Wtf EU RED audit.

DrWazzock

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lincolnshire
There is a 40 mph speed limit through our village. It’s illegal to exceed it. Yet nobody keeps a record of how fast they drove through the village. I really do think we need to get away from this idea that just because everything is recorded then it’s satisfactory or even been done at all.
I’d say a check list is ok. But ever more detailed recording and calculations don’t actually serve any purpose at all yet have the potential to consume a lot of time and effort that would better spent actually sorting out real problems that make a difference to produce safety.
 

Drillman

Member
Mixed Farmer
There is a 40 mph speed limit through our village. It’s illegal to exceed it. Yet nobody keeps a record of how fast they drove through the village. I really do think we need to get away from this idea that just because everything is recorded then it’s satisfactory or even been done at all.
I’d say a check list is ok. But ever more detailed recording and calculations don’t actually serve any purpose at all yet have the potential to consume a lot of time and effort that would better spent actually sorting out real problems that make a difference to produce safety.
Unfortunately your method as described above requires common sense.

something rt have overlooked. Probably because they only employ people who don’t have any!
 

tullah

Member
Location
Linconshire
Unfortunately your method as described above requires common sense.

something rt have overlooked. Probably because they only employ people who don’t have any!

The last thing the owners of RT want is people using their common sense. Because to rely on farmers and their own common sense would mean all those involved with RT or the Nfu would be out of a job. Their jobs depend on meaningless clipboards which is very sad. Imagine what job satisfaction they make of that.
 

Flat 10

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Fen Edge
looks like we should start here,https://www.food.gov.uk/print/pdf/node/145
The foods standards agency, if they pass our new assurance scheme
And we get passed the animal feeds standards hurdle and we construct a scheme that complies with these rules, then it leaves little room for the AIC to wiggle out, if it also complies with import standards they already accept as well.
The reason to publicly refuse the new scheme becomes slimmer.
https://www.food.gov.uk/business-guidance/earned-recognition-approved-assurance-schemes

When you follow the link basically the food standards agency approve assurance schemes, so from the looks of it we only need them to except a new assurance scheme to force the AIC to take it.

How far along are we about getting a new schemes rules set out, what needs to be done?
If we talk to the food standards agency and comply with the minimums that the AIC already use on imports then what does that look like at the farm level?
I would still suggest we go all in setup a multi level scheme, feed and fuel, and a gold standard, human consumption, at some point. Start aiming at animal feed, and fuel, then progress up to human consumption once the scheme is up and running.
I think you make this way too complicated. All we need is a passport that says this grain was grown subject to the laws of the U.K. and as such exceeds the standards required of imported grain. You can put a tick box on it to say you haven’t drained a peat bog or ploughed up species rich grassland if you want but I think it’s unnecessary.
 

kiwi pom

Member
Location
canterbury NZ
That would depend if you can locally sell your crop under the new alternative scheme or not, for me I could sell all mine to just fuel production, it’s going to increases, that’s one of the reasons wheat prices are stronger.
I also think a new simpler scheme would hit a lot of the minimums for non human consumption, ie, what feed mills need in the uk, the actual requirements not fake RT requirements. If the new scheme hit both the new red2 requirements and current import standards for animal feed, that would cover most farms unless they have milling wheats etc, if they chose to grow human Consumption crops, RT makes more sense currently for them as a solution, rather than a very basic fuel and feed only new scheme.
Because it makes no sense to be in both unless the other offer everything you as a farm needs.

it’s not yet clear what any new scheme would offer farmers but a simple RED 2 compliant system I expect would be part of it, at the very least.

I also expect that a scheme would encompass basic assurance levels mills require for assured animal feed.
That opens up a large outlet for non RT crops, if an additional layer was added for milling crops and all the grades that includes, then it would cover all but, suppliers requiring RT only which very few are.
So a new scheme could have 2 levels where stickers used on passports can have different levels of usage so fuel and feed level, and human consumption levels, you get the colour based on the level of the scheme you decide to comply with, if a new scheme offers that, then most arable farmers will drop RT over night.

my guess is the key is getting the AIC to adopt the new scheme, if they try to block it then that’s the fight we need to make. But making a new scheme based on there current import requirements means that If I had to guess

Off the top of my head I would draft a scheme using current AIC standards for imports,
I would offer farmers a scheme that covers all the requirements, for every grade of, let’s say wheat, use the minimums already in place under current rules for imports, then offer farmers a scheme that offers the level of assurance they need for there current years crop, so animal feed and fuel use, is the new minimum, if that’s all the farm needs that’s the all the farm needs, as farm as assurance scheme checks.

If they need bread making quality assurance, then that’s the higher scheme version they opt for, this automatically covers all the other lower levels of the scheme rules.

I expect the majority of wheat growers would need animal feed level of assurance as well as fuel use as these seem interchangeable uses for animal feed level crops. And are both very basic requirements if we base it on import standards.
In a perfect world a new scheme would offer farmers the same range of outlets RT does now, but without the extra layers of red tape. The problem with a perfect work thinking is we don’t live in one, and the AIC may block any attempt to start a new scheme by block there recognition of it, and the 95% of mills they control will be blocked from farmers, not in RT.

If RT was a difficult or massively expensive scheme I'd agree, something with different levels, accessing different customers would make sense. But it's not difficult is it? People on here admit a lot is done the night before an inspection. It's all bo**ocks but its the same in any industry, its all arse covering.

At the end of the day the producer doesn't get to set the buyers requirements, they can ask for whatever they want.
You could have a basic standard for feed mills but then someone like ARLA would decide as a point of difference to its customers, that all ARLA suppliers had to buy feed from the mills with the higher standard, pretty soon all mills would raise the standard so they didn't miss out on customers, and so it goes on.
 

Flat 10

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Fen Edge
If RT was a difficult or massively expensive scheme I'd agree, something with different levels, accessing different customers would make sense. But it's not difficult is it? People on here admit a lot is done the night before an inspection. It's all bo**ocks but its the same in any industry, its all arse covering.

At the end of the day the producer doesn't get to set the buyers requirements, they can ask for whatever they want.
You could have a basic standard for feed mills but then someone like ARLA would decide as a point of difference to its customers, that all ARLA suppliers had to buy feed from the mills with the higher standard, pretty soon all mills would raise the standard so they didn't miss out on customers, and so it goes on.
The issue is we have no choice we are forced to be members due to the aic cartel. Several supermarkets have schemes that require more than RT so I don’t buy your argument.
 

kiwi pom

Member
Location
canterbury NZ
There is a 40 mph speed limit through our village. It’s illegal to exceed it. Yet nobody keeps a record of how fast they drove through the village. I really do think we need to get away from this idea that just because everything is recorded then it’s satisfactory or even been done at all.
I’d say a check list is ok. But ever more detailed recording and calculations don’t actually serve any purpose at all yet have the potential to consume a lot of time and effort that would better spent actually sorting out real problems that make a difference to produce safety.

It's a good point.
If a cop did catch you going through the village at say 80mph, you'd pay a fine and perhaps lose your license.
So would that system be better, clear rules giving you a license to farm but random/regular spot checks and big fines or the loss of your license to sell produce if you're caught being naughty.
No endless paperwork just high standards. It would weed out the cowboys pretty quick which would reduce farmer competition and may push up prices.

Wouldn't really help with customer requirements though.
 

Drillman

Member
Mixed Farmer
If RT was a difficult or massively expensive scheme I'd agree, something with different levels, accessing different customers would make sense. But it's not difficult is it? People on here admit a lot is done the night before an inspection. It's all bo**ocks but its the same in any industry, its all arse covering.

At the end of the day the producer doesn't get to set the buyers requirements, they can ask for whatever they want.
You could have a basic standard for feed mills but then someone like ARLA would decide as a point of difference to its customers, that all ARLA suppliers had to buy feed from the mills with the higher standard, pretty soon all mills would raise the standard so they didn't miss out on customers, and so it goes on.
Yes fair comment,

But

We got to jump through all these hoops even if it’s made up bull excrement done the night before along with the cost that goes with it.

Imports however as can be clearly seen from all the current threads don’t have this cost associated with them.

And jumping thru the rt hoops doesn’t give a premium in any way

Processors don’t want to pay for the rt loge

Housewife dont care and are happy with a Union Jack if they want British and buy on price if budget rules.

It puts UK growers at a financial disadvantage plain and simple.
 

kiwi pom

Member
Location
canterbury NZ
The issue is we have no choice we are forced to be members due to the aic cartel. Several supermarkets have schemes that require more than RT so I don’t buy your argument.

So RT is the very basic standard and you want one lower because its too hard or costly?
Surely is better than individual customers all setting their own requirements?
 

Drillman

Member
Mixed Farmer
So RT is the very basic standard and you want one lower because its too hard or costly?
Surely is better than individual customers all setting their own requirements?
Standards we don’t have an issue with as long as it’s sensible, some of the rt stuff is utter bo-llocks.

Cost is an issue as it’s just an expense for no gain, A cartel that prevents us selling our produce unless we sign up and pay the money.

No alternative either which has been pointed out by others may well be illegal.
 

kiwi pom

Member
Location
canterbury NZ
Yes fair comment,

But

We got to jump through all these hoops even if it’s made up bull excrement done the night before along with the cost that goes with it.

Imports however as can be clearly seen from all the current threads don’t have this cost associated with them.

And jumping thru the rt hoops doesn’t give a premium in any way

Processors don’t want to pay for the rt loge

Housewife dont care and are happy with a Union Jack if they want British and buy on price if budget rules.

It puts UK growers at a financial disadvantage plain and simple.

It's a pain I agree and potentially puts you at a disadvantage but it isn't really that expensive is it? Customers coming up with their own requirements would perhaps be better, then you could concentrate on a specific market but it might make selling on the open market harder? I think ARLA use one called Arlagarden for their suppliers? The bad part of that deal is they probably also need RT, which isn't right.
 

Drillman

Member
Mixed Farmer
It's a pain I agree and potentially puts you at a disadvantage but it isn't really that expensive is it? Customers coming up with their own requirements would perhaps be better, then you could concentrate on a specific market but it might make selling on the open market harder? I think ARLA use one called Arlagarden for their suppliers? The bad part of that deal is they probably also need RT, which isn't right.
Cost is difficult to quantify in my case but will run into 4 figures quite easily.....

we’re not a big farm circa 300 acres.

For the tonnage of grain I sell its adds up.

Beef side rt assurance has no advantage in auction mart and without it I can’t sell deadweight.

no premium in either outlet For been in rt.
 

Two Tone

Member
Mixed Farmer
The issue isn’t whether RT is relatively easy to comply to or not.
The issue is that most of us just don’t have the time to comply with the necessary paperwork the day each task is done, so do it all shortly before each assessment.
In plain language this is dishonest and/or lying.
And in plain language none of us like doing so, just so some idiot can put a tick in a box.
All it has achieved is to turn honest farmers into liars.
It really is as simple as that!
 

kiwi pom

Member
Location
canterbury NZ
The issue isn’t whether RT is relatively easy to comply to or not.
The issue is that most of us just don’t have the time to comply with the necessary paperwork the day each task is done, so do it all shortly before each assessment.
In plain language this is dishonest and/or lying.
And in plain language none of us like doing so, just so some idiot can put a tick in a box.
All it has achieved is to turn honest farmers into liars.
It really is as simple as that!

I suppose I just see it slightly differently, as a basic standard that people have to reach. For those that were already there its unnecessary and a waste of time and money but I think its forced others to up their game.
You wouldn't think it reading TFF but there's cowboys out there, who don't stick to standards despite it being a legal requirement. Things like sprayer operators with no pa1/2, poor chem stores and records, dodgy effluent/slurry systems on stock farms, poor handling facilities etc.
These farms all had a financial advantage over those doing it correctly, they cant get away with it the same now.

The government should do more to insist importers are meeting the same standards but you'll never get them exactly the same as laws are different in every country, so you can always find things to disagree on.
 

Flat 10

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Fen Edge
So RT is the very basic standard and you want one lower because its too hard or costly?
Surely is better than individual customers all setting their own requirements?
You don’t get it do you? As cereal farmers we don’t need it at all as they import any old stuff they like and it magically becomes assured on the docks. And when you’ve done a RT cereals assessment on your own farm with no help tell me whether it’s easy and basic enough for you
 

Grass And Grain

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Yorks
So RT is the very basic standard and you want one lower because its too hard or costly?
Surely is better than individual customers all setting their own requirements?
As flat10 says, customers will buy imports with NO farm level assurance. So that's the standard they're perfectly happy with.

Therefore customer has no good reason to specify anything over and above import standards. In fact, imported is supposed to have declaration as only grown with pesticide approved over here. UK crop already has that attribute, therefore inherently better to start with.
 

Grass And Grain

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Yorks
And look what 'mass balance' means for US suppliers of RED compliant feedstocks. Seems to be different to the mass balance we are doing?
Screenshot_20210529-232405_Chrome.jpg
Screenshot_20210529-232754_Chrome.jpg
 
And look what 'mass balance' means for US suppliers of RED compliant feedstocks. Seems to be different to the mass balance we are doing?


I fail to understand WHY this is needed at all.

Supposedly all stock moved by suppliers is already weighed. So at that point they know the weight and whether the stock is certified or not.

Regardless of how much is sent out the farm gate, it's certified .. so even if 1 gram of stock was "misbalanced" by the farmer. It's still certified, weighed and moved by the supplier who weighs it.

Suppliers won't use farmers weights anyway.

Regardless it's a problem created by the Supply industries lack of physical compliance to seperate certification stores AND an unwillingness to face the associated costs. So they are trying to dump those costs on others whilst NOT paying compensation AND abusing the regulations by saying having mixed stock deliveries doesn't matter.

IMHO it's tantamount to corruption, bend the rules to breaking for those delaing in £100s millions whilst penalising those earning peanuts.

RT are failing to abide by their own regulations IMHO.
 

Barleymow

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Ipswich
How many know where there grain is going to end up I gr
It's a pain I agree and potentially puts you at a disadvantage but it isn't really that expensive is it? Customers coming up with their own requirements would perhaps be better, then you could concentrate on a specific market but it might make selling on the open market harder? I think ARLA use one called Arlagarden for their suppliers? The bad part of that deal is they probably also need RT, which isn't right.
For example a spraying mot is a Legal requirement every 3 years RED TRACTOR want it done annually, no one can afford to waste chemicals and have leaking hoses etc so it unnecessary to do it annually
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 79 42.0%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 66 35.1%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 16.0%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 7 3.7%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,291
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top