Book Review. Floreat Scientia. Celebrating New Zealand's Agrifood Innovation

Review By Dr Clive Dalton

Floreat Scientia. Celebrating New Zealand’s Agrifood Innovation
Published for the Riddet Institute by Wairau Press, Random House NZ Ltd. 2011.
ISBN 978-1-927158-081 RRP $NZ49.95


The concept of this book is brilliant. It’s a treasure trove of essays about some of New Zealand’s great innovations in science and technology, written by people who actually did the work. The essays are their personal perspectives and thankfully not peer reviewed.

It’s a really motivating book, ideal for young folk wanting to enter science, and shows what can be done in a small country, where aims are clear, and researchers get backing from their providers and bosses to get on with the job. The worry is – are those days over?

The Prime Minister should have written the foreword to the book. I hope he’s been given a copy to read over the holidays.

I also hope that the new Leader of the Opposition, who has wisely kept the Science and Innovation portfolio for himself, has a copy too.

It’s staggering to be reminded how much has been achieved by so few Kiwis, over what is really a very short history of applying science to agriculture, horticulture and food and fibre science in New Zealand.

And what’s so amazing about all this innovation is that most of the people involved are very much alive, and still active in R&D.

This review can’t list all the topics covered, but Waikato readers will enjoy the essays on innovations from Ruakura and the Meat Research Institute such as grazing systems, dairy cattle reproduction, electrical stimulation to tenderize meat, new fertilisers, and facial eczema to list a few. There could have been 50 more.

Other fascinating essays are on the way Kiwi scientists took raw products and applied basic chemistry and physics to turning them into highly sophisticated products. They worked on proteins, lactose, and instant milk powder, increasing the range of cheeses, spreadable butter and much more, including probiotics to improve human health.

Then there’s the way science was applied to make a wide range of pharmaceuticals from animal offal, developing neutraceutical from milk, and making foods visually more attractive – the science of gastronomic engineering.

There are fascinating essays on what scientists discovered about wool’s qualities and how agricultural engineers revolutionised the seed drill. How developments in genetics and animal breeding gave New Zealand sheep and beef farmers a great leap forward is a great story, and the role GE has to make to our future is tackled head on.

There was no need to invent the silly word ‘Agrifood’ when ‘food’ is perfectly adequate. And I fear that the title of ‘Floreat scientia’ will badly affect the marketing of the book. I don’t care if it did come from the Massey University crest and means ‘let knowledge flourish’.

In this day and age, few of us have Latin, so looking at the title and a bee pollinating a flower on the cover, you’d guess the book was about gardening – even though the smaller secondary title mentions innovation. The Latin needs a sticker over it saying –‘ How Science made New Zealand’!

It’s such a good book with an excellent index, is well laid out, is easy to read and browse and has some great photos. It’s good value for money.

Who needs this book? I would suggest all libraries in high schools, polytechnics and universities, and every MP needs an urgent copy couriered to their office.

Farmers and horticulturists would enjoy the book as it’s about their industry, and they made the innovations listed work. I think they’d only have time to browse it – but it would be worth buying for that reason alone.

My favourite was Dr Russell Ballard’s essay (he was my old MAF boss) who was hired to restructure MAF after restructuring the Forest Research Institute in Rotorua.

He writes: ‘The agriculture/agrifood sector, with the backing of an innovative research and educational infrastructure, took New Zealand to near the top of the standard of living stakes in the 1950s and 1960s, and I believe it will do it again in the next 20 years. All it needs is a coordinated commitment from all players to make it happen’

Yeah Right! Pigs will fly. Things worked back then because researchers had the freedom to cooperate, talk to each other and share findings. We regularly and freely reported our successes, failures, daft ideas and great surprises at meetings and conferences. Every year a thousand dairy farmers filled the Ruakura hall on one day and the same number of sheep and beef farmers the next. On the following Open Days similar numbers came to Ruakura and the Whatawhata Hill Country Research Station where I worked.

Scientists could do all their work, and not have to predict financial ‘outcomes’ for bean counters or protect Intellectual Property (IP) before starting. This was before things were all chopped up by bureaucrats, and told that commercialism was the only way to go.

I would wager that the Kiwi innovations reported in this book could never happen in today’s bureaucratic climate. For one thing, the droves of scientists and technicians made redundant under the guise of restructuring, ‘change management’ and ‘progress’ would never come back.

0.2 - The Dalton Multipurpose Statistic

0.2 – The 'Dalton Multipurpose statistic'

By Dr Clive Dalton

Cranking handles in the 1950s

As a student in the 1950s, we did statistics labs on small Brunsviga hand-cranked calculators with tiny levers pulled down to select the numbers wanted. You cranked the handle clockwise until a bell rang (I think when dividing), and then cranked it anticlockwise for a reason I’ve forgotten.

In a class of 20, you could not tell when your bell had rung!

Then for my PhD at Bangor University, the Agriculture Department had one electric Facit machine shared among students and staff. Inside it was a mass of robust little German cogs that whizzed around when you pressed the keys. We thought it was magic, and I pounded it for three years without problems. When I finished, there were rumours that the University was about to get a ‘computer’ to take up the entire space of an old chapel.

The computer age -1960s

In my early lecturing days at Leeds University, the Facit and American Marchant machines (see the interior of a Marchant XL at left) with a massive bank of keys ruled supreme, and were hammered by students for their projects and higher degrees.

A computer had arrived at Leeds and filled a retired church hall, and some of us started to learn to program in a mystery language called Algol, and then punch tape to get simple exercises done that took as long (if you added our errors) as using a calculator.

But our kids loved the reels of error-ridden punched tape that I took home after my failed forays into computing.

What did the end value mean?

The point was, that by the time you got to the end of a calculation, and you hadn’t botched things up a few times on the way, so had to start all over again, you were far too exhausted to think much about what the final values meant. Did they make any sense? Were they of any practical use?

Statistical magicians

When I went into full time research in New Zealand, I started to have suspicions about statistics because we had very bright professional statisticians to give advice at all stages of projects – in my case animal breeding trials. This was both interesting and frustrating.

When the statistician had ‘run your data’, and the miles of ‘line flow’ paper spewed out of the research station computer (that filled a whole room), you needed to go into a scientific trance to work out how to get ‘the results you wanted’ – so the imagined published paper would blow the scientific community away and you would be for ever famous! It was here the statisticians came into their own.

What you wanted?

It was wonderful if the results (explained by the statistician) confirmed your preconceived expectations (which you were not supposed to have), or if you were positively surprised with them. In other words you didn’t expect those results but you would have not trouble getting them published.

What was really bad news was when you were negatively surprised, as when the results went the opposite way to what you wanted and you couldn’t explain why – and would be lucky if any journal would publish the results.

The real pits were when after years of work, you got no result at all, and there was no way you could claim this as a ‘positive surprise’ that was publishable.

Hazards of long-term trials

In long-term trials, we could easily have the services of two or three statisticians as they came and went to further their careers. This could be really nasty as a newly-qualified statistician fresh from University with all A++ papers, would look at the analysis and ask why his predecessor hadn’t used the new XYZ package? It was inevitable that the new chum recommended the whole years of data be reanalyzed –his way.

The other statistician’s comment to bring on a sweat was ‘oh that’s interesting, I wonder what would happen if we put the data through the new ZYX package? I’ll give it a go’.

As the years went on, I found it hard not to scream – ‘for hell’s sake, just leave things alone’, as what came out of these packages became more and more unintelligible, and harder for us oldies to work out what it meant in practical terms. Statistical significance at different levels of probability to prove the null hypothesis was one thing, but making farming sense was very much another.

The trick was to feign knowledge of what all the statistical analysis meant. At times the blank pages in the line-flow printout were the most useful part of the output - for the kids to draw on!

Delays, delays

You knew that extra analysis meant delays in publication of a paper by at least another 12 months and sometimes more. They also meant more questions from editorial committees, whose job you very soon realised were a pack of nitpickers and/or jealous colleagues hell bent on stopping you publishing and having more published papers than they had. In a world of ‘publish or perish’, these antics didn’t help your next application for advancement with the research director.

0.2

So it was in this environment that I realised the value of 0.2 and claimed it as my own ‘Dalton Multipurpose Statistic’. This simple little value has four massive advantages, that I strongly recommend to you:

1. It is extremely versatile.
2. It is non-confrontational.
3. It can be grossly misinterpreted without causing serious harm.
4. It can bring relief and satisfaction to the needy.
   

Correlation coefficients

These are values that tell you how much one thing is related to another, and their interpretation is more abused that anything else on the planet.

• If you need a low correlation coefficient, then 0.2 can be called “low” and will support your case.
• If you need a “low and non significant” correlation to suit a case, then all you need are the numbers of observations (n) below about 60.
• Getting rid of observations is not difficult as there are plenty of reasons to classify values as ‘aberrant’. Animals die, they get pregnant before they should, they give birth before they should, they change sex half way through trials, and so on.
• If on the other hand you have a desperate need for things to be statistically significance at say r = 0.2, then increase the number of observations to over 100, and significance will be easily reached at 5% probability (P<0.05) which is respectable.
• The fact that it is “statistically significant” carries the day, rather than its probability, and not the fact that its practical implications may be total nonsense.
• Squaring a correlation coefficient (r²) should be avoided, as this can so often show how meaningless a correlation coefficient can be.
  

Repeatability and heritability estimates

Repeatability measures how things keep appearing and heritability is how strongly traits are inherited.

• If you need a ‘low’ estimate of either estimate, then 0.2 can be called low.
• This would be, for example, to show breeders that they were wasting their time in selecting for what they thought were important traits. In this case 0.2 could also be called ‘very low’.
• If however you needed it to support your own research, or a new trait that you wanted to claim a reputation from such as:
  

(Muzzle width/teat length) x √heart girth

then a repeatability and heritability of 0.2 could be squeezed from a ‘low’ into the ‘medium’ classification.

• Once it is into the “medium” group – then it can be squeezed into the “medium-high” group.
• Thus ‘low’ could be 0-0.19; ‘medium’ would be 0.20-0.40.
  
• Now 0.4 is really getting ‘high’, so 0.20-0.40 must be in a ‘medium-high’ group. You have created a winner - if that’s what you wanted.
  

Genetic and phenotypic correlations between traits

Again, these are values that tell you how much one thing is related to another. The genetic ones are about what’s inside the animal and the phenotypic ones are things you can see on the outside of the animal.

• Again 0.2 is very valuable.
• If you need a value to support a case, especially if you don’t know or can’t remember the actual value, or if you don't have one and need one, adopt the following rule:
• If you feel unsure or your job or reputation could be under threat, then use 0.19-0.20.
• If you feel confident, then really go for it and use 0.20-0.21
  

General percentages

• Whenever you need a percentage, 20% can be used with enormous confidence.
• If for example you need to show that a major fact is of minor importance, (e.g. the number of geneticists who have not written up their lifetime work), then 20% can be interpreted as small. This will take the heat out of the discussion.
  
• However, if you need to generate some heat, (e.g. to highlight the percentage of geneticists who are homosexuals or atheists, or both), then you can make 20% sound deliciously high!
• The 20% statistic is of course, the core of the 80:20 rule, which has certainly stood the test of time. You can use this rule for anything that comes to mind where you need to prove that 80% of something is caused by 20% of something else.
• Some visionary must have carefully researched this rule, who could see that the 20% part of the ratio was the clincher and would never be questioned, Have you ever met anyone who questioned it?
• If you do meet anyone doubters, simply drop it to 18-20%. If you feel cocky, raise it to 20-25%. But don’t every push it up to 20-30% as the ice gets too thin.
  

General Correction Factors

These are things that are used to get people to believe that mountainous playing fields can been made level by a bit of mathematical manipulation. A better name for them would be ‘Fudge Factors’. Geneticists need them all the time - described below.

• The effects on an animal of both Genetics (G) and the Environment (E) is the big worry.
• E can make a real fool of all your pontifications about G, as there are so many variables involved in the environment.
• But we love these variables, as it can so often save our bacon, especially in arguments with farmers where we use the trick of telling them what they know already, and that the problem is complex. By using the word ‘multifactorial’ – you can sound as if you know what you are talking about!
• You always need to find a plausible reason (excuse) why your years of work and money spent have resulted in a lemon.
• We also have to deal with what is called the ‘G x E interaction’ which is great fun where some animals do well in one environment but not in others. It adds delicious complexity to the situation – which only a host of fudge factors can help disguise.
• So here again, good old 0.2 is comes to the rescue and is perfect for the job.
  

Standard errors and standard deviations

These are tricky things to explain. You use a standard error (SE) to describe how accurate a mean is because of variation around it, and a standard deviation (SD) to describe the variation in a range of data. This is what they used to be anyway!

• 0.2 suits most needs and can be used freely if you do not have one of these statistics, or you forget to work one out, or especially if you don’t really understand what they are.
• Such is the case of a “residual standard error” which few ever knew that they were - 0.2 is ideal.
  
• The ± symbol which appears before these values fools most folk, as they are not sure what it is so move on searching for a heading that says ‘summary’ or ‘conclusions’ or both.
• Have no fear that 0.2 will get you through most editorial committees, that because of their age will ignore statistics because they won’t understand them.
• And the real coup is that they won’t dare to admit it, and stoop to ask some young smart whipper-snapper what it all means. The young always had learned from the old, and never vice versa.
• These old codgers could concentrate on checking if the author had written “data is” instead of “data are”, and if their name was in the list of references.
  

Missing values in a matrix

A matrix is a mass of little squares (cells) with figures in them all joined together in a big table with headings along the top and down the side.

• You need a matrix to show the relationships (correlations) between a host of things, and in all their possible combinations.
• You can’t have empty cells as it looks bad.
  
• It also risks putting a stop to your entire work, as some greater being will declare that things will have to wait, ‘until more data become available’. This is the kiss of death.
• All the meetings you have been attending for the last 18 months or more (expenses paid plus fudge factors) to finish the project will end.
• Never fear though as here again 0.2 can come to the rescue, simply because it can be used with confidence and without causing serious problems – at least problems where you could be blamed for.
• The reason why you don’t need to worry is that there are so many errors and generalities in a matrix that a dusting of 0.2s in empty cells won’t cause any serious damage to the outcome.
• But don’t put 0.2 in every empty cell. Break it up a bit by putting 0.19 in some and 0.21 in others. It’s not prudent go outside this range.
  

Acknowledgements

I have to thank many colleagues over the years, some of whom were distinguished geneticists and statisticians, for stimulating my thoughts in smoke-filled rooms, confirming my fears and excitement about 0.2.

The punched tape the kids loved.

They could throw the role and it would unwind for miles.

The boxes were very useful too.

I owe special thanks to Chris Dyson, Biometrician at the Ruakura Agricultural Research Centre when I worked there in 1980. Chris bristled with Yorkshire wisdom and common sense, and drew my attention to the fact that if you ever needed ‘a number’ - for anything , then 153 was the one to go for.

Chris pointed out that if you take the reciprocal of the natural logarithm of 153, this comes out as 0.199, which rounds up to 0.2. So there’s the magic 0.2 coming to the surface again for air and respect. It’s magic. QED!

Thanks also for comments by Dr Harold Henderson, veteran statistician at Ruakura whose statistical skills were only eclipsed by his patience with non-mathematical scientists like me.

I must also credit a wonderful website where images and information about old calculators abounds - http://www.oldcomputers.arcula.co.uk/calc1.htm#marchant_xl

Sheep Farm Husbandry - References and Further Reading

Sources of information from text books, research papers, technical leaflets & reports, sheep industry organisations' publications

By Dr Clive Dalton


Dalton, D. C. (1980).
Introduction to practical animal breeding.
Out of print. Photocopies of First edition available from Dr Clive Dalton, 12 Maple Avenue, Dinsdale, Hamilton 3204. Price $45 which includes GST and postage within New Zealand
Blackwell Scientific Publications
ISBN 0-246-11194-1

Dalton, D.C. (2007) Third edition with cartoons by David Henshaw
Internal parasites of sheep and their control – now and in the future. Background information for farmers.
Reward publishing. ISBN 978-0-473-12133-4
Available from Dr Clive Dalton, 12 Maple Avenue, Dinsdale, Hamilton 3204. Price $27 which includes GST and postage within New Zealand

Geenty, K.G. (1999)
Editor: The New Zealand Sheep Council. Third edition
A guide to feed planning for sheep farmers (2009)

Geenty, K.G. (1997)
Editor: Wools of New Zealand and New Zealand Meat Producers Board
A guide to improved lambing percentage. 200 by 2000
ISBN 0-908768-75-3

Grant, I. F.(Editor) (2008)
The Farmers’ Veterinary Guide
Publisher: 3Media Group, Level 7, 67 Symonds Street, Auckland
ISBN 978-0-473-13622-2

A guide to improved lamb growth, 400 plus (2000)
New Zealand Sheep Council
ISBN 0-908768-96-6

Coleby, P. (2000)
Healthy sheep naturally
Lanklinks Press
ISBN 0-643-06524-5

Fencer Fred. (Aspen, S.D). (2004)
Hand-made farm fence #852
ISBN 0-476-01064-0

Gavigan. R. & Rattray, P. (Editors). New Zealand Sheep Council.
A guide to hogget mating – 100 more.
ISBN 0-908768-02-8

Lundie, R.S. & Wilkinson, E.J (2004). Editors
The world of coloured sheep
Proceedings of the 6th congress on coloured sheep, Christchurch, New Zealand
ISBN 0-476-00928-6

Lynch, J.J., Hinch, G.N., Adams, D.B. (19920)
The behaviour of sheep. Biological principles and implications for production
CAB & CSIRO
ISBN 0-85198-787-7

McCutcheon, S.N., McDonald, M.F., Wickham, G.A. (Editors) (1986)
Sheep production Volume 2. Feeding, growth and health
NZ Institute of Agricultural Science
ISBN0-908596-24-3

Martin, C.P. (2004)
Processing of sheepskins from abattoir to finished product
The word of coloured sheep. Proceedings of the 6th World Congress on Coloured Sheep, Christchurch New Zealand
ISBN 0-476-00928-6

New Zealand contacts in agriculture (2003)
Contacts Unlimited Ltd, Email office@contacts.co.nz
ISBN 0-9582248-4-6

Meadows, G. (2008)
Pocket guide to sheep breeds of New Zealand
New Holland
ISBN 978-1-86966-225-7

Rattray, P.V. (2003)
Helminth parasites in the New Zealand meat and wool pastoral industries: A review of current issues. Final report, commissioned by Meat & Wood Innovation Ltd
228 pages. Available free from Meat & Wood New Zealand
Website www.meatandwoolnz.com

Schering-Plough Coopers
Farmers’ Guide to Drench Resistance. 2005
Free brochure available by phoning 0800 800 543

Schering-Plough Coopers
Lice advice. A Farmer’s Guide to Lice Control in sheep. 2005
Free brochure available by phoning 0800 800 54
Lice Technical Manual 2004
Free brochure available by phoning 0800 800 543

Simmons, P., Ekarius, C. (2001)
Storey’s guide to raising sheep. Breeding;care;facilities.
Storey Books
ISBN1-58017-262-8

West, D.M., Bruère, A.N., Ridler, A.L. (2002)
The sheep: health, disease & production
Veterinary Continuing Education, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
ISSN 0112-9643. 446p.

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, codes of welfare and minimum standards
These codes are available on the website of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry www.maf.govt.nz/biosecurity/animal-welfare/ or from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Animal Welfare, PO Box 2526, Wellington, New Zealand. There may be a charge depending on the quantity requested.

Welfare code for sheep.
Code of Animal Welfare No. 3 (Revised) July 1996.
ISBN 0-477-08550-4.

Code of Welfare (Painful Husbandry Procedures)
Code of welfare No. 7. 2005
ISBN 0-478-29800-5

Animal welfare
Code for the welfare of animals at the time of slaughter at licensed and approved premises.
Code of Animal Welfare No.10., July 1994.
ISBN 0-478-07337-2.

Code for the welfare of animals transported within New Zealand.
Code of Animal Welfare No.15. November 1994
ISBN 0-478-07372-0

Code for the sea transport of sheep from New Zealand.
Code of Animal Welfare No. 2, September 1991
ISBN 0-477-08159-2

Code for the welfare of animals at saleyards.
Code of Animal Welfare No. 16. November 1995.
ISBN 0-477-08151-7

Code for the welfare of emergency slaughter of farm livestock.
Code of Animal Welfare No.19. December 1996
ISBN 0-4-478-07431-1.

Code of welfare of exhibit animals and information for animal exhibit operators.
Code of Animal Welfare No. 14. November 1999.
ISBN 0-478-07366-6

Meadows, G.(1997)
Sheep breeds of New Zealand
Reed. ISBN0-7900-0583-2

New Zealand Veterinary Journal (2001). Volume 49: Number 6: pages 212-127.
Feature review series on internal parasites

New Zealand Sheep Council and Merial New Zealand Ltd. (1998)
Parasite notes
ISBN 0-473-04927-9.

Wools of New Zealand
New Zealand sheep and their wool (1994)

Wormwise. National worm management strategy (2008).
A Handbook of Sustainable Worm Management for Livestock Farmers
Meat & Wool New Zealand

Uljee, B., Rennie, N. (1999)
Livestock recording for sheep and beef
ISBN 0-477-08245-9

Verkade, Tineka. (2002)
Homeopathic handbook for dairy farmers
HFS Ltd., PO Box 9025, Hamilton, New Zealand. Email
ISBN 0-473-08376-0.

I’m weary of the arrogance of science

The arrogance of science

By Clive Dalton

I'm sick of the arrogance of science. Having been part of it in both UK and New Zealand, I realised years ago that there was no more closed mind, than that of the so-called "open-minded" scientist. Rocking boats was never good for a scientific career. Yet there has never been a time in history where innovation, original thinking and way-out ideas were more needed to attack some of the problems man has created – under the guise of "science"!

A classic example is where somebody in meteorology's distant past rubbished the influence of the moon, which has been passed on to subsequent generations of meteorology students. So what young academic now would dare ask – "hey, why not let's have another look at this moon business. There could just be something in it."

I'm weary of the game of "where is the evidence" which is still alive and well today, to kill off anyone with products that are new or different. OK some are snake oil, but how do we know. Others must work on the farm because farmers pay their bills and re-order, which are two good signs.

These innovators (misguided or not) are head bashed by the scientific establishment under the rule that if there's nothing in the literature it must be rubbish!

The Holy Grail is of course peer-reviewed papers in respected scientific journals, but in these journals I have read and reviewed so much bad science, bad objectives, awful presentation and utter trash from such agricultural journals.

There's no more dangerous statement than the great put-down used by scientists that "there is no evidence", meaning published evidence. Well there can be two reasons for this –when some researchers looked they missed the obvious, and so often they just never looked properly. Scientists hate the comment by some wise person that "absence of proof is never proof of absence" Ouch!

All academics should be booted out of Universities after 10 years, and none of their students should be allowed to replace them, unless they have done at least10 years at another University and preferably overseas.

"Independent" research is a thing of the past, so anyone with good ideas these days cannot get them "officially tested" like they could in the old days when the government's Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (MAF) was in business to do that job.

Official government research organisations today are built on "contestability" and "find your own money if you want to keep your job". The pittance scientists get from governments means they must go to commercial organisations to get funds to keep themselves in work. Scientists tell me that they spend at least three quarters of their time creating paper applying to get money to keep them in work. So many critical agricultural research projects have been cancelled because no research funds were forthcoming. Wool is a classical example.

The serious impact of all this is that anyone with an idea to be tested dare not go near any official research organisation. First, they'll charge an arm and a leg seeing it as a great opportunity to keep them in business, and then if the idea was any good, there's no guarantee that they wouldn't pinch it. Despite confidentiality agreements, you could not rely on your idea being safe.

An application to a dairy research organisation I saw had sections that you had to sign declaring that if the work was successful, they had the right to the Intellectual Property, and their extension arm had the fist claim to deliver it. Yeah Right!

The agricultural media have lost all critical powers, as they are spoon fed press releases by six-figure spin-doctors from organisations.

It's the competitive world that scientists have to work in that makes them what they are. The need to be first with the results, to have your name first on the paper, to be asked to open the first session at the conference – and other childish things.

Years ago as a "scientific liaison officer" at Ruakura Agricultural Research Centre, I realised that my skills with small children were far more important than any I had as a scientist.

It was like pre-school. Asking scientists for information was like asking to borrow their favourite toy. They always needed it that very moment, because it needed more work or tidying up, or the statistics were not complete, etc etc. The real problem was that they feared criticism! And, I might tell their colleagues, as they didn't want them to know- even if it was joint research and they shared offices!

So I used the trick of "over-the-top praise", telling them how marvellous they were, how Daddy (the Director) would be so impressed, and what a great job they were doing for the institute, the nation and the world!

When I eventually got the document prised from their grasp, with the threat that they wanted it back by 4.35pm, I immediately went into raptures saying what an incredible bit of work it was, and in fact, it was so well done that it would qualify to go on the frig for all to see! Some would mumble words to the effect that it was a first draught, and later draughts would be better. "No, no, no" I would scream – it's fantastic, and could easily get the author an invitation to a world conference.

Scientists will never share toys, so the labs of the world are full of white elephants under dust covers. These are bits of equipment that when purchased under urgency nearly bankrupted the institute, depriving other scientists of gear.

Often the institute up the road had this gear, or the organisation had some at another campus – but NO, that particular scientist had to have his own! Then when he moved on, out came the dust covers and eventually it went to the dump!

When I regularly got the bum's rush from a colleague, with the "stuff off, I'm far too busy to write anything for blardy farmers - come back in a month", I would write it for them, and have it back on their desk by 4.34pm.

Boy-oh-boy did that get some action – my arrogance, and the fact that I'd got it all wrong, immediately brought action. Then I'd do the massive grovel, lie on my back in their office and pee my pants in submission screaming what a masterpiece it now was. It never failed to get results.

So I want to praise anecdotal research that works on farms, and from which farmers can make money and survive. Let modern scientists keep generating kg of submissions for work, most of which has been done years ago.

Agricultural research killed by bureaucrats

Research killed by bureaucracy

By Clive Dalton

New Zealand scientist Dr John Baker's comments in a recent 2007 farming publication on "what's happening to NZ science" was refreshing. Dr Baker led the team that developed the Cross Slot no-tillage drill at Massey and then by his own company. He lived like many of us through the old regimes of funding by MAF and DSIR and though we got frustrated and always wanted more funding, compared to the set-up today, we were in clover.

Dr Baker comments that under the guise of "accountability" sub layers of minions have appeared to shield the short-term CEOs from the stuff-ups that inevitably appear further down the track when they have left. The average CEO these days only serves 18 months of their three-year contract, leaving with a fist full of dollars and a frustrated board who then repeat the same mistakes.

This modern madness assumed that there was no accountability in the old days. Not true, as at each research station we had a Director who was answerable to the Director of Agricultural Research, and above him was the Director General of Agriculture and then the Minister. That was it!

We had scientists and scientific liaison officers getting results from research stations to farm advisors in each area all the time. The term "Director of Corporate Communications" had not been invented because any company that has one is stuffed, as nothing of use will get out to those who need help. There'll be plenty of spin and power point presentations of what's "gonna" be done – but that's all.

Evidence for my concern is today's sheep industry. In the old days New Zealand had the world's top sheep academics at Massey and Lincoln, then in MAF there were at least 20 scientists working on sheep. These were supported by animal husbandry officers and sheep and beef officers, who had all trained at Massey or Lincoln. Now they've all gone!

This must be a major cause of the current parlous state of the sheep industry. Recent meetings around the country to find what's wrong are a great idea, and I hope they find solutions and not just who to blame. If they decide what has to be done, I hope they know who is going to help farmers do it.

I get upset when I hear the cry by bureaucrats for more agricultural scientists. I could list scores of them who took redundancy or early retirement as a result of their actions. What young person would want to face the cost of two degrees and no career structure in the funding setup that exists today?

As John Baker points out, the great salvation of "user pays" which was supposed to attract commercial funding has in fact killed innovation under layers of bureaucratic accountability. Only large organisations can now face the cost of buying science in New Zealand.

The whole Kiwi philosophy of innovation epitomised by Doug Phillips's hundreds of inventions at Ruakura with No 8 wire and bits of rubber is now dead. Today to get the money you have to ensure an "outcome" before you start. How stupid is that? Under this regime the tiger moth with a drum full of super hanging below would never have got off the ground.

Any small innovator with a good idea these days has nowhere to go. A CRI will welcome them as a source of funding to keep their bureaucracy going, and they would have to pay the massive fees demanded by an Ethics Committee. Then to cap that, there'll be restrictions by the funding body on your the Intellectual Property.

A frustrated scientist mate told me recently he's had a gutsfull of "consortia"! He said that if you have an idea you have to form a consortium, and after spending months producing mountains of bumph and having endless meetings to source funding, your consortium mates vote for the work be done at another centre. Your idea has been nicked so you now have no funding and no job.

The AC Neilson 2006 survey of where farmers get their information says a lot about today's system. Farming newspapers have the top score of 45% followed by 9% for neighbours, other farmers, family and friends. Universities and CRIs score 0%!