Those amongst us who have, for better or worse, been subjected to the dubious TV delights of the seemingly endless legions of property programmes about buying, selling or doing up a house will have no doubt have come across Channel 4’s duo of Phil and Kirsty.

The latest incarnation of their output runs under the title 'Love it, or list it', which sees a family put through the doubly stressful process of doing up their old home while, at the same time, looking for a new one.

The show’s tense conclusion sees the couple decide whether they want to stay in their own house, which has been newly renovated and extended with Kirsty’s help ('love it') – or sell it ('list it') with a view to purchasing one that they’ve been shown by Phil.

The show was brought to mind at the recent round of AHDB/ Farm Advisory Service agronomy meetings when those in attendance were encouraged to participate in the on-going review of the National Recommended List for cereals and oilseeds.

Now, as an organisation, the AHDB has been through a bit of a rough patch recently. The loss of its role for both the horticulture and the potato growing sectors undoubtedly came as a bit of a blow after levy payers invoked their statutory right to have a producer poll – and, rightly or wrongly, believing that their money could be better spent, voted to do without the various services offered by the board.

Anyhoo, the realisation that satisfaction with its operations was being questioned in some areas, led to a major review of the AHDB’s operations across all the various sectors in which it operated – not so much with a view to ending representation, but more with a view to make sure that they were focusing on the right areas. And, if they weren’t, to get feedback from growers on what they should be doing.

Last year saw this carried out and while the proportion of producers actually taking part was fairly low (around 20% if memory serves) it did highlight that a number of the services were viewed as being important to the cereal and oilseed sectors.

Growers flagged up that the provision of the National Recommended List, the long-standing trials database which annually assesses a number of characteristics of the majority of varieties available to growers was the service which they rated the highest.

Probably just as well that growers plumped for Kirsty’s 'love it' option, though, as compiling the list accounts for somewhere between 40 and 45% of the entire cereals and oilseeds budget. But, just as in the TV home-owning shows, it became clear that the list was in need of a bit of renovation work here and there, a redesign of the layout – and possibly even the prospect of a new extension.

The RL, as it is affectionately known, currently includes details on a range of characteristics of each variety – including yield, both treated and untreated, grain quality assessment, resistance to key diseases and other agronomic traits, such as maturity, straw length and resistance to lodging along with an indication of how acceptable they are to different market outlets.

The list had always been periodically reviewed to see that it was providing the information which growers both want and need – and claiming that, despite the expression of support for the list, the AHDB said it didn’t want to rest on its laurels and the organisation wanted to hear growers’ views on how they would like to see the list develop.

More Arable:

Now, in the past, I guess that if we looked forward to the publication of the new list, then it was with a view to seeing if any new varieties were appearing which offered a yield advantage – either big or small – over the ones which we were growing at the time. .

Back at that time, it was assumed that everyone could pretty much afford to throw the sort of expensive, high-insurance spray programme at the crops which were used on the trials. For a long time, that was probably how – and why – most of us used the list.

But in more recent years, as herbicides, fungicides and other sprays became grew more expensive, there was a move towards an integrated pest management approach which had seen greater interest in gauging just how resistant, or tolerant varieties were to the major disease and other threats – so an assessment of untreated yields was added.

This interest in disease resistances and tolerances has grown further as the prices of inputs have continued to rise and the armoury of agro-chemicals, which are both licensed and still effective against diseases, continued to be eroded.

The perception that we are going through a period of less predictable weather patterns has further focused attention on a variety’s resilience as it isn’t always possible to get a spray on at exactly the right time to give the best protection, so more even more emphasis is likely to be placed on this area.

While there has been information on untreated yields included in the list for many years now, this has been based on a relatively small number of trials with a limited geographical spread – so giving a greater prominence and weighting to a variety’s performance under less than ideal conditions looks to be a must.

Also, with the resurgence of long-forgotten practices such as inter-cropping and maslins (mixed crops of different species and varieties) and a growing recognition of the benefits offered by even growing blends of one variety, it’s also been suggested that a variety’s 'companionability' should be assessed.

Looking at the publication in its wider form, however, one criticism which is often heard is that it is overly-complicated and confusing to use. Perversely, another is that it is overly simplified and doesn’t allow access to a good deal of information which has been gathered at the various trials sites around the country.

While some moves have been taken towards addressing these seemingly irreconcilable complaints – by providing both digital access, which allows some interrogation of the lists to provide additional information along with a variety selection tool and a phone app – it could be that these features could be enhanced to allow growers to access information which is particularly applicable to their own situation.

Another problem which is often raised isn’t really a fault of the list itself – and that’s the fact that often what looks like a new variety promising many of the beneficial agronomic characteristics which we have been looking for can quietly slip off the list before ever becoming fully recommended because it doesn’t meet what often seems to be the very self-centred requirements of the buyers.

Now, it has to be admitted that the contribution of bodies like the Maltsters Association of Great Britain, the UK Flour Millers and various other trade bodies to the list does see useful advice included on the suitability of certain varieties and how attractive they are likely to be to buyers in a specific sector.

But when we, as growers, are constantly being hounded to improve our sustainability criteria and to reduce pesticide inputs, the maltsters and millers seem to focus purely on varieties which either give them the biggest spirit yield per tonne, or best bread wheat parameters and totally ignore the benefits which better agronomic characteristics can provide on this front – leaving us carrying the (spray) can on this front.

On the wider front, though, whilst the list might be tweaked and adapted to meet the needs of the future – perhaps even with the addition of a tasteful new extension – it might all be somewhat in vain for producers in Scotland.

For, looking forward, you have to wonder what will happen to the list if the growing of gene edited crops is given the green light by the UK Government south of the Border, yet is still outlawed in Scotland. Will there be a 'second division' or a 'weekend league' for growers in this country?

It’s therefore a bit of a foregone conclusion that we’ll be left with the same old varieties as we can reasonably assume that few seed companies are likely to opt out of using the latest technologies to speed up development and accelerate the inclusion of beneficial traits which already lie in the genome of our major crops.

Let’s just hope, however, that once the national recommended list is 'renovated' it remains firmly on a level playing field …