Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Arable Farming
Cropping
Which generic manufacturers would you not use?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ollie989898" data-source="post: 4276428" data-attributes="member: 54866"><p>As I have mentioned in the past the world of agrochemicals is far more complex than meets the eye and the companies are often heavily involved with another for various reasons. Some even own or part own each other. Others agree to sell their actives or IP through actual competitors. No idea how any of that works but business is business as they say.</p><p></p><p>If all you have is a can, box and label then in reality you don't have much to go on.</p><p></p><p>I will give an example. A Japanese company who do nothing all day but innovate new chemicals, <em>Hokkiado chemicals</em>, develops an active and patents it. They then agree to sell the IP for that active through a long term arrangement to a large multinational in based in North America, <em>AgroNation</em>. AgroNation do some development work, and register the product for use in Europe, after electing to get Local Friendly Chemical Concern In Shanghai to manufacture it in quantity. They then form an agreement to market the product with AgriSupply PLC who then distribute it in Europe.</p><p></p><p>Now, there is utterly no reason that the manufacture, formulation, packaging or labelling could not be done at all or some of those points in the chain.</p><p></p><p>My point is thus, saying: 'I will not use use product from brand or company X' is fine, but you have utterly no idea who makes their product, where or who packaged etc or whose product it actually is. In reality something with a generic label could in fact be made by a big name brand or could be made in the exact same Chinese/Indian/German/American factory that big name brand chemistry is. There are not gazillions of factories worldwide who are involved in the production of this stuff for obvious reasons.</p><p></p><p>Whilst I could recommend you just stick with big name brands who heavily advertise there is obviously natural interest in the lower priced generic or parallel products. Most people I know use a bit of both, depending on the product and the application. I would say, stick to using products you have used before and been happy with, you should also continue to use product from companies who give good technical backup and whom are driving the R and D in the industry forward. There is a limited amount of money to spend by all companies regardless of their size and if they do not sell enough of active X or Y (or make enough money from it), they just won't bother to support it in registration when it inevitably has time called on it.</p><p></p><p>Whilst I am now vehemently anti-EU and their peculiar fixation with agrochemical regulation, I am under no illusions- even if actives remain approved for use in the UK, it is doubtful companies will bother to continue manufacturing it if it is not approved for use in Europe, the quantities involved will not be justifiable.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ollie989898, post: 4276428, member: 54866"] As I have mentioned in the past the world of agrochemicals is far more complex than meets the eye and the companies are often heavily involved with another for various reasons. Some even own or part own each other. Others agree to sell their actives or IP through actual competitors. No idea how any of that works but business is business as they say. If all you have is a can, box and label then in reality you don't have much to go on. I will give an example. A Japanese company who do nothing all day but innovate new chemicals, [I]Hokkiado chemicals[/I], develops an active and patents it. They then agree to sell the IP for that active through a long term arrangement to a large multinational in based in North America, [I]AgroNation[/I]. AgroNation do some development work, and register the product for use in Europe, after electing to get Local Friendly Chemical Concern In Shanghai to manufacture it in quantity. They then form an agreement to market the product with AgriSupply PLC who then distribute it in Europe. Now, there is utterly no reason that the manufacture, formulation, packaging or labelling could not be done at all or some of those points in the chain. My point is thus, saying: 'I will not use use product from brand or company X' is fine, but you have utterly no idea who makes their product, where or who packaged etc or whose product it actually is. In reality something with a generic label could in fact be made by a big name brand or could be made in the exact same Chinese/Indian/German/American factory that big name brand chemistry is. There are not gazillions of factories worldwide who are involved in the production of this stuff for obvious reasons. Whilst I could recommend you just stick with big name brands who heavily advertise there is obviously natural interest in the lower priced generic or parallel products. Most people I know use a bit of both, depending on the product and the application. I would say, stick to using products you have used before and been happy with, you should also continue to use product from companies who give good technical backup and whom are driving the R and D in the industry forward. There is a limited amount of money to spend by all companies regardless of their size and if they do not sell enough of active X or Y (or make enough money from it), they just won't bother to support it in registration when it inevitably has time called on it. Whilst I am now vehemently anti-EU and their peculiar fixation with agrochemical regulation, I am under no illusions- even if actives remain approved for use in the UK, it is doubtful companies will bother to continue manufacturing it if it is not approved for use in Europe, the quantities involved will not be justifiable. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Arable Farming
Cropping
Which generic manufacturers would you not use?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top