UK's farm standards beat out Australia and New Zealand: report

The report, commissioned by the UK's Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board and delivered by Birnie Consultancy, found that the UK program Red Tractor scored higher than either Australia's Livestock Production Assurance or the New Zealand Farm Assurance Programme.

It is the first in a series of reports comparing English farmgate production standards with other international standards.

The study assessed the three programs across 14 different categories, with Red Tractor scoring the highest in all categories, except biosecurity and disease control where Australia scored 86 per cent to the UK's 67pc and the NZ score of 6pc.

Ultimately the Red Tractor scheme obtained a higher overall weighted score than NZFAP, which scored higher than the LPA scheme.

But an Integrity Systems Company spokesman has defended Australia's LPA, poking holes in the report.

"The comparisons of the Red Tractor, NZFAP and LPA programs set out in the report do not adequately address the critical differences that exist in the programs' scope and diversity, nor does it acknowledge Australia's complex regulatory landscape," he said.

The spokesman said key elements that weren't taken into account included geography and livestock numbers, as well as the frequency of audits.

"While LPA's risk-based framework audits around 3,500 farms annually, all Red Tractor farms are inspected every eighteen months with costs borne by the producer," he said.

"Australia's current conformity levels and the low incidence of food safety, residue or disease issues do not warrant more frequent audits on producers."

The spokesman said LPA's scope was also overlooked in several categories examined in the report.

"This resulted in LPA being assessed against some categories that do not relate to on-farm activities, such as livestock transport," he said.

"In some cases, the comparison report ignored different legislative frameworks in Australia which manage those aspects.

"Weighting attributed to some categories in the comparison report do not accurately reflect their relevance in the Australian industry.

"For example, transport is weighted at 160 per cent but reasons for this weighting are not sound.

"For instance, not all transport in Australia occurs over long distances.

"Transport is also not an on-farm activity and therefore sits outside the LPA Program's scope.

"The weightings given to housing and shelter, feed and water, husbandry procedures, youngstock management, animal health and welfare, and fallen stock, fail to reflect that these requirements are included in the Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines."