Magazine - No More Agro!

15 Jan 2010 by IGS

Dave
Can a petition or 'campaign' be undertaken to reduce the excessive product costs of pesticides by amalgamating the agric sector with the amenity - like it used to be?

Most data is out there for all to see regarding the use and hazard issues of pesticides - that is a big issue - health and safety - but the issue today is the cost at which the same products are sold to the amenity sector.

If someone dies from the effect of Pesticide applied to an amenity area, whether it is in an agric bottle or an amenity bottle and where the active ingredients are the same and the application rates have been followed - the product should be responsible.
The writing on a bottle can surely not alter the potency of the ingredients. Again, this should not be what the campaign is about - it is cost!

I am sure that you know that pesticides will be degraded far more effectively and quicker in a thick turfgrass sward than on a standing agric crop, therefore rendering it less harmful.

Let’s face it all pesticides are poisons and would be best banned from the amenity sector.
There may be a 'issue' with the quality of some 'the highly cosmetic' turfgrass areas – so what!

Turfgrass management without Pesticides that would bring a new dimension to the game of golf and other sports and a new more environmentally friendly challenge to the turfgrass managers.
Some of the causes of disease and requirement for pesticides in this case fungicides are through over zealous applications of synthetic fertilisers, especially nitrogen that promote weak, shallow rooted growth or materials that cause biological interference with the plants metabolism.

I have a disease index study related to the effect that nutrient elements have on disease incidence,
Illustrating the effect of applied elements where disease incidences are reduced or increased – the over use of Nitrogen vastly increases disease incidence - available for your perusal upon your request.

Do you have any case studies where anyone has been injured through pesticide applications in the turfgrass sector?

Do you have any proposals of how the costs of amenity pesticides can be highlighted, addressed and hopefully reduced?

How about running a consensus to get the views of our fellow Groundsmen & Greenkeepers?

Rgds

Mark

16 Jan 2010 by jontaylor

Mark,
I fully agree with much of what you say.
Where an amenity area is treated with an agriculture approved product that contains the same active substance as an approved amenity product, I am sure that in the vast majority of those cases the fundamental reason is that agro product was significantly cheaper.
I do not pay for my mortgage as a professional groundsman, but instead earn my corn working to ensure products are compliant with legislation closely related to 91/414 - the PPP legislation. I have to say that I am puzzled by the justifications put forward for the price differentials between fundamentally similar products with identical active substances, similar targets and, in most cases, lower environmental impact.
Where I will differ with you is on your sweeping statement about all pesticides being poisons and they would be best banned. Mark, all chemicals, natural or not, are potential poisons. The difference between chemical being a poison or not is dose. There are many well documented cases of people being killed by drinking too much water (yes, drinking it, not drowning) and there is enough salt on the typical English dinner table to kill any of the people sat around the table. I could go on for pages quoting examples of common chemicals that could kill if consumed to excess, but won't.
Many agchems are more toxic than typical household foods or chemicals, but they are only approved for use following a risk:benefit analysis.
I do agree with many commentators. The easiest way to ensure "No More Agro" is to get the producers and marketers of those ag-chems to get their products approved for amenity use - or to modify their price structures to remove the huge temptation for off-label use. Remove the temptation to cheat and most people will comply. The licenced companies do not have to make a cent less profit if they do this wisely.

The ciderman rolls

20 Jan 2010 by olaf

Come on Dave, be honest, this "campaign" is no more than a thinly veiled sales pitch for the products available on the site and your companies acquisition of a reasonably notable distributer.
To promote it as a genuine concern for the implications of using Ag chemeicals on sports and amenity sites is stretching credulity a tad to far.
Nothing wrong with the above as far as I'm concerned, good luck with it, but a bit more transparency would not go amiss.
Are you in a position to offer the chemicals we use at a price that makes using Ag labelled stuff unattractive?

Some people are like Slinky's, totally useless but amusing if you push them down the stairs

21 Jan 2010 by Dave

Guys, this is an Industry campaign that will be promoted via this medium as it reaches the largest group of people. Over the year there will be a wealth of information published that hopefully will provide all the answers to everyone's questions and misunderstandings.

As I'm currently up in Harrogate, this has been high on many people's list of discussion as it is a tenuous subject that clearly needs proper definition.

It will surely open up a can of worms, something that we're always openly keen to do, In terms of transparency, public discussion and viewing here and in the hard copy magazine couldn't reach a higher level, could it?

23 Jan 2010 by Leeboy

Of course industry suppliers will want to get behind this, as has already been said the ridiculous prices they charge for sports turf products in comparison to agricultural use equivalents is absurd and the more people go down the 'ag' road the worse it is for them.

That said, when you talk to a supplier and he/she says other companies equivalent product of their own (both licensed for sportsturf and both having the same active ingredient etc) is not the same is just as bad. For example a recent incident I came across was comparing Daconil to Rigby Taylors Contact fungicide-always been told that Daconil-like products werent the same, cheap imitations blah blah blah-lo and behold the RT Contact I recently bought came in Syngenta bottles-Syngenta being the company that manufacters Daconil-so much for cheap imitation! As well as that it was £10 a bottle cheaper than Daconil as well. Upon enquiring about this, I was told that RT were buying the agricultural version abroad and importing it and relabelling it, legally it seems, and it wasnt RT that told me this. If this is true, and I have no opinion on whether it is or not personally, then it was still more expensive than the agricultural equivalent, but cheaper than the all singing all dancing 'official' Daconil.

A proportion of people/companies wont buy agricultural equivalents due to being able to afford it and wanting to stay legal, but is it any wonder that others go with the cheaper agricultural alternative if they cant afford the sportsturf approved equivalent, moreso in the current economic climate?

Whilst we can all blame governments, associations, the EU etc, the chemical companies and their selling agents also need to take a good long look at themselves as they are just as much to blame in all this, if not more, with their prices.

Following up briefly from Daves point:

'In terms of transparency, public discussion and viewing here and in the hard copy magazine couldn't reach a higher level, could it?'

Perhaps it couldnt reach a higher level or bigger audience, but clearly as suppliers yourselves both via this site and with on the road reps you have more than a vested interest to put a stop to the use of unapproved chemicals so as not to damage your business-and rightly so-but I wouldnt view any companies supporting this as just doing it for moral reasons only when they sell chemicals already-like most things in life its all about self,self,self!

23 Jan 2010 by Dave

Lee, you've written some points already raised, but also raised another important key point about parallel imports.

Where there is a requirement for pesticides then 'Yes' we sell chemicals, we sell chemicals like Aitkins, Rigby Taylors, Sherriffs and a host of other companies that fulfill the needs of this Industry, but as I keep saying please keep reading the articles and information that will be published throughout this year.

The vested interest actually isn't removing Ag chems, as they would be equally profitable to sell; if they were legal of course.

I understand the cynicism now, I will not be of the same opinion, if people still have the same feelings at the end of this year.

23 Jan 2010 by Leeboy

I know of companies that sell chemicals which are labelled for a certain sportsturf use but not others but sell to them anyway, so the 'industry' certainly arent helping themselves from the inside and need to take a long look at themselves before concerning themselves with agricultural products-they are just as guilty as the agricultural equivalent buyers. Clearly, I assume anyway, this isnt industry wide in the sportsturf area.

I have also personally been directly offered a very popular chemical long at a fantastic price after its original license had expired and was subsequently reissued with a different MAFF number, so the selling on of 'old' stock goes on as well from suppliers as well long after its withdrawal of selling and use.

I suppose you could apply the phrase 'People in glass houses......'

Fortunately this is just a minority that do it, and not the 'market leaders' (in my experience anyway, barring one company that I do very little business with anyway), but it happens nonetheless and until the sportsturf industry sorts itself out then can anyone be blamed for buying agricultural chemicals, discontinued/expired license products etc. The simple answer is no, because if the companies seen to be supporting this initiative arent driving it themselves from the top, then dont expect others to support it in a rush.

23 Jan 2010 by Dave

Lee, there is nothing perfect in life, but making moves towards improving the sales of legal chemicals to only people qualified to use them should be supported not criticised.

There was a lot of worry that the EU would ban all our available chemicals, but as you made a very valid point in your first response then allow me to make, what I believe to be, a valid statement.

Those companies that parallel import chemicals, currently through a legal loophole, pocket the profits. None of this money goes back to the big manufacturers who spend hundreds of millions in research and development to ensure that their products are safe for users and the environment. If companies are allowed to continue selling imported products then the big companies will stop production and registration of new active ingredients and pull out of this market altogether. Then there will be nothing left.
Far more products have already been removed due to the high re-registration costs than have been banned by the EU.

23 Jan 2010 by Leeboy

I support it, I just dont think some of those who may be involved in pushing this forward do wholly though!

In regards to the comment:

'Those companies that parallel import chemicals, currently through a legal loophole, pocket the profits. None of this money goes back to the big manufacturers who spend hundreds of millions in research and development to ensure that their products are safe for users and the environment.'

I think the Daconil/RT Contact both being supplied and manufactured directly/indirectly by Syngenta says different surely as somewhere along the line the product is still bought from them either here or abroad? As it is with this particular product I am told the active ingredient chlorathalonil is being withdrawn from sale in August anyway so that will stop that particular one, but how many others are sold in this country but imported by others from abroad that are made by the same manufacturer-all the money whether sold in this country or brought in from abroad for import to us still goes to the manufacturer as per the start of this paragraph, ultimately still giving the same financial resources to carry on researching and developing new products?

I will follow this with interest, and indeed a degree of cynicism based on my own personal experience, and will be interested in the outcome.

23 Jan 2010 by Dave

Good man, you and I both look forward to many questions being answered.
As always through Pitchcare we will try to help everyone understand their Industry better by bringing the facts and reasoning to a subject that needs some clear definition.

23 Jan 2010 by IGS

Dave,

Your statement
"the big manufacturers who spend hundreds of millions in research and development to ensure that their products are safe for users and the environment."

Come on! Do you think that the manufacturers of pesticides in this case the odd bottle of herbicide and fungicide spend millions of GB£ / US$ / €-Euro / ¥Yen / etc?

Think again - the amenity market on its own is not worth their time and effort, the registrations acquired almost certainly cover every aspect of use and maybe a small addition to cover amenity.
Let's find the actual cost of this and get it published for complete transparency and see where and what the actual costs are.

Fungicides, for example are applied to 1000's of hectares of all crop from grapes to grain at agric prices.
It may be that the inflated prices charged by Rigby Taylor / Aitkens / ALS - Pitchcare / Sherriffs is purely profit - of course some of the associated costs will be allocated to earning an income to cover the costs of salary, expenses for travel, agronomy provided and therefore the require a higher selling price.

What is always accepted is a fair and reasonable price - not one that is highly inflated.

Pitchcare must be impartial - ALS is a commercial company.
What do you think about obtaining the transparency now and not after 12 months of 'marketing spiel' from the manufacturers / suppliers.

23 Jan 2010 by Dave

Mark, there will be an article in the next magazine that may go some way to answering your question.

If we get all the answers to all the questions during the next 12 months, then we'll have done very well; considering that I've heard people bemoan the cost of chemicals for decades, most of which was long before I left my post as a Groundsman and turned to the dark side running a commercial business-which as it happens, you do as well.

24 Jan 2010 by IGS

I look forward to reading the various articles, as I am sure they will be of great interest to all.

I do work for a commercial company, promoting and selling products pertaining to and as applicable to biological turfgrass management.

However I do not operate an independent magazine at the same time -

This is the point that many folk out there are pointing at

Oh! as well as the high cost of pesticides.

24 Jan 2010 by Dave

I didn't realise that our independence was being challenged at the same time, it is very much in our interests to retain impartiality.

Let's be honest its all too easy to point accusing fingers.

I think anyone would be hard pushed to say that the Pitchcare magazine was anything other than informative, as well as willing to discuss many subjects others are frightened of publishing.

26 Jan 2010 by olaf

Dave,
OK so it may be just the rumour mill, but the independance of "Pitchcare" as a vehicle for open, honest and considered reporting and discussion is being called into question.
Is Pitchcare going to gradually shift towards a promotional excersise on behalf of ALS to the detriment of other goods and service providers?
It's a question that requires addressing.
On the Ag chem front........We are being overcharged in the amenity sector, no chemical product is develped for this sector specifically they are all a by product of the Ag market, Our industry is way to small to make it cost effective for the likes of Monsanto/Bayer etc to bother. But yet we are still being overcharged and not by just a fewquid either.
All we ask for is good value products that do what they advertise in a cost effective manner. Not a cheap deal on something a bit iffy/grey import or what have you. I't in none of our interests to break the law or risk damage to our surfaces and the wider envioroment. Therefore any "No more Agro" initiative must be tied into offering keener priced products for our sector or it smacks of protectionism from the supply side of which through ALS you are now part of.

Some people are like Slinky's, totally useless but amusing if you push them down the stairs

26 Jan 2010 by Dave

Olaf,
I really do take on board what you and a few others are saying.
I also would like to see the costs come down if that's possible, but we also need to know why they are so high in the first place, don't you agree.
With regards our tie up with ALS there are a couple of points.

There used to be a very good magazine called Golf Course News International and it was bought by Seoul Nassau. It was turned into a self promotional publication and the advertisers pulled out, virtually over night. Neither GCNI or Seoul Nassau are trading any more. I can assure you that there is no-one more acutely aware of what could happen, if we don't keep Pitchcare and the hard copy magazine separate from any business dealings with ALS.
That said ALS historically advertised with Pitchcare and there are no more or less ads than before. This will not only remain so, but the Pitchcare mediums are available at the same competitive rates for all companies in the Industry to use, to reach their customers.

The second point that I meant to make previously on this thread, is that Pitchcare has been a selling agent for most of our manufacturers and distributors for over 8 years and was selling chemicals long before the ALS tie up.
We have a vested interest (as was my original vision) in becoming a co-operative for the Industry, with strength of buying power to make all our products as competitive as they can be and pass on the discounts to the end user.
Our profit margins are low, based on higher volume sales and the more the shop does, the better the deals we can pass on.

Let's be honest, there is nobody in business not trying to make a profit. It does gall me that certain people knocking this incentive are also in business, but have their own reasons (not declared) for being negative.

All this campaign is about, is enlightenment. It has opened a can of worms and I'm sure that there will be benefits for all parties if people get together to voice their opinions. What we can do at Pitchcare is collate everyone's concerns and then raise them with the various 'powers'.
This is something that we continue to do for many aspects of this Industry's future.

29 Jan 2010 by Wilson Boardman

Dave,
(You knew this was coming...)

Just a short point, regarding parallel import products. I'm afraid I must take issue with you in order that a little balance be brought to the argument: You are quite wrong to claim that they exploit a "legal loophole", no such loophole exists. The paralleling of agrochemicals was first made legal back in the 1970's and the procedure has been refined several times since and is now almost a common system carefully regulated and policed throughout the EU.

Pitchcare readers need to understand that in order to import and re-label a parallel product, it has to be sourced within the EU, and the original manufacturer (be they Bayer, Syngenta, or whoever) has to agree in writing to the regulatory authorities that the material is their product, not a copy or a generic version.

So, in order for there to be an opportunity to bring in a parallel product the manufacturer has to have sold it in another EU country at a lower price. This is their responsibility to ensure commonality of pricing, if they could achieve that then opportunities for parallel imports would cease. They are clearly selling at their required profit level which sustains new product development and market share, even before the paralleler buys it. IF that paralleler can then put it into our market at an attractive price, we ALL benefit and no-one loses out anywhere? Lets be nice to the lovely parallelers (who take massive risks with exchange rates and pre-season purchases) and not give them too much AGRO?

I endorse your sentiments regarding the use of ag-labelled products in amenity areas.
Lets stay legal shall we?

29 Jan 2010 by Wilson Boardman

PS.
If there was anyone in this industry who I would trust to be able to keep separate the commercial interests of ALS and Pitchcare, then its you.

PPS.
In the interests of balance I should point out that I do have a commercial interest in the re-packing of agrochemicals for various parallelers, who are a pretty good bunch of guys, mostly without horns or forked tails.....

31 Jan 2010 by Leeboy

Is this thing with ALS a 'tie up' as you have stated above, or have you/Pitchcare bought them as people are saying but wont directly come out and say/ask!

I think that is why people are questioning the impartiality of this being driven as a campaign by yourselves as you stand to lose if people buy the agricultural stuff or gain if they dont and buy the correctly labelled stuff.

Far from this article being the 'hot topic' out there at the moment, it is actually the question about PC/ALS which I constantly keep hearing-any chance of clearing it up once and for all as I am sick of hearing about it and telling people to ring you up and ask you themselves!

1 Feb 2010 by Barry Pace

Does the fact that Dave has a business involvment of some sort (to be clarified I guess Dave) with another Sales and Contracting company have any influence on Pitchcare the Online Entity and Magazine or its own Sales Department or make any difference? Only if they suddenly get all sorts of additional promotion, advertising or lead info from the PC machine. Don't forget Dave has always had other commercial involvement in the industry while PC has been fermenting away and I dont recall any problems up to now and Mr S and Mr P appear to be far too shrewd and savvy to allow the wonderful thing that has developed here to become tainted especially as this is such a small world we all work, breath and sleep in.
From the little I have gleened it should only have the effect of allowing the PC shop to provide more products, more efficiently and theoretically cheaper for those that use this already very commercial side to this site.
The Ag/Amenity Chemical stance is just as relevant now for PC as it was six months ago, IF Pitchcare is a voice of all of us then it should be involved heavily in ensuring that what goes on around us within the industry is right, the Sportsturf Industry needs to become a recognised player and if correct sourcing of chemicals is this weeks drum then why shouldn't Pitchcare be banging it on the Sportsturf Industry's behalf, many postees on here have commented on the perception of what we do as an industry in the outer world needing to become more recognised.
And at the end of the day if it was all about profit anyone can easily buy repackaged products cheaply and sell on marked up..... why kick up about it..

Plastic.... it's The End I tell you... THE END!!!!