RESPECTED agricultural academic, Jim Pratley, is warning of a runaway train about to hit farming in Australia – a 30-year decline in our agricultural research capacity and funding.
The Charles Sturt University professor of agriculture, at Wagga Wagga, says after being on a steady path of decline for decades, farming’s problems are now at a crisis point.
He says there has been no increase in public research and development for agriculture since 1977.
And, while the contribution of universities to agricultural research has actually increased, enrolments in agriculture-related courses have been going down for 20 years.
“Research intensity has declined since the early 1980s and continues to get worse,” Dr Pratley told a farming systems seminar in Harden in southern NSW last month.
“You don’t appreciate something until it goes, and once it goes you won’t get it back.”
He says productivity gains in agriculture have been higher than for other sectors for more than 40 years, largely due to research and development.
But those gains are under threat from decreases in funding, the substitution of environmental research for productivity research, the rationalisation of research providers and “poverty-line” funding for people wanting to pursue careers in agricultural research.
State governments have reduced investment in research funding by 40 per cent since 1996.
The NSW Government has cut funding 50pc in the past 10 years.
The CSIRO and State departments of primary industries have suffered reductions in funding, the loss of expertise and cuts to extension services.
“At the same time the supply of agricultural graduates has dropped 40pc in the last six years and the trend continues,” Dr Pratley said.
He said replacing experienced scientists and traditional, on-the-ground research processes with computer modelling must be questioned.
“The models integrate complexity for decision making, but they have their limitations.
“If you are going to guess the inputs they are not going to be as good as the real inputs.”
Dr Pratley believes taking research out of the hands of experienced, independent researchers compromises the credibility of results.
“There is a consequence to the capacity loss which opens the way to snake oil salesmen,” he said.
“They make outrageous claims and, the way we are going, we won’t have the experts to refute those claims or examine them closely.”
He questions the value in the trend towards farmer groups being given an increasing role in agricultural research.
“We should leave research to the researchers.
“Research is supposed to be innovative, rigorous, quality-assured by peer review and published in refereed journals.
“As far as I can see, farmer groups can’t do that.”
While farmer groups have a role to play in the demonstration and adoption of new technologies and trends, he opposes governments providing public funding to those farmer organisations for research.
“A lot of farmer groups have exclusive membership and you can’t get access to their data without being a member. That is not for the public good.”
Underpinning the future demand for agricultural production was the expected increase in the world’s population from its already-stressed capacity levels of 6.3 billion to an estimated 9.3 billion by 2050 – almost another 50pc more people in just 40 years.
At the same time, land available for food production would continue to diminish under urban sprawl and the rising demand for biofuel crops would compete with food crops for arable land.
Growing affluence in countries such as China and India will mean an increasing demand for protein.
Dr Pratley says agriculture needs to embrace education more whole-heartedly in the 21st century.
It’s just not good enough for the industry to have 60pc of its people without a post-school qualification, he says.
“The future of farming depends on a well-educated workforce.
“We can control our own destiny with strong research capacity and a highly trained workforce.”
Email a friend