The crux of Nufarm's justification for releasing its downgrade on March 2 was that the bulk of sales of the herbicide glyphosate - the key driver of Nufarm's profitability - take place in the final weeks of January, and it was not until the end of February that all the necessary sales and accounting information had been collated to provide a true first-half picture of the company's performance.

But some in the sector think that Nufarm has not told the full story. While it is correct that most glyphosate buying has been done between January and March, the last six months have been different.

Apparently, Nufarm slashed the price of glyphosate in October, and sales in October and November - in Australia at least - were significantly increased. Stories abound of farmers who, incredulous at the depth of Nufarm's discounting and sure that it could not last, signed up to buy as much as five years' glyphosate demands.

The argument goes that Nufarm must have realised that sales being made at heavily discounted prices offered marginal profitability at best, and that (particularly with sales brought forward from the usual late-January start to the selling season) the company should have had a better handle on profitability, sooner.

So why would Nufarm have taken such an uncharacteristically aggressive stance on pricing? It could be that corporate discussions under way with Sinochem had some bearing.

Chinese producers of agricultural chemicals have long had a reputation for chasing volume over profitability, and Nufarm may have figured that managing the top line would maximise the chance of eliciting a firm takeover offer at the indicatively agreed price of $13 a share.

If Nufarm was trying to run a strategy that would appeal to Sinochem, it clearly backfired. Sinochem walked away from a deal just after Christmas, while the market's reaction to poor first-half profitability has been a sharp fall in the company's share price, closing last week at just $8.70.