The third danger point for scientists in their pursuit of ‘sound science’ is Interpretation of Results. It is a grave danger when the agricultural practice is invented by farmers in the field and not scientists in a laboratory. In these cases the practice is “Snake Oil” until proven otherwise. The possibility of the technique being commercialised is another black mark of suspicion against it. Pasture Cropping was invented by two farmers. One of them, Colin Seis of Gulgong, spent 10 years refining his technique for sowing by drilling cereal crops into dormant perennial pastures to maximise the productivity of the land. Just as Lodge., D., et al. sought to discredit grazing management by proving that all the graziers using it successfully were wrong, a similar exercise was conducted over Pasture Cropping. The research team made two mistakes: 1. The researchers accused the technique of a failure to perform tasks for which it was not designed. The yield from the crop is less in this system than in a straight cultivation and fallow. Col Sies has refined the technique to bring his yields up to equivalent to conventional harvests. The system is not recommended by Mr Seis if grain production is the primary objective. Yet the research report condemns it for being unfit for this purpose. 2. They accused the perennial pasture of robbing the crop of moisture when such native grasses are well-equipped for retaining moisture in soils.
There was no attempt to involve Col Seis in the process to explain these issues and guide the methodology. Instead, the report in The Land Newspaper quoted a DPI District Agronomist and an agricultural consultant, neither of whom had any experience with the technique, but who both felt qualified to make negative judgements about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment