Will Blockchain herald the end of Red Tractor?

[bitwrx]

You get it at least !

Less physical inspections also equals less time wasted and less inspectors which all saved money

Now I think I'm starting to understand. Vet sells me a bottle of amoxicillin. I don't use it before its use-by, so I stick it in the correct waste bin, all taken away by the approved waste contractor. All recorded on a blockchain, so it definitely happened like that.

Except there's no actual proof that it wasn't used. No one is measuring the bit left in the bottle. You've got an incorruptible record of - potentially - garbage. Just like the current electronic medicine book.

Dad was accused of lying by the latest RT auditor because the med usage was so low. Almost got a non conformance which, presumably, would have been quite a serious one. Except dad has done nothing worse than minimise his AB usage. And recorded it diligently.
Blockchain doesn't actually change anything there.

 

[ollie989898]

Mmmm... Not convinced TBH. If the information is stored in 1000's of places then surely those 1000's of places must be accessed? No doubt that those 1000's of places rely on a power supply, so if you had 10,000 servers or databases holding that information that's 9,999 extra power supplies required above and beyond the primary computer.

I think the jury is still very much out on the effect of quantum computing when it arrives as a practical proposition, it has a lot of folk worried.

You continue to post like some kind of technological luddite whose attitudes I find perverse in the extreme. You are complaining about the cost, technological or environmental considerations like you are on an ideological crusade- does it ever occur to you that right this second you are using pretty much the same technology to communicate with people using lines of text on a white screen hosted on hardware that might as well be on Mars for all it matters? Its not like the average farmyard user would notice the effect of radio signals travelling to Mars and back given how slow some connections are.

 

[JP1]

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

 

[Scribus]

You continue to post like some kind of technological luddite whose attitudes I find perverse in the extreme. You are complaining about the cost, technological or environmental considerations like you are on an ideological crusade- does it ever occur to you that right this second you are using pretty much the same technology to communicate with people using lines of text on a white screen hosted on hardware that might as well be on Mars for all it matters? Its not like the average farmyard user would notice the effect of radio signals travelling to Mars and back given how slow some connections are.

Oh do calm down dearie, you are not making the slightest bit of sense!

 

[ollie989898]

Now I think I'm starting to understand. Vet sells me a bottle of amoxicillin. I don't use it before its use-by, so I stick it in the correct waste bin, all taken away by the approved waste contractor. All recorded on a blockchain, so it definitely happened like that.

Except there's no actual proof that it wasn't used. No one is measuring the bit left in the bottle. You've got an incorruptible record of - potentially - garbage. Just like the current electronic medicine book.

Dad was accused of lying by the latest RT auditor because the med usage was so low. Almost got a non conformance which, presumably, would have been quite a serious one. Except dad has done nothing worse than minimise his AB usage. And recorded it diligently.
Blockchain doesn't actually change anything there.

You arent getting it. It is not the fault of the system or software or hardware that users might input data that is fraudulent. If a farmer or buyer or any other user wants to be a crook it matters not if its on a computer, a written ledger or scratched on a marble tablet- its fraudulent data. All this technology does is makes it easier for information to be shared or updated or maintained. Farmers are in some ways getting a taste of it- their milk yield and test results are being text to their mobiles. Why not just have the data stored in the same place as everything else?

Why wade through books, files, boxes or filing cabinets or hard drives when the lot could be stored in a format accessible 24/7?

 

[Clive]

Now I think I'm starting to understand. Vet sells me a bottle of amoxicillin. I don't use it before its use-by, so I stick it in the correct waste bin, all taken away by the approved waste contractor. All recorded on a blockchain, so it definitely happened like that.

Except there's no actual proof that it wasn't used. No one is measuring the bit left in the bottle. You've got an incorruptible record of - potentially - garbage. Just like the current electronic medicine book.

Dad was accused of lying by the latest RT auditor because the med usage was so low. Almost got a non conformance which, presumably, would have been quite a serious one. Except dad has done nothing worse than minimise his AB usage. And recorded it diligently.
Blockchain doesn't actually change anything there.

Right now any recording system depends on user imputing data honestly

However current assurance scheme (one day in 12 months) means records can be changed or created retrospectively

Recording as you go would be a step on from that and credible if blockchain was storing it as it can’t be changed

In the future I suspect things will get tighter still - ie bar code reading the can of spray being added to sprayer, recording date and time and automatically recording local weather from a connected station etc - I’m sure similar could be done with livestock, eid tags etc

Some would say this makes things worse fir us as farmers ! But if it maked it cheaper and wastes less of our time while making the currently flawed system credible to our customers then it’s worth it

 

[Scribus]

Right now any recording system depends on user imputing data honestly

However current assurance scheme (one day in 12 months) means records can be changed or created retrospectively

Recording as you go would be a step on from that and credible if blockchain was storing it as it can’t be changed

In the future I suspect things will get tighter still - ie bar code reading the can of spray being added to sprayer, recording date and time and automatically recording local weather from a connected station etc - I’m sure similar could be done with livestock, eid tags etc

Some would say this makes things worse fir us as farmers ! But if it maked it cheaper and wastes less of our time while making the currently flawed system credible to our customers then it’s worth it

It's already been noted that the consumer takes little notice of the red tractor, so why should they think any more of it just because it's blockchain powered?

 

[ollie989898]

Oh do calm down dearie, you are not making the slightest bit of sense!

The irony is delicious!

 

[Scribus]

The irony is delicious!

Feast on it well then.

 

[Chris F]

Dad was accused of lying by the latest RT auditor because the med usage was so low. Almost got a non conformance which, presumably, would have been quite a serious one. Except dad has done nothing worse than minimise his AB usage. And recorded it diligently.
Blockchain doesn't actually change anything there.

Sounds like a perfect example of how broken this system is. Red Tractor being used as a beating stick. Red Tractor assuming you lied despite the data available.

You're right, it doesn't stop people lying. But why would good farmers need to lie?

An updated system (regardless of type) would totally change this - for starters, you wouldn't be having a yearly inspection and most likely, your inspector would be out of a job (quite rightly by the sound of it).

 

[bitwrx]

You arent getting it. It is not the fault of the system or software or hardware that users might input data that is fraudulent. If a farmer or buyer or any other user wants to be a crook it matters not if its on a computer, a written ledger or scratched on a marble tablet- its fraudulent data. All this technology does is makes it easier for information to be shared or updated or maintained. Farmers are in some ways getting a taste of it- their milk yield and test results are being text to their mobiles. Why not just have the data stored in the same place as everything else?

Why wade through books, files, boxes or filing cabinets or hard drives when the lot could be stored in a format accessible 24/7?

We've already got it, and we don't need no blockchain
https://emb-pigs.ahdb.org.uk

Blockchain doesn't solve a problem that anyone has yet identified (to me). As you correctly say, conventional identification and authentication is good enough.

If RT want to make people do electronic records, they can. Seeing as most people do already (via a number of diverse means), I suspect yet another platform is unnecessary.

 

[Scribus]

We've already got it, and we don't need no blockchain
https://emb-pigs.ahdb.org.uk

Blockchain doesn't solve a problem that anyone has yet identified (to me). As you correctly say, conventional identification and authentication is good enough.

If RT want to make people do electronic records, they can. Seeing as most people do already (via a number of diverse means), I suspect yet another platform is unnecessary.

Oh but we do 'cos its the future innit'. But who exactly is deciding our future nowdays? We humble punters are really not clever enough to have any say in it y'know.

 

[Chris F]

We've already got it, and we don't need no blockchain
https://emb-pigs.ahdb.org.uk

Blockchain doesn't solve a problem that anyone has yet identified (to me). As you correctly say, conventional identification and authentication is good enough.

If RT want to make people do electronic records, they can. Seeing as most people do already (via a number of diverse means), I suspect yet another platform is unnecessary.

You just said above that RT almost gave you a non-compliance for lying. Is that not an issue?

Blockchain just allows verification of the credibility of data. So gives faith in any system from an outside perspective. Whether RT use it as the basis to build an electronic recording system on is up to them. But their system at the moment is broken, by your own example.

 

[Steevo]

How would a blockchain help that consumer? It's not levels of trust that red tractor lacks. It's consumers that actually give a fudge.

My thoughts exactly when reading this. The UK may have some of the highest standards in the world....but are some of them actually valued by the end user? Heck, supermarkets use it as a carrot to beat farmers (for free) yet are happy to muddle up UK meat with foreign meat on the shelves to confuse the consumer or label as “product of the EU” or “product of UK or Argentina” or some such vaguaries.

I could supply wheat with less admix than the standard contract....but nobody would pay me a premium as there is no market for it so there’s no gain.

A lot of the RT standards have gone mad proving this, that or the other....but i’m not sure it is really valued by the shopper at all, just a way for the supermarket or such to reduce their own exposure at our cost. I also question the merit of RT when tv programs/celebs/RSPCA suggest it is just the legal minimum. It may be.....but it isn’t necessarily comparable to that from other countries. And if it is....then surely the idea that the UK has some of the highest standards in the world is false?

How can RT produce in UK be banned from using certain chemicals, yet other produce from abroad can supply the same market yet use the UK prohibited chemical? Our UK legal minimum (if RT is that) is different from that abroad.....yet the quangos seek to degrade it by comparing it with organic or such “premium” schemes.

I can see merit in the idea of it but plenty of other things in the chain need fixing as well to make it achieve the final outcome. Otherwise it just becomes “live” auditing of pointless standards and wastes precious time.

Its wrong in my opinion that the value of our work is not valued in the end produce. People buy fair trade coffee beans because they value the way in which they are produced. Just like free range eggs. You probably won’t see or taste a difference, but your conscience sits better. The UK public don’t see this “value” the government impose on UK farmers and then “subsidises”. Higher production standards should be reflected in the market (which shows their value or lack of) and not by law/subsidy imo. It’s all about choice.....something the supermarkets and government claim to provide....yet only sell you the illusion of it.

 

[ollie989898]

We've already got it, and we don't need no blockchain
https://emb-pigs.ahdb.org.uk

Blockchain doesn't solve a problem that anyone has yet identified (to me). As you correctly say, conventional identification and authentication is good enough.

If RT want to make people do electronic records, they can. Seeing as most people do already (via a number of diverse means), I suspect yet another platform is unnecessary.

File sharing is all well and good but is more limited than block chain. Its like me giving a group of team members access to a file on my OneDrive for a collaborative project. Some software permits the simultaneous access of multiple authors to work on that file all at once. But, as understand it, each user does not keep their own copy, record what was done when and by who and keep an incorruptible record of the history of that file.

Block chain is just bigger in scope than a file sharing platform.

 

[bitwrx]

But why would good farmers need to lie?

They don't. But it is sometimes an unintended consequence of prescriptive (quasi-) regulatory regimes.

I know my dad's business is facing the choice of changing management to the detriment of animal welfare in our particular context (but compliant with RT's arbitrary standards), or lying during the next inspection.

The system is broke.
1. Prescriptive standards are shite. They drive the wrong behaviours and the wrong outcomes.
2. Not publishing the weighting of non conformances is unacceptable. f**k, even weighting of non conformances is dumb. It's either satisfactory, or not. It can't be only a little bit unsatisfactory, or a big bit unsatisfactory.

 

[Steevo]

They don't. But it is sometimes an unintended consequence of prescriptive (quasi-) regulatory regimes.

I know my dad's business is facing the choice of changing management to the detriment of animal welfare in our particular context (but compliant with RT's arbitrary standards), or lying during the next inspection.

The system is broke.
1. Prescriptive standards are shite. They drive the wrong behaviours and the wrong outcomes.
2. Not publishing the weighting of non conformances is unacceptable. fudge, even weighting of non conformances is dumb. It's either satisfactory, or not. It can't be only a little bit unsatisfactory, or a big bit unsatisfactory.

Exactly.

I remember @Clive and his sign to keep the dogs out of the grainstore.

This shows what is really wrong with RT. Live record keeping/auditing would not make a difference in this scenario. It has to start at grass roots level making the standards credible, before worrying about the credibility of the record keeping itself. If the standards are rubbish, you can have all whizzy record keeping you want - a polished turd is still a turd.

 

[ollie989898]

My thoughts exactly when reading this. The UK may have some of the highest standards in the world....but are some of them actually valued by the end user? Heck, supermarkets use it as a carrot to beat farmers (for free) yet are happy to muddle up UK meat with foreign meat on the shelves to confuse the consumer or label as “product of the EU” or “product of UK or Argentina” or some such vaguaries.

I could supply wheat with less admix than the standard contract....but nobody would pay me a premium as there is no market for it so there’s no gain.

A lot of the RT standards have gone mad proving this, that or the other....but i’m not sure it is really valued by the shopper at all, just a way for the supermarket or such to reduce their own exposure at our cost. I also question the merit of RT when tv programs/celebs/RSPCA suggest it is just the legal minimum. It may be.....but it isn’t necessarily comparable to that from other countries. And if it is....then surely the idea that the UK has some of the highest standards in the world is false?

How can RT produce in UK be banned from using certain chemicals, yet other produce from abroad can supply the same market yet use the UK prohibited chemical? Our UK legal minimum (if RT is that) is different from that abroad.....yet the quangos seek to degrade it by comparing it with organic or such “premium” schemes.

I can see merit in the idea of it but plenty of other things in the chain need fixing as well to make it achieve the final outcome. Otherwise it just becomes “live” auditing of pointless standards and wastes precious time.

Its wrong in my opinion that the value of our work is not valued in the end produce. People buy fair trade coffee beans because they value the way in which they are produced. Just like free range eggs. You probably won’t see or taste a difference, but your conscience sits better. The UK public don’t see this “value” the government impose on UK farmers and then “subsidises”. Higher production standards should be reflected in the market (which shows their value or lack of) and not by law/subsidy imo. It’s all about choice.....something the supermarkets and government claim to provide....yet only sell you the illusion of it.

I have not claimed consumers would care a jot any more than they do. How you store data wont interest them if they have no interest in it.
The main benefits for farmers are your time. No more annual paperwork to fudge to get ready for an inspector. Just update your bits as you do them. Vet fills in and updates herd health plan or other protocols as necessary. Agronomist sends spray records over as he generates them. That info is available to your buyer as soon as you as well. Trading standards can see your medicine book and movement records without having to drive down your drive and waste your time- could be useful in the event of a national disease outbreak because a computer can sort and track tag and holding numbers in seconds.
The above might also prove to be a useful marketing angle for some retailers. Our farmers do not use X ingredient on their farms- very easy to prove because the data can be accessed rapidly.

It still means filling in information. Cant get away from that but it does mean a hell of a lot less time wasted for you.

After a time the system will alert users to what might need inspecting for real. Joe Farmer 2 cows is not filling in his movement records- trigger an inspection on just that.
It could also back feed information to the farmer. Vet can instantly see you are using more of product X than is typical of units in your area this season. Have you got a problem strain of mastitis that just jumped up? Is it a disease coming from next door?

The possibilities extend to how imaginative you want to be really and who you would allow to be a user in your blockchain.

 

[ollie989898]

Oh but we do 'cos its the future innit'. But who exactly is deciding our future nowdays? We humble punters are really not clever enough to have any say in it y'know.

You have some weird notions, I'll give you that.

There is no global conspiracy involving faceless mystery men hiding in the shadows forcing me to use/buy a PC, use any software, possess an iphone or buy a chainsaw or a pair of hobnail boots for that matter. Either a product, technology or service demonstrates some kind of value to consumers or it just wont be adopted even if you are giving it away free. Would you agree to use a phone with the buttons arranged backwards even if I paid you a tenner a month to use it?
People who rule out ideas automatically solely because they are new should still be nesting in trees like apes- good job we don't all think like that.

 

[Scribus]

You have some weird notions, I'll give you that.

There is no global conspiracy involving faceless mystery men hiding in the shadows forcing me to use/buy a PC, use any software, possess an iphone or buy a chainsaw or a pair of hobnail boots for that matter. Either a product, technology or service demonstrates some kind of value to consumers or it just wont be adopted even if you are giving it away free. Would you agree to use a phone with the buttons arranged backwards even if I paid you a tenner a month to use it?
People who rule out ideas automatically solely because they are new should still be nesting in trees like apes- good job we don't all think like that.

You are utterly and totally clueless. End of.