Five Incitic Pivot Limited (IPL) regional agronomists have been dismissed, apparently victims of the fertiliser giant’s urge to gain a better rapport with farmers after the turbulent times of 2008.
Out of the original team of eight IPL agronomists in eastern Australia, five have been sacked, according to IPL, in recognition that the farming community is growing wary of fertiliser advice based on research internally generated by the company.
"When research comes from Incitec Pivot, it becomes very difficult for farmers to know at what level to believe it," said Rachael Davis, IPL marketing manager.
According to Ms Davis, IPL will use the funds freed up by the sackings to fund independent research and advisory services that will carry more credibility with the farming community.
"For us, it's about independence. With the money that we once spent on our own people, we can now give back to industry groups such as Birchip Cropping Group and Southern Farming Systems and the like; and we can also finance trials through business partners and industry consultants," she said.
Ms Davis said IPL’s investment in research and extension will be larger as a result of the changes.
Fertiliser industry consultant and former Incitec executive Gavin O'Hanlon, principal of the O'Hanlon Group, isn't so certain about IPL's motives for the sackings, but he is certain that the fertiliser industry has a lot of patching-up to do with its farmer clients.
"IPL's decision was a function of being in a position where the pressure to reduce prices in line with international expectations is significant. The bottom line is, what do you cut?" Mr O'Hanlon said.
"If you're going to reduce services, it's likely to be agronomic services."
His own perspective is that it is disappointing that IPL is lowering its level of agronomic support, and questioned whether the company's former level of support for farmers would be picked up by other interests.
In fact, Mr O'Hanlon told last week's Australian Fertiliser Services Association conference in Coffs Harbour that the industry is at a crossroads.
"The ramifications of the bubble of 2008 are still being felt by most sectors of the fertiliser industry," he said.
"It is very unfortunate that the industry didn't communicate its position a lot better at the time. If it had communicated better at all levels, there wouldn't have been the level of distraction and distrust that we saw."
The industry must now enter a period of "repair", Mr O'Hanlon told the AFSA conference.
That is exactly IPL's official intention, a tacit admission that the past 18 months of rollercoasting fertiliser prices have indeed soured the fertiliser industry's relationship with farmers.
Ms Davis said the company had come to reply too much on its sales channel for communication.
"Based on the last 12-18 months, we've realised that we need to be communicating with farmers through alternative mediums, explaining what's going on, helping them with their agronomic decisions."
But IPL's Product Innovation manager, Charlie Walker, told the AFSA conference that said the move was in the works before the 2008 bubble.
"We want to create a community for sharing agronomy information," Mr Walker said.
"We've got considerable resources that are hidden away in people's heads and filing cabinets; we want to make that available as a resource to be utilised."
The company is well down the path of converting 40 years of records to electronic format, to make them easily accessible and searchable, and is sponsoring the local branch of the International Plant Nutrition Institute, whose brief is sustainable use of nutrition around the world.
Mr Walker said the intention is to develop the concepts of an "agronomy community" and a "nutrient portal", where people can share and access information as needed.
Instead of its former focus on "market development agronomists", IPL is now focusing on "technical agronomists" who will take a lead role on emerging issues like the Great Barrier Reef rescue package, precision agriculture and greenhouse gas emissions.
Email a friend