The triumph of Australian agriculture
Australian farming represents a triumph of human ingenuity, faced with uncertain climatic conditions and some of the most infertile soils in the world. Despite these disadvantages, (or is it because of them?) we have some of the most efficient farmers in the world.
Some of this can be attributed to a happy partnership that evolved between farmers, state ag departments and the researchers in unis and the CSIRO. The division of labour ran along the lines that the unis and CSIRO did basic research and the State departments did extension and field trials for immediate application. Of course some of the work at unis and CSIRO involved field trials and was applied as well, depnding on the inclinations of the researchers.
Here are some of the things that I have written about these things on other occasions. First an essay on Australian science with some thoughts on the four factors (including free trade) that make for innovation and effective application of research and development. That was where I mentioned the value of having some people with one foot in practice and the other in the fundamentals. On the importance of free trade, check out the Swedish experience where their dynamic private sector has so far managed to (just) provide the resources for cradle to grave welfare.
I came off a dairy farm and studied Ag Science with the first cohort to go through the course at Tas Uni: then on the Adelaide at the Waite Institute for honours with Keith Barley. That year was funded by the Meat Research Council and I wonder what they thought about my thesis on the penetration of clay by root hairs. This piece is a defence of apparently weird research projects, with some more about Keith Barley who was the man who placed The Open Society and its Enemies in my hands in the spring of 1968.
He was Reader in soil plant relations in the Agronomy Department, the biggest department in the Waite and a kind of microcosm of the Waite as a whole. We had people working on soils, animals and plants in various combinations: the Waite had Argonomy, Animal Production, Plant Pathology, Entomoloy, Biochemistry, Soils and Plant Breeding. Just over the road was the CSIRO soils division and the CSIRO wine research institute. Wine in 1967 was still mostly consumed from flagons (at least by students) and the wine industry of today was just a small cloud on the horizon.
My research was jointy supervised by Keith and Albert Rovira in the CSIRO. A de facto third supervisor was Bill Greacen from the CSIRO who was Keith's principal collaborator on soi mechanics. They were supervising a mature age doctoral student from Victoria, on paid leave from managing the Tatura Horticultural Research Station. In later years I often stopped over there to break trips between Sydney and Melbourne. We all drank together at the Arkaba on Fridays and then I mostly went on to dinner with Keith's family just a step down Fullarton Road towards the city.
Later I met Ivan Kennedy in Sydney and he introduced me to one of the grand old men of rural research, Jim Vincent. This is a review of a collection of papers in his honour and this is an interview with him.
Some of this can be attributed to a happy partnership that evolved between farmers, state ag departments and the researchers in unis and the CSIRO. The division of labour ran along the lines that the unis and CSIRO did basic research and the State departments did extension and field trials for immediate application. Of course some of the work at unis and CSIRO involved field trials and was applied as well, depnding on the inclinations of the researchers.
Here are some of the things that I have written about these things on other occasions. First an essay on Australian science with some thoughts on the four factors (including free trade) that make for innovation and effective application of research and development. That was where I mentioned the value of having some people with one foot in practice and the other in the fundamentals. On the importance of free trade, check out the Swedish experience where their dynamic private sector has so far managed to (just) provide the resources for cradle to grave welfare.
I came off a dairy farm and studied Ag Science with the first cohort to go through the course at Tas Uni: then on the Adelaide at the Waite Institute for honours with Keith Barley. That year was funded by the Meat Research Council and I wonder what they thought about my thesis on the penetration of clay by root hairs. This piece is a defence of apparently weird research projects, with some more about Keith Barley who was the man who placed The Open Society and its Enemies in my hands in the spring of 1968.
He was Reader in soil plant relations in the Agronomy Department, the biggest department in the Waite and a kind of microcosm of the Waite as a whole. We had people working on soils, animals and plants in various combinations: the Waite had Argonomy, Animal Production, Plant Pathology, Entomoloy, Biochemistry, Soils and Plant Breeding. Just over the road was the CSIRO soils division and the CSIRO wine research institute. Wine in 1967 was still mostly consumed from flagons (at least by students) and the wine industry of today was just a small cloud on the horizon.
My research was jointy supervised by Keith and Albert Rovira in the CSIRO. A de facto third supervisor was Bill Greacen from the CSIRO who was Keith's principal collaborator on soi mechanics. They were supervising a mature age doctoral student from Victoria, on paid leave from managing the Tatura Horticultural Research Station. In later years I often stopped over there to break trips between Sydney and Melbourne. We all drank together at the Arkaba on Fridays and then I mostly went on to dinner with Keith's family just a step down Fullarton Road towards the city.
Later I met Ivan Kennedy in Sydney and he introduced me to one of the grand old men of rural research, Jim Vincent. This is a review of a collection of papers in his honour and this is an interview with him.
posted by Rafe at
6:10 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home