Make it the law that agronomist can't sell pesticides

[Grass And Grain]

I've started this new thread after a comment Clive made in another thread...

There are “agronomists” (salesmen) in this industry that frankly needs striking off

I can’t imagine any justification for an insecticide at the moment

Putting sales targets over environment should simply not be allowed, it gets our industry a terrible reputation risking loss and resistance to actives so when we do need them they are no longer available options

This got me thinking.

With all the environmental legislation we farmers have, and with all the environmental issues with pesticides, I was thinking that it really isn't sensible to allow agronomist to sell chemicals. They have a sales agenda, and so a conflict of interests.

I propose that for environmental and resistance management reasons, it should be illegal for agronomist making crop recommendations to be supplying the chemical. The two should be separate.

 

[Iben]

I agree, difficult to prove that no agronomist is 'associated' with a chem supplier.

Other thing that annoys me is agronomy companies that now have there own brand, or own a chem company.

Agrii have cleancrop? Frontier own intracrop etc. Then they say they are not biased when there own chem arrives on farm.

 

[Kevtherev]

Over use of Agricultural Chems is a big problem.
And we wonder why bees and insects are in decline..

 

[Against_the_grain]

All these big companies will do is switch their business model so that the serviced agronomists are buying from them exclusively rather than selling to the customer.
Nobody is forced to have a serviced agronomist it's a matter of choice. ..for some reason

 

[Against_the_grain]

Over use of Agricultural Chems is a big problem.
And we wonder why bees and insects are in decline..

No it's not! Who is overusing ag chems? Any proof or are you just selling your industry down the pan on spurious claims...

 

[Clive]

I agree and have long said so. The current system is far to conflicted with sales targets a consideration for some

Would you take a pill that a doctor prescribed you knowing that he only got paid for prescribing a particular brand of pill ? Or had a load of that brand of pill in stick he needed to get rid off ?

It’s more than just an economic argument as well, over use of some actives leads to resistance, damage to benificials etc and ultimately we loose them for when we do justifiably need them

It’s a vey contentious subject that will upset a lot of supply agronomists I’m sure but if they stepped back and thought it through I suspect they would be happy and better at their job if their advice was charged for seperately to the products the recommend

Not all supply agronmists are bad and likewise not all independents are good either, must be careful about generalising here but it’s hard to see a good argument o allow people employed in a sales role to make the recommendations

 

[Clive]

No it's not! Who is overusing ag chems? Any proof or are you just selling your industry down the pan on spurious claims...

It happens like it or not

See current insecticide thread for some examples

Better to do something about it before we loose these products

 

[Clive]

All these big companies will do is switch their business model so that the serviced agronomists are buying from them exclusively rather than selling to the customer.
Nobody is forced to have a serviced agronomist it's a matter of choice. ..for some reason

That would be a good move - charge for agronomy services and then quote to supply

There are some great serviced agronomists who would be even better still had they not certain products to shift to keep the boss happy

 

[Grain Buyer]

The old “Belt and Braces” sales technique.....

 

[Breckland Boy]

Would you take a pill that a doctor prescribed you knowing that he only got paid for prescribing a particular brand of pill ? Or had a load of that brand of pill in stick he needed to get rid off ?

There are hundreds of medical supply reps handing out free lunches, coperate hospitality, bribes to get doctors to prescribe their companies products.
As patients we just trust our doctors, as farmers many of us do the same with our agronomists. In both situations we can get a second opinion if desired.

 

[ollie989898]

Fudge off!!

What about those of us who are open and honest but above all enjoy selling stuff and who are good at it?

Independent agronomy is way too boring by comparision. Where is the challenge in that? Just cus they cant do it why slate those who can?

And what about the poor old livestock farmer who just wants soneone to sort his 50 acres of docks. Find me an independent cropwalker who will bother with that??

And let us get this straight you reckon no independent ever in the history of the world ever benefitted financially from using company Xs Product portfolio? Come along now.

 

[Grass And Grain]

There's a date set in law for hedgecutting season - It's not left to farmers to do the right thing voluntarily. Mandatory pesticide buffer zones, manure spreading rates and dates, spray operator tests, sprayer tests, etc. etc.

Strikes me that serviced agronomy (allowing sales targets and advice to be linked) could potentially be one of the worst structures for environmental and resistance problems.

Leave it for farmers and companies to sort out voluntarily? Or legislate against the practice?

As already pointed out, don't want to tar everyone with the same brush, but...

 

[Kevtherev]

Big can of worms

 

[Clive]

Fudge off!!

What about those of us who are open and honest but above all enjoy selling stuff and who are good at it?

Independent agronomy is way too boring by comparision. Where is the challenge in that? Just cus they cant do it why slate those who can?

And what about the poor old livestock farmer who just wants soneone to sort his 50 acres of docks. Find me an independent cropwalker who will bother with that??

And let us get this straight you reckon no independent ever in the history of the world ever benefitted financially from using company Xs Product portfolio? Come along now.

have already said there are good guys and bad both indy and supply

Even as a supply guy wouldn't you have rather been paid for advice separately ?


you are clearly one of the good guys but its clear from many threads on here that all are no the same

 

[Dry Rot]

It used to be called professionalism. The professional does what is best for his client, not his employer or his bank balance. Is it not just morally wrong but also legally wrong under a duty of trust?

If a professional (vet, agronomist, a doctor, whatever) knowingly recommends unnecessary treatment, surely that is fraud? Wasn't a surgeon recently struck off and held liable for a substantial damages for carrying out unnecessary operations?

I see this in worming horses. All those with a financial interest (vets, wormer manufacurers, agro-chemical retailers, etc) push worming like mad so it is now seen as part of being 'a good owner'.

It is suggested that someone who does not regularly worm their animals is somehow being negligent. Same thing with vaccinations. Not needing to worm used to be called good stockmanship. I can't help wondering what margins are involved and how much money they are making.

 

[Clive]

Would you take a pill that a doctor prescribed you knowing that he only got paid for prescribing a particular brand of pill ? Or had a load of that brand of pill in stick he needed to get rid off ?

There are hundreds of medical supply reps handing out free lunches, coperate hospitality, bribes to get doctors to prescribe their companies products.
As patients we just trust our doctors, as farmers many of us do the same with our agronomists. In both situations we can get a second opinion if desired.

i guess the same can be said to an extent of a independant agronomist - syngenta points, days out maybe etc to try and influence thinking

however that's not the same as having stock to shift, turn over to support or threat of loosing a job if you don't hit targets etc

 

[fudge]

I've started this new thread after a comment Clive made in another thread...



This got me thinking.

With all the environmental legislation we farmers have, and with all the environmental issues with pesticides, I was thinking that it really isn't sensible to allow agronomist to sell chemicals. They have a sales agenda, and so a conflict of interests.

I propose that for environmental and resistance management reasons, it should be illegal for agronomist making crop recommendations to be supplying the chemical. The two should be separate.

I don’t think this is a reasonable course of action. The responsibility lies with the growers ultimately. How would you police basis qualified farmers?

 

[Clive]

It used to be called professionalism. The professional does what is best for his client, not his employer or his bank balance. Is it not just morally wrong but also legally wrong under a duty of trust?

If a professional (vet, agronomist, a doctor, whatever) knowingly recommends unnecessary treatment, surely that is fraud? Wasn't a surgeon recently struck off and held liable for a substantial damages for carrying out unnecessary operations?

I see this in worming horses. All those with a financial interest (vets, wormer manufacurers, agro-chemical retailers, etc) push worming like mad so it is now seen as part of being 'a good owner'.

It is suggested that someone who does not regularly worm their animals is somehow being negligent. Same thing with vaccinations. Not needing to worm used to be called good stockmanship. I can't help wondering what margins are involved and how much money they are making.

an employee's first duty is to the company they works for just as a company director has a duty to their shareholders etc

that's the way things are and its a bit naive as a customer to think the salesmen are on the customers side first and foremost despite some doing a very good act of pretending they are

Again though - not ALL though, there is good and bad in all sectors I'm sure and we should not generalise

 

[Richard III]

It's only the environmental aspect that I think is important, some farmers will always get their leg lifted one way or another, that's life. The problem is protecting the environment from overselling chemicals and we all know it happens.

The clever supply companies do in house trials to inform their agronomists on which chemicals and rates to use, the agronomist then goes out on farm selling what he believes is right for the farmer, or is it..............

 

[ollie989898]

have already said there are good guys and bad both indy and supply

Even as a supply guy wouldn't you have rather been paid for advice separately ?


you are clearly one of the good guys but its clear from many threads on here that all are no the same

It is waaaay simpler just to send product and a bill.

There are many many hours Clive ive spent walking just grass with a farmer, perhaps they have taken on a new farm or new land what can we grow, what needs reseeding first etc etc you cant charge anything for this as you cant define it adequately. Better to simply add a percentage to chems, ferts and seed. This is the kind of work independents dont do or cant do anyway. In fact very few agronomists know jack about herbage or forage crops yet my former clients can make more out of these a hectare than any arable crop.