- Location
- N.Lincs
What a diabolical reply.
I just forget how many millions we pay them in levy money, it's certainly not peanuts, but it seems we are still employing monkeys
AHDB can feck right off.
- Thread starter delilah
- Start date
I just forget how many millions we pay them in levy money, it's certainly not peanuts, but it seems we are still employing monkeys
What a diabolical reply.
I just forget how many millions we pay them in levy money, it's certainly not peanuts, but it seems we are still employing monkeys
Many on here will get the AHDB e-newsletter, that letter is included in the 'what we did in March' one as if it was a highlight of their activity for the month. If that was a highlight then they achieved feck all in March.
I'm probably in the minority in that I don't begrudge the levy. I view it in the same way as NFU subs; the principle of paying for national representation is a sound one. It's just that in both instances they could and should do so, so much better. A prerequisite for which, for both of them, means stripping them right back, getting rid of the influence of the cartel, and being run by and for active primary producers.
warksfarmer
Member
It’s not sound when those organisations act against their members and levy payers. We’re better off without them. With the current RPA online portal we don’t need a farming union because every single farmer can directly converse with the government. We could all take part in weekly/monthly surveys to steer agriculture in conjunction with the governments long term plan.
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Let’s see. What springs to mind?
The RL.
There’s never been anything as good as Axona here. I’m on sand as well so most of supposed beneficial traits are insignificant in the face of winter kill and June burnout. I still grow Westminster as it’s the best feed spring barley ever bred for drought tolerance.
The grain storage guide.
The same info since about 1876 in an occasionally revamped format.
A few fact sheets about disease control etc. I pay my agronomist for that anyway.
Insistence that we produce to special U.K. standards for no discernible premium while lesser quality imports get waved through.
A rake off levy on every tonne I sell.
Ho hum.
The RL.
There’s never been anything as good as Axona here. I’m on sand as well so most of supposed beneficial traits are insignificant in the face of winter kill and June burnout. I still grow Westminster as it’s the best feed spring barley ever bred for drought tolerance.
The grain storage guide.
The same info since about 1876 in an occasionally revamped format.
A few fact sheets about disease control etc. I pay my agronomist for that anyway.
Insistence that we produce to special U.K. standards for no discernible premium while lesser quality imports get waved through.
A rake off levy on every tonne I sell.
Ho hum.
- Location
- Lincolnshire
I voluntarily paid for NIAB info when I did my own agronomy. AHDB info just wasn’t adequate. It could not be really. It was just generalised background reading with no real meat in the pie.
Livestock info was similar. Enough to whet your appetite, but not enough to tell you what you should actually feed the cows. I had to go to Teagasc for that.
Most U.K. industry funded bodies seem to like to feed only enough information for you get a rough idea but still need to employ a consultant. I wonder why that is?
Livestock info was similar. Enough to whet your appetite, but not enough to tell you what you should actually feed the cows. I had to go to Teagasc for that.
Most U.K. industry funded bodies seem to like to feed only enough information for you get a rough idea but still need to employ a consultant. I wonder why that is?
- Location
- N.Lincs
I'm beginning to now.
I did their much trumpeted survey at 2.30am, as I came in from the lambing shed, this morning.
It's just a crust they've thown us to try and stop us from voting them out of existence. I used the two comment boxes, totally out of the context that they'd intended them for, to berate them for their feeble attemps to defend the red meat sector.
I doubt anybody of any consequence there will ever read them - I guess whoever is conducting the survey for them will only show them stuff they want to see.
As far as voting back retiring board members goes, I couldn't see why you would(never heard of any of them anyway). They've not entirely covered themselves with glory so time to go IMHO.
The only new canditate I'd heard of was George Fell. Never met him but knew his grandfather, so on that basis, he got a vote.
Needless to say, they scored a lot of 1's in the question boxes.
- Location
- Northumberland
I got around to voting this morning as well. 3times (cereals/beef/lamb). I think that, in this world of diminishing subs and being told to compete with world prices, we have to ask what bodies like NFU/RT/AHDB give us or take from us. I left the NFU a few years ago- they were doing a poor job for the money IMHO.
I don’t like these 1 to 5 surveys- my answer usually is ‘yes,but…’. Eg. Eat Balanced- important? Yes- it would be if it were done a whole lot better and more robustly.
Some points I squeezed into the boxes:
1) Should have a vote in AHDB disbandment in say 2 years time to see whether levy payers feel they get value for money.
2) RT is an expensive burden on the industry and AHDB should be standing up for farmers and demanding wholesale reform or disbandment of RT. Perhaps AHDB could run a “RT-lite” scheme requiring little more than legal requirements?
3) Demanding a level playing field with imports.
4) Public engagement should be less namby-pamby, should rebut claims if ruminants causing climate change (use of social media should be robust and on a 24/7 basis). Perhaps fund studies that rebut claims if ruminants causing climate change.
5) Engage freely with levy payers asking difficult questions. I cited the example of AHDBs Will Jackson- a single post ind he’s outtahere. That’s no good- if he couldn’t answer the reasonable questions being asked, someone else should have had a go!
I don’t like these 1 to 5 surveys- my answer usually is ‘yes,but…’. Eg. Eat Balanced- important? Yes- it would be if it were done a whole lot better and more robustly.
Some points I squeezed into the boxes:
1) Should have a vote in AHDB disbandment in say 2 years time to see whether levy payers feel they get value for money.
2) RT is an expensive burden on the industry and AHDB should be standing up for farmers and demanding wholesale reform or disbandment of RT. Perhaps AHDB could run a “RT-lite” scheme requiring little more than legal requirements?
3) Demanding a level playing field with imports.
4) Public engagement should be less namby-pamby, should rebut claims if ruminants causing climate change (use of social media should be robust and on a 24/7 basis). Perhaps fund studies that rebut claims if ruminants causing climate change.
5) Engage freely with levy payers asking difficult questions. I cited the example of AHDBs Will Jackson- a single post ind he’s outtahere. That’s no good- if he couldn’t answer the reasonable questions being asked, someone else should have had a go!
warksfarmer
Member
Totally agree with this. AHDB is of no use.
On the news this morning, Kelloggs are challenging the Govt nutritional labelling rules on the grounds that cornflakes are healthier once the milk is added.
If that isn't a massive PR opportunity I don't know what is. Surely by close of play today we eat balanced will be all over this like a rash. Keep an eye on the fb page
.
https://www.facebook.com/WeEatBalanced/
If that isn't a massive PR opportunity I don't know what is. Surely by close of play today we eat balanced will be all over this like a rash. Keep an eye on the fb page
.https://www.facebook.com/WeEatBalanced/
Not a Facebooker, but last post 7 April?!On the news this morning, Kelloggs are challenging the Govt nutritional labelling rules on the grounds that cornflakes are healthier once the milk is added.
If that isn't a massive PR opportunity I don't know what is. Surely by close of play today we eat balanced will be all over this like a rash. Keep an eye on the fb page
https://www.facebook.com/WeEatBalanced/
We clearly don't give them enough money to run a full time PR department.
https://www.facebook.com/WeEatBalanced/
@Sandpit Farm
@PREES
We Eat Balanced isn't a promotional campaign. It is a useless, embarrassing, pathetic excuse for a promotional campaign, entirely typical of the output from the AHDB in their key role of educating the general public.
Those slogging their guts out in the p!ss and the sh!t and the wind and the rain are let down daily by the national bodies they pay good money to. Sort it out.
@Sandpit Farm
@PREES
We Eat Balanced isn't a promotional campaign. It is a useless, embarrassing, pathetic excuse for a promotional campaign, entirely typical of the output from the AHDB in their key role of educating the general public.
Those slogging their guts out in the p!ss and the sh!t and the wind and the rain are let down daily by the national bodies they pay good money to. Sort it out.
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...urt-challenge-new-uk-rules-high-sugar-cereals
Kellogg’s argues the rules fail to take into account the fact that 92% of people eat cereal with milk or yoghurt, which changes the nutritional profile of its products and means they would not be classified as junk food.
“We believe the formula being used by the government to measure the nutritional value of breakfast cereals is wrong and not implemented legally,” said Chris Silcock, UK managing director at Kellogg’s.
“It measures cereals dry when they are almost always eaten with milk. All of this matters because, unless you take account of the nutritional elements added when cereal is eaten with milk, the full nutritional value of the meal is not measured.”
The story writes itself. How feckin useless are we not to be exploiting this. Today. Not next week or next year. Today. Because that's how news works you fuggin useless shower of sh!t.
Kellogg’s argues the rules fail to take into account the fact that 92% of people eat cereal with milk or yoghurt, which changes the nutritional profile of its products and means they would not be classified as junk food.
“We believe the formula being used by the government to measure the nutritional value of breakfast cereals is wrong and not implemented legally,” said Chris Silcock, UK managing director at Kellogg’s.
“It measures cereals dry when they are almost always eaten with milk. All of this matters because, unless you take account of the nutritional elements added when cereal is eaten with milk, the full nutritional value of the meal is not measured.”
The story writes itself. How feckin useless are we not to be exploiting this. Today. Not next week or next year. Today. Because that's how news works you fuggin useless shower of sh!t.
ollie989898
Member
I've never understood the fascination with variety lists/disease rankings and those fungicide efficacy graphs were abysmal. Better to pay for NIAB advice if you really want it.
- Location
- S E Glos
NIAB TAG ran a few trials (in Devon) comparing our/their recommended programmes on several vars, against the RL programme. Needless to say there was a big gap in margins, even in the far SW.
Just been reading the latest AHDB 'Ruminant news'.
The environmental benefits (of reducing days to slaughter) are also very important and must be considered. The more quickly lambs leave the farm, the less methane they produce over their lifetime. By increasing lamb growth rates, we can also reduce lamb's carbon footprint.
How much longer do we have to keep paying for this crap ? I thought there were signs that they were listening after @onesiedale and @holwellcourtfarm met with them ? Something needs to happen, i'm sick to the back teeth of it.
The environmental benefits (of reducing days to slaughter) are also very important and must be considered. The more quickly lambs leave the farm, the less methane they produce over their lifetime. By increasing lamb growth rates, we can also reduce lamb's carbon footprint.
How much longer do we have to keep paying for this crap ? I thought there were signs that they were listening after @onesiedale and @holwellcourtfarm met with them ? Something needs to happen, i'm sick to the back teeth of it.
- Location
- Montgomeryshire
Is that statement not factually correct?
While methane's contribution to global warming is certainly overstated in the extreme, the statement that lambs produce less methane over their lifetime if they are gone earlier is factually correct. Provided that faster finishing is not as a result of more carbon/energy intensive inputs, then it will reduce their carbon footprint.
Not by as large an amount as the exaggerated methane argument suggests, but it will reduce their carbon footprint (slightly).
Every other country is adopting a similar approach to faster finishing lowering footprints too, so not just a UK thing.
SilliamWhale
Member
I'm a sceptic on the idea that faster finishing means lower carbon footprint. For one its not as if when you finish an animal you shut down for a few months before replacing them.
Its all bunk really, the issue, as ever is fossil fuel usage.
There’s your problem right there. The only way you can get them to finish quicker is to feed them harder. And how is that feed produced? Fossil fuels.
So while the statement may be "technically" correct, it is disingenuous because it relies on everyone ignoring any other factors which may be inconvenient. In short, it’s misinformation.
No not the only way, improving genetics 'towards that goal ' will finish them relatively quicker .