- Location
- Derbyshire UK
An even more interesting round table discussion would be "scientist's in agriculture, what's the point?"I think one of the problems with science is that scientists are human. If they’ve spent their life trying to prove that x action results in y outcome, they become entrenched in that position and refuse to consider they may have been wrong all along. So when someone comes along and says x action results in a+z they dig in and refute the other’s findings. It’s happened time and time again, through history.
I also part-believe the old saying that an expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less. Again, there is evidence that scientists can become so focused on their own extremely narrow field of study that they’re unable to step back and look at the big picture. The latter is often called “common sense” or “gut feel”.
My “gut feel” as a layman is that extra N will result in the burning up of OM. Why wouldn’t it? The soil is full of creatures who need a particular C:N ratio. There’s lots of C kicking round but the limiting factor is N. If we suddenly supply a vast excess of N, these soil-dwellers are going to feast, and multiply like mad, and feast again, much as I do when offered an eat-all-you-can banquet! (feasting, that is, not multiplying...!!)
I agree a round table discussion would be fascinating (Groundswell idea, @martian?) though it may end in fisticuffs
I have been trying to list all the scientific findings/outcomes that have had an impact on our farm over the last 10 years:
1. Banning of Neo nix
2. Orange sheep wormer
That's all I can think of for 10 years worth of spend on Ag science, poor return on investment.