everyone is resisting it.

We've backed them into a corner, there's no way out, everything we've said makes perfect sense, they don't like it and they just don't want to lose control or stop the income coming in from the trapped farmers.

Anyway what are they testing for? Its not as if we don't import produce with pesticides that are banned here is it? So what are they wanting?

Where are all these illegal UK pesticides? They don't exist. Virtually no one uses them - certainly none of the reputable suppliers which the large majority of the market uses.

Its all bunkum

 

[graham mc]

i think what there going to say is it costs x amount, what they wont say is that is for a 10,000t boat load one sample and they will say every load of ours needs to be sampled.

they will make a big thing that its £250 for every load of ours cheaper to be red tractor etc which is unfair as only one load is tested on a boat

You could get round that by saying start a marketing group to get to 10,000t and do one test but they wont let u as its a joint thing even tho the boat is not all one grower

we push them they come up witha stupid solution we laugh try to come up with a way round it and they stop that so we go back to pushing them again and round and round we go


Its like dealing with kids who just shrug their shoulders every time
were not getting treated fair and no support is coming from those that should support farming

 

[graham mc]

if red tractor was abolished i would still

have my sprayer/ spreader tested annually due to the £££ going thru them
have my moisture meter checked because it costs £££ to overdry
use a qualified agronomist to recommend chemicals that we are legally allowed to use in this country
Buy imputs from companies who comply with the laws in this country
wash my trailers out before harvest
control vermin around the yard as my corn would still be rejected for mouse sh!t @Clive and chew the wiring on my combine
pay my guys a fair rate if they not happy here they can chose jobs because of shortage etc
have my soils tested to make sure i knew what state they were in
have my accounts done by a company approved by law to do them


finally i take pride in producing the best i could
can any on the gravy train take pride in what they do or is it all for egos and £££ they are like the sh!t on your boots im my opinion

so mr gravy train passanger how does my wheat stack up to the boats loads ur bringing in from overseas.

You cant put your hand on heart and tell us truthfully can you??????????????????
thats why we wont and cant give up

 

[tullah]

Anyway what are they testing for? Its not as if we don't import produce with pesticides that are banned here is it? So what are they wanting?

Where are all these illegal UK pesticides? They don't exist. Virtually no one uses them - certainly none of the reputable suppliers which the large majority of the market uses.

Its all bunkum

The Nfu and Rt know all this racket is bunkum too. That's why all they can say is they are going to have an investigation of their own bunkum.
Sometimes I just laugh at all this others I hit the roof.
The really funny part is still to come when Nfu and Rt have to explain their bunkum to somebody in authority.
Its the last laugh that's always the best. Can't wait.

 

[tullah]

There are several things very, very wrong here.

As already mentioned the NFU is a major stakeholder in RT and the AHDB, despite ending C & O funding to RT, still contributes over £200k via its other sectors. The conflict of interest between these two organisations "investigating" RT will make this study a complete irrelevance.#

That is before you consider the "revolving door" recruitment of senior management and board members at ADHB, RT and NFU. Many have held positions on at all 3 organisations, either individually or at the same time, Minette being a prime example.

Also why is it going to take a task force to expose the comparative costs of equivalent to import testing and assurance membership? With the right access and I could do this with 2 telephone calls and 1/2 and hour.

Step 1 - "Hello? Is that the AIC? Please could you email me a list of the test that imported cereals must pass to be allowed access to UK processors? Thanks!"

Step 2 - "Hello? Is that Independent UK Testing Labs Ltd.? Great, please could you quote me for a testing package on grain samples for the list of tests I've emailed to you. Great, thanks."

Step 3 - Compare testing quote to my previously calculated costs of RT membership.

Step 4 - Cancel RT membership.

What a perfect set of questions for these wretches to answer. Look forward to reading their reply.

 

[SilliamWhale]

Anyway we can't even find out what tests are done on a boatload of grain so how are the NFU going to find out if it costs more?