Will Blockchain herald the end of Red Tractor?

[Christoph1945]

Perhaps I digress from the initial thread but someone wrote that Red Tractor is predominantly self serving and that set me wondering if the same can be said for the National Farmer's Union.

 

[Win win by design]

Perhaps I digress from the initial thread but someone wrote that Red Tractor is predominantly self serving and that set me wondering if the same can be said for the National Farmer's Union.

I don't think it digresses really... I think it highlights that centralised power isn't really a good thing for most people and situations. When decisions are made in board rooms by a small group of people who are often quite far removed from the industry they preside over we often see less than ideal outcomes for the majority of people.

I've been banging on about blockchain a lot over the last few days because it's the theme of this thread. However... what I am actually interested in helping achieve is a fairer, more transparent system. Middlemen like certification bodies, accreditation bodies, NFU, RT, etc. are all in some respect self-serving and all get funding from somewhere. The organic industry is worth $259bn and yet there's no scientific consensus to say that organic as a whole is any better for our health or the environment than other methods.

I would like to see a world where farmers get money for doing good things for the environment and society:

• Making food
• Improving or protecting biodiversity
• Improving soil quality
• Reducing flood risks (through their methods)
• Using as few inputs as possible to create the food we all depend upon
• blah blah blah...

We don't need a world where a man with a clipboard asks a load of barely relevant questions that go nowhere or worse, land people with fines...

 

[Grass And Grain]

I don't think it digresses really... I think it highlights that centralised power isn't really a good thing for most people and situations. When decisions are made in board rooms by a small group of people who are often quite far removed from the industry they preside over we often see less than ideal outcomes for the majority of people.

I've been banging on about blockchain a lot over the last few days because it's the theme of this thread. However... what I am actually interested in helping achieve is a fairer, more transparent system. Middlemen like certification bodies, accreditation bodies, NFU, RT, etc. are all in some respect self-serving and all get funding from somewhere. The organic industry is worth $259bn and yet there's no scientific consensus to say that organic as a whole is any better for our health or the environment than other methods.

I would like to see a world where farmers get money for doing good things for the environment and society:

• Making food
• Improving or protecting biodiversity
• Improving soil quality
• Reducing flood risks (through their methods)
• Using as few inputs as possible to create the food we all depend upon
• blah blah blah...

We don't need a world where a man with a clipboard asks a load of barely relevant questions that go nowhere or worse, land people with fines...

Are you thinking technology can he used to help improve some of the above?

 

[farmerm]

Haha - I agree. This data is boring (the fact that I've developed an interest in it says something about me!).

I wouldn't be supporting anything that gave someone a bigger stick with which to hit people. Unless the systems benefit everyone involved and are fair it's a load of garbage in my mind.

@DrWazzock , the thing that puzzles me so much is that people across the world funnel $259bn into organic produce because they think it's better for one reason or another. What about all the people who are obsessed with removing carbon from the atmosphere or the people that think that securing healthy soil is an environmental imperative?

measuring the things that result in less carbon or better soil are becoming a reality and in the future might be automatable.

I would treat that headline $259bn figure with caution, how much do you suppose is specially because it is organic and how much is simply because it is happens to be the produce available to them. . If organic sales are $259bn the consumer is not paying a $259bn premium, more like they are buying $220bn of product and paying perhaps $39bn as a premium because it is organic.... meanwhile the global food market is something like $8.3Trillion....

 

[farmerm]

I don't think it digresses really... I think it highlights that centralised power isn't really a good thing for most people and situations. When decisions are made in board rooms by a small group of people who are often quite far removed from the industry they preside over we often see less than ideal outcomes for the majority of people.

I've been banging on about blockchain a lot over the last few days because it's the theme of this thread. However... what I am actually interested in helping achieve is a fairer, more transparent system. Middlemen like certification bodies, accreditation bodies, NFU, RT, etc. are all in some respect self-serving and all get funding from somewhere. The organic industry is worth $259bn and yet there's no scientific consensus to say that organic as a whole is any better for our health or the environment than other methods.

I would like to see a world where farmers get money for doing good things for the environment and society:

• Making food
• Improving or protecting biodiversity
• Improving soil quality
• Reducing flood risks (through their methods)
• Using as few inputs as possible to create the food we all depend upon
• blah blah blah...

We don't need a world where a man with a clipboard asks a load of barely relevant questions that go nowhere or worse, land people with fines...

Organic absolutely is scientifically better for the environment and our health. It is without any doubt that artificial fertilizer and crop protection products are detrimental to our health and our environment, however it is just not an economically practical solution for feeding 8bn people whilst employing less than 1% of the population to do so.

 

[Highland Mule]

Organic absolutely is scientifically better for the environment

Balls.

 

[farmerm]

Balls.

How so? How is applying bagged N and a host of synthetic chemicals better for the environment than not? I don't believe organic farming can feed the world but like everything related to supporting 8bn people I do accept artificial nitrogen and plant protection products do come with some negative consequences.

 

[Highland Mule]

How so? How is applying bagged N and a host of synthetic chemicals better for the environment than not? I don't believe organic farming can feed the world but like everything related to supporting 8bn people I do accept artificial nitrogen and plant protection products do come with some negative consequences.

Organic uses far more diesel, propane (find out how they kill the weeds in an organic carrot farm), and human resource, for far less crop. Just think through the energy required to make a kilo of sodium glyphosphate salt compared to that required to pull hectares of weeds by hand/ burn them off.

A responsible balance is best, not some extreme that wastes gigajoules of fossil fuel because of fear for the use of efficient and perfectly safe inorganic chemistry.

 

[Win win by design]

Are you thinking technology can he used to help improve some of the above?

yes I do but there's a lot of challenges to overcome first.

 

[Win win by design]

I would treat that headline $259bn figure with caution, how much do you suppose is specially because it is organic and how much is simply because it is happens to be the produce available to them. . If organic sales are $259bn the consumer is not paying a $259bn premium, more like they are buying $220bn of product and paying perhaps $39bn as a premium because it is organic.... meanwhile the global food market is something like $8.3Trillion....

good point, thanks for pointing that out - I don't know is the $259bn is the value of the organic premium or not. Either way my mind struggles to comprehend the immense size of things when they go much beyond 1 million! $39bn is still quite a lot.

 

[Win win by design]

Organic absolutely is scientifically better for the environment and our health. It is without any doubt that artificial fertilizer and crop protection products are detrimental to our health and our environment, however it is just not an economically practical solution for feeding 8bn people whilst employing less than 1% of the population to do so.

This is what I was basing my organic criticism on. It seems to have quite a few references to literature etc and there are other similar videos.

 

[Win win by design]

How so? How is applying bagged N and a host of synthetic chemicals better for the environment than not? I don't believe organic farming can feed the world but like everything related to supporting 8bn people I do accept artificial nitrogen and plant protection products do come with some negative consequences.

artificial nitrogen uses a s*** load of energy for sure and I think I may have read that the runoff effects might be more extreme (im not sure though).

The video link I shared doesn't paint organic as good or bad, it just makes the argument that it's not better. I'm interested in finding the system that has the right balance (whatever that might be).

 

[Win win by design]

Are you thinking technology can he used to help improve some of the above?

Not a complete solution by any means but I do think a system that financially and appropriately rewards people who create 'public goods' is the answer.

Regen Network / Invest in high-integrity carbon credits

Regen Network provides tools to create standards and market for sustainable companies to buy carbon credits and nature-based solutions to reduce carbon footprint

www.regen.network

 

[bobk]

A member said on another thread I was a little harsh about the performance of Red Tractor.

I personally believe our farming standards are some of the best in the world. So working on that premise, wouldn't it be nice if Red Tractor actually highlighted this instead of being used as a stick. And blockchain could be the building blocks of an answer. If Red Tractor was really working it would show the excellence and quality that UK farmers produce. As quality levels would be verifiably higher.

Putting it simply - "blockchain is an incorruptible digital ledger of actions that can be programmed to record virtually anything of value.” Sound familiar?

It can't be forged. It can't be faked. It can't be hacked. It can't be retrospectively filled in and it is always open for interrogation. It is an online version of all the records we already hold, with multiple people being able to access it at all times.

And the impressive thing is - its already being done. But its by the brands like Napolina Tomatoes - as they want to ensure their supply chain is completely auditable not on one day of the year, but on every day of the year.

https://www.edie.net/news/7/Princes...o-minimise-supply-chain-sustainability-risks/

They are using the data to know what needs auditing, rather than one audit a year. Its not a stretch to see that this could be done at a UK level. "Blockchain" is just the digital ledger that holds the records.

So when you read things like this and then look at the systems used by Red Tractor and the many, many stories you read on TFF. I'm happy to stand by my comments that - "It's just not good enough".

Red Tractor has to change.

Clearly not

 

[Win win by design]

Err - no. Wayyyyyy outside my/our skillset.

Red Tractor take the money from the farmers - they therefore have the means to do this. They just need to decide to do it, before someone else does. And that someone might be a brand or indeed a supermarket.

If RT make a blockchain with minimal input from their farming stakeholders they will just make a mess. Farmers need to be deeply involved, even if they aren't the 'owners' with the ability to have their voice heard through voting mechanisms (quadratic voting etc.).

IMHO, If RT hasn't cottoned onto blockchain now I seriously doubt whether they are the right people to be leading it (but dont take it from me!)

 

[Win win by design]

I’ve got a bit lost

I wish I could turn the clock back 45 years and sell my finished Galloways and deliver them live to Mr Sweetland in Dunmow High Street and see last month’s beast in his shop window and my name on the blackboard chalked with pride and full confidence in a good stockman and a skilled and knowledgable family butcher selling wholesome food to folks that cared and could cook

No FA, no Blockbuster and no Euro Grid







Ah well

If technology is implemented correctly then what you have described here is what it should be like