Blood sucking ahdb

Highland Mule

Member
Livestock Farmer
And what about per farmer ?
or per acre ?
or as a % of profit ?
why should a farmer with more turnover pay more ?
a larger turnover does not necessarily mean more profit does it ?
why do you keep basing it on turnover ?
do any other sectors base payments on turnover ?
if not why are you ?
is it because it supports your argument ?

See my post above.

And I don’t have an “argument” other than wanting the facts to be clear to all and dismissing lies when I see them.
 

Worsall

Member
Arable Farmer
AHDB Levy cost my business over £3000 last year. I don't get value for money in my opinion. I would vote to stop the levy.
If the levy gave me a better price, and took control of my assurance requirements to be able to market my grain, I would then support the levy.
 

Henarar

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Somerset
AHDB Levy cost my business over £3000 last year. I don't get value for money in my opinion. I would vote to stop the levy.
If the levy gave me a better price, and took control of my assurance requirements to be able to market my grain, I would then support the levy.
The levy does go towards RT :ROFLMAO: ¹
 

Agrivator

Member
Who can remember the most famous butcher of all - Fred Elliot.

He had a butcher's shop in South Manchester which was viewed by billions of folk, numerous time a week throughout the UK and further afield.
Behind the counter, in full focus, was a large poster extolling the virtues of Welsh Lamb. Now that's what I would call effective advertising.
 

simon w

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Hayling Island
AHDB Levy cost my business over £3000 last year. I don't get value for money in my opinion. I would vote to stop the levy.
If the levy gave me a better price, and took control of my assurance requirements to be able to market my grain, I would then support the levy.
I don't see why it shouldn't be voluntary the those that see a value can join. At present the ahdb give away all their research work information to all including those who don't pay the levy. Bring back the old HGCA and scrap the rest.
 

Hindsight

Member
Location
Lincolnshire
I don't see why it shouldn't be voluntary the those that see a value can join. At present the ahdb give away all their research work information to all including those who don't pay the levy. Bring back the old HGCA and scrap the rest.

Simon, I will be pedantic for a purpose.

The AHDB do 'give away' their research work. But of course. As it is your research work (the industry's R&D ) and the terms of reference set by government is that information is funded by all and available to all. Whether a individual business considers the actual R&D relevant of chooses to engage is irrelevant to that arrangement. Was that not part of the thrust of the Hortic vote - that some growers did not want to give a competitive advantage to other growers from having general access to R&D funded by AHDB Hortic levy.

In the days of HGCA it was exactly the same as today - R&D feely available.

You are correct that non levy payers can access the information - but the amount of non levy cereals and oilseed, I contend is a small percentage of total production. And again if a voluntary levy any 'useful' information generated would 'leak' out to the non voluntary levy payer.
 

simon w

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Hayling Island
Simon, I will be pedantic for a purpose.

The AHDB do 'give away' their research work. But of course. As it is your research work (the industry's R&D ) and the terms of reference set by government is that information is funded by all and available to all. Whether a individual business considers the actual R&D relevant of chooses to engage is irrelevant to that arrangement. Was that not part of the thrust of the Hortic vote - that some growers did not want to give a competitive advantage to other growers from having general access to R&D funded by AHDB Hortic levy.

In the days of HGCA it was exactly the same as today - R&D feely available.

You are correct that non levy payers can access the information - but the amount of non levy cereals and oilseed, I contend is a small percentage of total production. And again if a voluntary levy any 'useful' information generated would 'leak' out to the non voluntary levy payer.
I now the HGCA was funded by levy, but it was just working for cereals, so was much more focused than the ahdb's catch all try to please everyone stance at present . This is the reason I will vote "no" in the potato ballot they have spread to far.
 

Hindsight

Member
Location
Lincolnshire
According to the letter @Austin7 wrote to Nick Saphir the AHDB hold huge amounts of research that is not available to anyone.

I saw that letter. Bit dim distant memory now, but I seem to recall when the Potato Council was based at Oxford, as a stand alone before it fell under the collective banner of AHDB, there were research papers and documents in paper form dating back decades that could be accessed from the Library. I wonder if it is these Austin7 was referencing. Not sure everything has been digitised. But I am not that close to potato agronomy, so you would need to ask someone else.

May I take it your post though was gently taking a pot at me?! That R&D is not available to all. Hence you reference to Austin7 letter to Saphir.
Letters to Chairman or AHDB from prevous Chairman of PMP is way, way above my pay grade. But I believe you are wrong. I find information available. And in recent weeks trawled and posted on here in relevant threads Research Reviews and Project Reports from the 1990s completed and published under the auspices of HGCA.

Austin7 may not be able to access something through the search engine. But had he spoken with Rob Clayton, or the Adrians at Sutton Bridge. These staff have been at PMB then Potato Council for decades. Knowledgeable and very helpful. But looks as though the grower base may take a different view. Hey ho. There you go.
 
Last edited:

teslacoils

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lincolnshire
Where do people stand on the cereal levy?

50p for the farmer.
82p for osr

It must add up to a fair chunk of cash!

Yup. And all I see is the yearly RL crap where one-hit-wonder varieties appear, knock off old favourites, then vanish two years later.

Levy can go. This is the thin end of the wedge. We don't want to see huge offices and expensive Cereals stands. I want back to basics research. I get more from the old Morley reports than levy "research".
 

Hindsight

Member
Location
Lincolnshire
Yup. And all I see is the yearly RL crap where one-hit-wonder varieties appear, knock off old favourites, then vanish two years later.

Levy can go. This is the thin end of the wedge. We don't want to see huge offices and expensive Cereals stands. I want back to basics research. I get more from the old Morley reports than levy "research".

You make some interesting comments: Not sure how far back you have gone but the old Morley Papers and reports were held only in paper form. But were photocopied to digitise and uploaded by Morley a few years back. Cannot recall now if during the MRC/ARC or the TAG days - but may even have been since 2010 and NIABTAG. Fromebridge on here would know. Morley was blessed with trust funds to part fund the staff and trials. But will also have benefited from HGCA levy money and other funding back in the day.

As an aside when you read those old reports do you ever just for a moment wonder how they were funded?

I had a look at the AHDB website to check the current projects being funded. Various reviews, PhD bursaries. In addition to the RL flagship. I suppose we are going to find out if farmers consider this research is 'near enough' to commercial use and their farm to continue wishing to fund this R&D through the (a) levy.

Of course this is not new. The Thatcher government Bell report was the first step to the concept of co-funding and 'near' market research being partly funded directly by the beneficiary (farmer) and the concept of collective funding - ie that all farmers pay into the pot and all farmers can freely access the results and information.

Interesting times.
 

ajd132

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Suffolk
You make some interesting comments: Not sure how far back you have gone but the old Morley Papers and reports were held only in paper form. But were photocopied to digitise and uploaded by Morley a few years back. Cannot recall now if during the MRC/ARC or the TAG days - but may even have been since 2010 and NIABTAG. Fromebridge on here would know. Morley was blessed with trust funds to part fund the staff and trials. But will also have benefited from HGCA levy money and other funding back in the day.

As an aside when you read those old reports do you ever just for a moment wonder how they were funded?

I had a look at the AHDB website to check the current projects being funded. Various reviews, PhD bursaries. In addition to the RL flagship. I suppose we are going to find out if farmers consider this research is 'near enough' to commercial use and their farm to continue wishing to fund this R&D through the (a) levy.

Of course this is not new. The Thatcher government Bell report was the first step to the concept of co-funding and 'near' market research being partly funded directly by the beneficiary (farmer) and the concept of collective funding - ie that all farmers pay into the pot and all farmers can freely access the results and information.

Interesting times.
There is actually quite a lot of stuff available from the ahdb but you have to search for it and it is usually in a scientific report type
 

Hindsight

Member
Location
Lincolnshire
There is actually quite a lot of stuff available from the ahdb but you have to search for it and it is usually in a scientific report type

Much of the project work is reported in as you say 'scientific reports' which can and do run to 100 pages or more. Ones I want to read I tend to print out and bind.

This format may not seem 'farmer friendly' , and actually often isn't, I get cold looks when forwarding such reports to farmers, so the contents are usually decanted into easier to read and understand shorter one to two page Topic Notes and articles in the farming press. I note that CPM magazine contains a AHDB Knowledge transfer section most months written in a friendly 'interview style' with side bulletins of background technical bullet points / graphs / tables in support.

And AHDB took the route after inception of having Knowledge Transfer Officers to assist with the process.

The scientific reports are written that way because many are reporting detailed field trials that are, well, scientific and will be published in academic journals, so have to be to a standard and rigour to allow peer review.

On balance I feel the various research scientists get the balance about right. But I can appreciate if at first glance to a busy farmer this maybe not the case.
 

teslacoils

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lincolnshire
You make some interesting comments: Not sure how far back you have gone but the old Morley Papers and reports were held only in paper form. But were photocopied to digitise and uploaded by Morley a few years back. Cannot recall now if during the MRC/ARC or the TAG days - but may even have been since 2010 and NIABTAG. Fromebridge on here would know. Morley was blessed with trust funds to part fund the staff and trials. But will also have benefited from HGCA levy money and other funding back in the day.

As an aside when you read those old reports do you ever just for a moment wonder how they were funded?

I had a look at the AHDB website to check the current projects being funded. Various reviews, PhD bursaries. In addition to the RL flagship. I suppose we are going to find out if farmers consider this research is 'near enough' to commercial use and their farm to continue wishing to fund this R&D through the (a) levy.

Of course this is not new. The Thatcher government Bell report was the first step to the concept of co-funding and 'near' market research being partly funded directly by the beneficiary (farmer) and the concept of collective funding - ie that all farmers pay into the pot and all farmers can freely access the results and information.

Interesting times.

I read a lot of the digitised ones from the 80s and 90s. Good stuff.

Most of what I'm after is covered by tag now. But I like to know how life was in simpler times of jet neuf, Avalon, thick dressings of muck and stubble burning.
 

teslacoils

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lincolnshire
I don't really pay much attention to funding source. The old research was driven by the goal of farm productivity moving to profitability. Now it's dominated by the latest "buzzwords".
 

Hindsight

Member
Location
Lincolnshire
I don't really pay much attention to funding source. The old research was driven by the goal of farm productivity moving to profitability. Now it's dominated by the latest "buzzwords".

80s / 90s a balance with environmental consequences were also a key part of research by the institutional research organisations. Just that it was maybe not the headline point made or not necessarily as clear as more latterly.
 

glasshouse

Member
Location
lothians
Pr
E82EDF5C-4B22-4134-903D-4773C7E063FD.jpeg
 

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

  • 1,292
  • 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