Editorial: Will big be better?
OPINION: The shakeup to the science sector with the proposed merger of four ag related crown research institutes (CRIs) into one conglomerate has drawn little public reaction.
Most people know this, yet the testimonials keep appearing. Celebrities are finding themselves in hot water (Elle McPherson’s holistic treatment leading to remission from what is now known was stage 0 cancer is a case in point). Professionals are trying to promote actual research rather than testimonials. And in agriculture we are constantly being told we should look to new solutions that are backed by, you guessed it, testimonials.
Testimonials can sometimes be validated through research, but the importance of the crystal effect must never be forgotten. David Swain, agricultural science editor for decades, explained to the uninitiated that a crystal placed in the centre of a farm, and turned through 90 degrees daily, would increase farm productivity. The key was to approach the crystal from a different direction and leave in another direction, every day. And on the way the farmer noticed that the ewes needed drenching, the fence needed mending, the calves needed moving, the pasture needed topping…
The crystal gave renewed interest which in turn increased productivity.
Human response is key and is one of the factors that scientific research tries to eliminate when identifying drivers of change. Other factors are removing the effect of field variability using replication and controls, and repeating the research in different seasons, years and, possibly, location – all in an effort to be sure that the outcome is due to a driver, not chance.
Nitrogen (N) use is one of the changes being regulated in agriculture. Farmers trying to stay solvent are being urged to cut use of nitrogen fertiliser and many companies are trying to assist. Ravensdown and Ballance have produced a range of options with the overall mantra of Right Product, Right Amount, Right Place and Right Time. Other companies have produced proprietary formulations which appear to be effective in some circumstances.
Dr Rachael Bryant, Associate Professor in Lincoln University’s Department of Agricultural Sciences, specialises in pasture agronomy, including the impact of technologies. Much of her research involves finding commercial tools to solve practical problems. She works with farmers and industry professionals, testing ideas and then explaining the outcomes. Some of her latest research, funded by MPI, was presented at the NZ Grassland Association Conference held in Oamaru at the beginning of November. Her paper (with co-authors Greig and Mangwe) is freely available on the Grassland.org.nz website.
The plot trial research examined whether tactical use of N fertiliser, applied with or without coating or biostimulant, improved herbage yield and N use efficiency. Results indicated that when applied at the same rate, but different timings, combining urea with a coating or biostimulant altered the distribution of pasture growth, but did not affect net annual production or herbage quality. The greater application costs associated with liquid versus granular products meant that the new products achieved the same response as urea but with greater expense.
This was at the Lincoln test site, which Dr Bryant is quick to acknowledge is a relatively high fertility site, but nitrogen response was shown by the difference in yield between zero N addition and the N treatments.
The outcome was not new but did use currently available products.
Dr Doug Edmeades, soil scientist and managing director of agKnowledge, has explained the science behind products repeatedly. His explanations can be found on the agKnowledge website (agknowledge.co.nz) in Fertiliser Review. Chemical versus biological fertiliser is one of the tabs linking to seven informative articles. Another tab is the Base Saturation Ratio Theory (Kinsey-Albrecht) with six articles explaining the two different approaches and why, for New Zealand, sticking with the MPI (MAF and various predecessors) approach is more likely to achieve least cost responses. This is because it focuses on overcoming limitations to production by applying necessary nutrients.
Agricultural research started in New Zealand over 100 years ago and has developed an approach that is appropriate for the soils and environment, as well as different farming systems. That approach involves pasture species as well as nutrients, and has been tried, tested and documented for decades. The first reports of the NZ Grassland Association conferences were published in the 1930s, and some of the fundamental principles of management have not changed.
Nor has the desire for scientists, farmers and rural professionals to work together to identify ‘a better way’.
Testimonials can be a very good start to an investigation. The questions on ‘why was the change made and how appropriate are the circumstances to my operation?’ might assist the next steps. But it is scientific research that will examine the drivers of change and be able to identify what made the difference.
Dr Jacqueline Rowarth, Adjunct Professor Lincoln University, has an honours degree in Environmental agriculture, a PhD in Soil Science and is on the board of directors of DairyNZ, Deer Industry NZ and Ravensdown.
