TRTürkçe
ENEnglish
AZAzərbaycanca
UZO‘zbekcha
ARالعربية
FRFrançais
DEDeutsch
RUРусский
İTU Control Process: Production Planning, On-Site Evidence and Findings
Contract with an authorised KSK for the real producer or group, products and production areas. The Ministry-linked regulation requires a control plan identifying relevant parties, dates, duration and controller. Plan when production and harvest stages can actually be assessed, rather than arranging a visit solely around office availability.
Plan control around the actual crop cycle
For individual production, the regulation requires at least annual control of the covered areas; group arrangements also involve internal responsibilities and the applicable external control method. Confirm the selected route with the KSK. A group member’s paperwork does not automatically replace the assessment required for the proposed production.
Examine operations and evidence together
Prepare access to actual parcels, relevant operations and truthful records for inputs, treatments, irrigation, harvest and traceability, with required analysis evidence. Risk assessment determines what needs attention; do not turn one laboratory result into a claim that all production is risk-free. The controller checks conformity and records findings rather than designing the producer’s system.
Hypothetically, an apple grower schedules the first visit only after all fruit has left the orchard for a new external cold store. Packing photographs and a buyer invoice do not recreate missing observation of relevant production stages or automatically cover the store. Disclose the actual crop calendar and storage change to the KSK; establish what can still be assessed and what further control is required without inventing earlier inspection evidence.
Close findings before treating the route as certification
Read the control report, identify affected product or area and assign actual corrective actions. Preserve evidence of the correction and its review. A completed visit is not itself an issued certificate; the certifier evaluates the relevant control outcome and makes the decision under the programme.
The producer owns implementation and truthful production evidence. Article 18 bars the authorised KSK from consultancy. Before asking Kayra for activity, establish its actual permitted role, authority and independence; this process description does not prove Kayra’s KSK authorisation. No booking, payment or inspection photograph guarantees acceptance.
Official sources
Plan real production access, disclose changes and resolve findings; control and certification remain separate functions.
Is a control visit itself the certificate?
No. Certification requires the certifier’s evaluation and decision.
Can packing photos recreate an unobserved production stage?
No. Disclose the gap and clarify actual assessment arrangements.
Does the controller design the farm system?
No. The producer implements; KSK consultancy is prohibited.
Tell us what you need and our specialists will contact you.
The exact records for İTU Control Process: Production Planning, On-Site Evidence and Findings depend on the confirmed scope. Current, consistent and traceable information reduces avoidable revisions.
Scope and decision verification
The applicant provides actual producer, product and parcel information and genuine production records. Confirm Kayra’s permitted role, relevant authority and independence before any requested activity; a commercial name or quotation does not establish KSK authorisation. İTU control and certification belong to the authorised KSK, which article 18 prohibits from providing consultancy. The producer remains responsible for implementation.