Life after serviced agronomy.

[Steevo]

To add to the debate
Is serviced agronomy similar to having manufacturers serviced machinery
independent agronomist and independent machinery or vehicle repairs and servicing

Partly.

The only "big name" servicing I have done it a combine service by APH each year. I like the backup and specialist knowledge they can bring and feel it is well worthwhile. Their hourly charge may be more than an independent but they can do twice as much in the same time, plus spot things an independent wouldn't. Experience counts for an enormous amount. Whilst they supply the parts they are always customer focussed - to me that is the key.

Serviced agronomy is often not focussed on the customer as much as it might be.

I wish I could justify all other machinery being serviced in the same manner but I don't think it would be cost effective. An independent on the other hand often doesn't have the experience with the models (having not done the training course).

 

[Steevo]

The AHDB should not be funded by levy. I don't care if you think it is the best thing since sliced bread or an utter farce, it should be funded by voluntary subscription. Live or die in the harsh reality of commerce. Those times of the nanny state knowing best are long gone.

PGRO is funded by voluntary levy and imo do a great job for this exact reason. They need to provide value for money for growers because those growers have a choice. They also try hard to find and promote new markets....to encourage more people to grow and thus help fund themselves.

 

[Steevo]

Serviced agronomy is funded by agrochemical sales. Nothing to stop anyone having a distributor agronomist walking your fields, making your recommendations and being paid a fee per acre with you getting the products where you like. There is a lot of this happening successfully. An agronomist should be making you money in excess of their fees.

NHS Doctors were under pressure to prescribe cheaper drugs. Remember Herceptin for cancer?

I agree with your last point but growers let this happen. They chose serviced agronomy, not had it forced on them.

Totally agree with this.

My agronomist was once fully independent and is now employed by a distributor. I'm actually pleased that he is - it's easier for him to keep up to date on things etc.

IMO distributors fell down when they started getting manufacturer exclusives that were unique to them. To me that made it clear they were trying hard to limit transparency.

 

[yellow belly]

The only independent research would be paid for directly by the farmers that used and paid for it
NIAB tag
no independent freely available variety trials those who subscribe would get the results
the independent agronomists would also have to fund their research and charge more

 

[ollie989898]

The only independent research would be paid for directly by the farmers that used and paid for it
NIAB tag
no independent freely available variety trials those who subscribe would get the results
the independent agronomists would also have to fund their research and charge more

Fine by me. Those who don't take any notice of the trials would not pay a cent. None of this mandatory payment carp.

 

[yellow belly]

Fine by me. Those who don't take any notice of the trials would not pay a cent. None of this mandatory payment carp.

It would cost use more than the combined hgca levy and niab tag subs
niab tag would have to do more variety trials and more work on screening fungicides all these are currently paid for by hgca with government adding to the pot

 

[ollie989898]

It would cost use more than the combined hgca levy and niab tag subs
niab tag would have to do more variety trials and more work on screening fungicides all these are currently paid for by hgca with government adding to the pot

Makes no odds, the industry should run it's own show, no government or tax payer being involved. Quangos and other organisations just mean people being paid on the tax payer purse, enough is enough.

 

[AndrewM]

scale those savings on 100 acres up to a larger area and it absolutely baffles me there is some big operators still doing serviced agronomy!

serviced agronomists run multiple price lists, their bigger clients wont be paying the same for chems as the little 100 acre guys, which makes sense. however there is still likely to be significant savings if the serviced agronomist have been left on their own for a long time, no checking against the competition ect. they do tend to take the pee if they dont think the farmer/manager knows any better. sales targets to meet ect

 

[yellow belly]

Makes no odds, the industry should run it's own show, no government or tax payer being involved. Quangos and other organisations just mean people being paid on the tax payer purse, enough is enough.

it would cost us many times more with out any government grants

 

[AndrewM]

As a non-arable farmer can I politely ask why there is such a need for agronomists? After a few years you will know and recognise what diseases are around, have done lots of soil sampling and should recognise most weeds.
Does the advice vary by much each year? Why not walk through your own crops?

unlike fertilizer there is a legal requirement (not just a red tractor rule) for all pesticide applications to be recommended be a qualified agronomist. same as all sprayer drivers need pa certificates.

 

[AndrewM]

Niab membership is probably our best investment every year.

Niab are good and independent, however having worked in the trial industry previously, its was quite worrying reading their annual results booklet, lot of trials reported with problems/ high variation. Also see a high turn over in staff/ not very high pay for the actual people doing the trials work.

 

[Steevo]

it would cost us many times more with out any government grants

Rarely does anything involving a government grant work out cheap.....often it's cheaper to do things without the grant.

 

[MarkD]

The medical analogy is worth consideration. With regard to antibiotic use the prescription behaviour of doctors plays a strong part in the build up of resistance. As they are the professionals in an unbalanced relationship with their patients and an expectation built for them to cure problems with their available tools, it seems antibiotics were over prescribed. There was no financial advantage to the doctor but the culture in which they worked encouraged over use, leading to resistance.
Extend that analogy to agronomy and pesticide use and I think some of the problems of input cost creep and diminishing efficacy become clearer, regardless of the type of agronomists involved.

 

[Gong Farmer]

Niab are good and independent, however having worked in the trial industry previously, its was quite worrying reading their annual results booklet, lot of trials reported with problems/ high variation. Also see a high turn over in staff/ not very high pay for the actual people doing the trials work.

Spare some change for a cup of tea, guvnor?

The reason the trials book has less than perfect trials in it is because we publish everything, warts and all. Members know the trials are there and expect to see the results from it. We're not selling anything but data so don't have to cull trials that don't fit a message.

 

[Brisel]

The medical analogy is worth consideration. With regard to antibiotic use the prescription behaviour of doctors plays a strong part in the build up of resistance. As they are the professionals in an unbalanced relationship with their patients and an expectation built for them to cure problems with their available tools, it seems antibiotics were over prescribed. There was no financial advantage to the doctor but the culture in which they worked encouraged over use, leading to resistance.
Extend that analogy to agronomy and pesticide use and I think some of the problems of input cost creep and diminishing efficacy become clearer, regardless of the type of agronomists involved.

See the amount of antibiotics given out now that the NHS has a clear mandate to fight resistance by minimising their use. No more placebo pills given out by GPS who want hypochondriacs out of their surgery with a ticket in their hand that makes them feel better about themselves.

Consider too, the loss of older cheaper chemistry actives that were off patent.

Some agronomists briefs are to grow clean crops, not necessarily the cheapest. One escape of a wild oat problem can mean a change of agronomist so I see the margin of error built into service. The more enquiring type of grower will be happier to take more risks that they only have themselves to blame for.

 

[teslacoils]

I’m an agronomist who has worked as an independent for a long time and now works for a distributor. The poor service you describe is not going to be rewarded by the repeat business needed for long term survival (or avoid the legislative changes taking place in France). I’m working on a number of mechanisms to introduce more accountability for agronomists both sales and independent How would you view a service where the agronomist is incentivised by the Gross Margin of the crops we advise on? Obviously provisions for seasonal yield variations and price variability would need to be accounted for.

Tricky. It sounds good but my major concern for the future is a move to bundled agchem IE you only get product X if you buy seed Y and vice versa.

I'd not really be interested - I'd rather just pay a decent rate for a better agronomist, and word soon gets round who is the best value in this respect.

 

[ajd132]

See the amount of antibiotics given out now that the NHS has a clear mandate to fight resistance by minimising their use. No more placebo pills given out by GPS who want hypochondriacs out of their surgery with a ticket in their hand that makes them feel better about themselves.

Consider too, the loss of older cheaper chemistry actives that were off patent.

Some agronomists briefs are to grow clean crops, not necessarily the cheapest. One escape of a wild oat problem can mean a change of agronomist so I see the margin of error built into service. The more enquiring type of grower will be happier to take more risks that they only have themselves to blame for.

This is a good point. Farmers are as much to blame. So many don’t understand the economics of the job

 

[shakerator]

See the amount of antibiotics given out now that the NHS has a clear mandate to fight resistance by minimising their use. No more placebo pills given out by GPS who want hypochondriacs out of their surgery with a ticket in their hand that makes them feel better about themselves.

Consider too, the loss of older cheaper chemistry actives that were off patent.

Some agronomists briefs are to grow clean crops, not necessarily the cheapest. One escape of a wild oat problem can mean a change of agronomist so I see the margin of error built into service. The more enquiring type of grower will be happier to take more risks that they only have themselves to blame for.

dnot forget SU’s are diabetic drugs !

 

[SilliamWhale]

unlike fertilizer there is a legal requirement (not just a red tractor rule) for all pesticide applications to be recommended be a qualified agronomist. same as all sprayer drivers need pa certificates.

I don't think thats true

 

[Brisel]

I don't think thats true

Correct. It is not a legal requirement to have BASIS to do your own agronomy.