Tug-of-war

There is a cultural and political struggle going on in Agriculture today, a struggle for the hearts and minds of Australian farmers. between government science and extension services (provided by the CSIRO, the States’ Depart-ments of Primary Industries, Departments’ of Agriculture, etc.) and private training and mentoring services (such as Holistic Management, Grazing For Profit, or Principal Focus, or Pasture Cropping, or Biological Farming, or Biodynamics, etc.) The essential difference between the two sides is not only government vs non-government, but also artificial vs natural. Whereas the Government extension officers are steeped in the tradition of “Industrial Agriculture” (synthetic fertilizers, herbcides and pesticides), the private operators rely on ‘biomimicry’ or ‘natural’ systems that ‘mimic Mother Nature’ to support what could be called “Natural Farming”. The latter is referred to as “Snake Oil” and “Faith-based” by the defenders of “Sound Science”.*
This battle has all the hallmarks of a major institutional slugging match. While designed to look like a sporadic, grassroots effort, the official “Pushback” campaign was well coordinated and funded.

*The Cotton Industry – known for high chemical input – reacted to the growing popularity of soil biology and natural soil nutrient management by accusing its proponents (Dr Elaine Ingham, Dr Arden Anderson, etc.) as teaching ‘faith-based’ practices and of ridiculing science. (Cotton CRC internal memo, 2006) A report commissioned by the GRDC in 2005 found very high levels of interest in soil biology among growers. This is evidence of dissatisfaction with the chemical regimes recommended by government extension services traditionally. The CRC meeting minutes recommended that a “credible alternative” to Drs Ingham/Anderson be found and that growers be disabused of the delusions they have been sold (ie. that soil biology was important when the meeting participants agreed that “90% of soil management is chemical/physical” – a reflection of the levels of ignorance in official soil science. There followed a recital of the faith-based knowledge of the conventional: “Is there a link between soil biodiversity and productivity? (Answer: No) Is anhydrous ammonia a disaster? (Answer: No – soil organisms soon re-colonise the soil).” Such is the ‘soundness’ of “Scientific Fact”.