SilliamWhale
Member
I think they could do a lot of the cereals stuff a hell of a lot cheaper. Its basic fungicides and varieties.
Who thinks the AHDB is well run and provides value to their business?
- Thread starter Flat 10
- Start date
I think they could do a lot of the cereals stuff a hell of a lot cheaper. Its basic fungicides and varieties.
Bogweevil
Member
Isn't that NIABTAG?
- Location
- Derbyshire
I'm not voting in this poll as I am close to some who work there and you can think they should still exist and there are good people there without describing it as 'well run' so I think it is a loaded question. My family are beef and sheep with some dairy across 2 businesses.
If they did not exist I would have no genetic figures at all... forget bull proofs, they wouldn't exist. I don't know if you can argue that opening up China for beef helped the profitability of my uncle's beef herd but I would rather someone was doing that than nobody and that was definitely good for the industry as a whole. Same is true for industry figures, who do DEFRA and government get their figures from if not from an evidence based organisation?. I frequently find myself reading interesting articles and when I look in the small print, it uses AHDB figures. I can usually find a tool for most things, even if a little blunt at times although the website really is not great (preferred the old one).
For me, I'd like to see them back themselves a bit more, do more industry PR directly, fight harder for reputation when the agenda is clearly anti and do less but do it better. They are going to need to lead better on the Environment side. I don't know much about this arable market access issue and RT but they clearly need to take a hard line on that too. So I would keep them but change a fair bit.
If they did not exist I would have no genetic figures at all... forget bull proofs, they wouldn't exist. I don't know if you can argue that opening up China for beef helped the profitability of my uncle's beef herd but I would rather someone was doing that than nobody and that was definitely good for the industry as a whole. Same is true for industry figures, who do DEFRA and government get their figures from if not from an evidence based organisation?. I frequently find myself reading interesting articles and when I look in the small print, it uses AHDB figures. I can usually find a tool for most things, even if a little blunt at times although the website really is not great (preferred the old one).
For me, I'd like to see them back themselves a bit more, do more industry PR directly, fight harder for reputation when the agenda is clearly anti and do less but do it better. They are going to need to lead better on the Environment side. I don't know much about this arable market access issue and RT but they clearly need to take a hard line on that too. So I would keep them but change a fair bit.
SilliamWhale
Member
Its easy to agree with what you said. But if you have an organisation that does not want to support and back their farmers then I'm sorry, but its not worth it. There are of course plenty of good people working there but if at an executive level the AHDB are unable to point themselves in a direction of genuinely helping grain farmers with market access to their own markets- then they are absolutely not worth saving.
I thought the question I asked was very fair (it’s not about abolition if you read it) and I appreciated your response, it’s good to hear that you are getting value. That’s what I want to happen for everyone
- Location
- Derbyshire
No fair enough. Same to @SilliamWhale's point. My point was that you can see lots of improvements that need to be made but still feel there is a value.I thought the question I asked was very fair (it’s not about abolition if you read it) and I appreciated your response, it’s good to hear that you are getting value. That’s what I want to happen for everyone
Let people pay if they choose ,then you’d see if they think it’s good value or not.
Why should we be forced to pay ?
Tarw Coch
Member
- Location
- Bottom of Wats Dyke
Yes, that’s the ultimate test of wether they provide value or not, are farmers prepared to pay if they have the choice
- Location
- Derbyshire
Fair enough. I will pay but they need to wind up the genetics and export work. I am not paying for others to get that. We can all breed dairy cows for 'character' and we don't need market access to Asia anyway, the kiwis can have it. We like cheese here
ollie989898
Member
Well then, let farmers decide which organisation they want to pay their hard earned for. If NIAB are doing the arable work, what the fudge do you need AHDB for?
ollie989898
Member
Pay NIAB their membership fee if you want that information. The arable world doesn't need any one else hanging on costing them money. This is commodity production, you want to compete with the global markets you better be running light.
Princess Pooper
Member
- Location
- East Mids
One of the biggest changes if it went, would be that consultants would lose a lot of their information sources. There are lots of farmers who say AHDB does not give value for money, but they do not actually know or bother to find out what is available from AHDB, which is ‘free’ to them as levy payers. Then they pay a consultant, who actually realises the wealth of resources that are available and makes money by selling that advice to their clients. So they pay for it twice.
It has previously been debated at length within AHDB whether this information should be charged for, when accessed by non-levy payers, but I think it was generally felt this would be a bad idea. Better that the farmers still got the advice, even if they paid a consultant for it, than not get it at all.
In answer to the question in the title, I suspect it could be run a lot better, but it does give me value for money. Beef, sheep, dairy and until this year, cereal levy payer.
It has previously been debated at length within AHDB whether this information should be charged for, when accessed by non-levy payers, but I think it was generally felt this would be a bad idea. Better that the farmers still got the advice, even if they paid a consultant for it, than not get it at all.
In answer to the question in the title, I suspect it could be run a lot better, but it does give me value for money. Beef, sheep, dairy and until this year, cereal levy payer.
It’s why Cereals and Oilseeds always run an agronomists conference. That helps disseminate R&D information back to levy payers. Just that, as you say, the levy payers don’t realise it and the agronomists don’t point it out to them.
I value and pay a NIAB Tag fee as well. But it is worth remembering that NIAB Tag benefits from the R&D trial work that they undertake for AHDB; and that ultimately benefits me as a NIAB Tag member as well.
Why don’t the ahdb tell me then? All I get is loads of emails about monitor farms…. Point I’m making is why don’t they then email me about other things too?
Princess Pooper
Member
- Location
- East Mids
Do you know how to use a website? AHDB.org.uk
Have you ever looked at their website? Visited a stand at a show? Have you registered to receive emails about other topics eg market information? (the latter is even on here for some sectors). Watched / taken part in any of their webinars? Listened to the podcasts (also linked onTFF). Used RB209 or a nutrient management software programme (will probably have RB209 embedded). ?
Last edited:
Yes to most of the above. Not done webinars or podcasts for anyone. I have a copy of rb209.
- Location
- The North
They have done some great stuff around sheep research and there’s some great stuff about feeding etc and illness,
however there promotion of meat seems poor, like owt else wants a shake up compulsory levy’s creates laziness
however there promotion of meat seems poor, like owt else wants a shake up compulsory levy’s creates laziness
ollie989898
Member
I've no issue with NIAB or ADHB existing. If they are providing valuable information to businesses that is AOK by me. But they should not be funded by a mandatory levy or tax. It should be a subscription model based on an annual fee that a business may choose to accept or not. If you agronomist wants the information they provide, they too should pay to access it. Personally I never had much faith in any of it, least of all the fungicide trials and their peculiar little graphs. Might as well just attend the manufacturer technical updates and leave it at that- believe me, the manufacturers would just LOVE to get dozens of farmers coming to their meetings so they can market their wares.
^^^ this , they have done some great stuff but because their money comes easy they have become lazy .
As far as the advice side of it is concerned it's all same old stuff being said, let's have more varied monitor/ focus farms.
Eblex did great simple booklets on different animal/ grazing / grassland issues, many I still have for reference & will quite often read through again for me to get a quick reset in what I'm doing.
Livestock notebook from Eblex , brilliant got me to record stuff much better.
Have I retained any AHBD leaflets ?
No not a single one , why? What changed? Surely it was just a name change or did staff & mindset get changed as well?