The AgLINK bulletin series dominated all agricultural and horticultural information publications from the late 1960s to the late 1980s, when it was discontinued. The collapse of such a high profile series raises questions about the viability of such a mechanism for linking farmers with facts. This failure highlights three key issues: the need to define and allocate the costs based on who benefits; the appropriate positioning of parties within the distribution chain; and a quality specification to which bulletins must adhere. We consider that AgFACT, the AgResearch pastoral agriculture information base which superseded AgLINK in 1997, should largely be cost neutral to science groups in AgResearch. However, the resources for providing information need to be met by science programmes, a cost which is outweighed by the opportunity to communicate with science stakeholders. The costs of distribution and retail need to fall with the other parties who benefit from the dissemination of this information - the retailer and the end user. We also consider that the role of AgResearch is in manufacture rather than sales to the public, which is best done by the agricultural service sector. AgFACT must maintain tight specifications, to ensure that it is relevant to farmers and other users, accurate and unbiased, and up to date. The penalty for not doing so is a loss of value and, moreover, a risk of it becoming a public liability. Keywords: AgFACT, AgLINK, agricultural information, information base, technology transfer
Decomposition of Expenditures for Insulins Across the Distribution Chain—Insights Into Rising Prices?
