There’s a simple reason there’s a ‘Valley of Death’ in public-funded agricultural research – UK Agriculture isn’t doing enough to build the bridge from the scientists on one side to the progressive farmers on the other.
By Tom Allen-Stevens
On the first day of the Oxford Farming Conference in January, (Wednesday 4th) there’s a brand-new event that marks something of a first in the conference’s 80-year history: an Innovation Hub.
Sponsored by BBSRC, it puts the scientists involved in world-leading research on genomics, precision agriculture, animal health and pesticide resistance right in front of OFC delegates, who are generally the industry leaders in UK Agriculture. What’s more, it takes place in Oxford – itself a hotbed of innovative talent where some of the brightest minds in the world have for centuries helped shape it.
If nothing else, it’ll put the spotlight firmly on the so-called ‘Valley of Death’, the chasm where good, worthy, usually public-funded research reputedly languishes because it doesn’t have the commercial guarantees needed for industry to invest and take it forward. But will it present the opportunity to actually bridge that chasm? Does the industry now have the parts in place to bring about true progression?
There’s no doubt that some form of progression is needed – it’s widely recognised that UK farming businesses are flat-lining in terms of both output and profitability. Over the past decade, total factor productivity for UK Agriculture grew at just 0.8%, according to Defra. This is far below the global average of 2% and some way behind the US, France, Germany, New Zealand and Australia. UK farmers appear relatively ill equipped to face society’s requirement to grow more using the same or even less resource. That’s a sorry enough situation as it is, but it could become a serious disability when Brexit bites, and the UK is left to face the harsh environment of world trade without its EU comfort blanket.
And we can’t argue the resource to stimulate change isn’t there – the UK invests a significant amount in R&D, more than the Netherlands and France, for example. The Government’s £70M Agri-Tech Catalyst is designed specifically to deliver new technology onto farms. So just what is the problem here – why does farm performance not reflect the fruits of this world-class research resource we have on our doorstep?
Everyone in UK Farming probably has their own part to play in addressing this, and will be aware of an element of failure that contributes to the bigger picture. For my own part, I can only draw on the side I see, as the editor of CPM, a technical journal in the agricultural trade press. But even here, there are glaring failures we must address.
The missing link to my mind is Knowledge Exchange – if you want to get the research out onto farms you have to invest in the communication tools that achieve that. This means understanding the channels farmers use to gather information when developing their system, and using these channels effectively to convey the innovative ideas. Even better if you can achieve a two-way flow, so that the truly progressive farmers (and I’d argue the UK has some of the best in the world) help shape those technologies.
There are many such channels, from agricultural events, to on-farm trials and meetings, to literature, while the internet and social media are increasingly key routes. The agricultural trade press is also an important channel. The problem here is that many in the research community don’t know how to use it, or ignore it altogether, with the result that their valuable knowledge remains firmly entrenched in the Valley of Death.
Don’t underestimate the task here – science speaks a different language to farming and farmers are busy people. Making matters worse is some of the peer-reviewed ‘evidence’ presented by ‘scientists’ on emotive subjects, such as neonicotinoids and glyphosate – the tools that good science has brought to farming are being taken away thanks to political interpretation at an EU level of the flimsiest research studies. While there’s always been a level of trust and respect that’s existed between farmer and scientist, that relationship itself is now under threat. Even the most rational farmer is beginning to question whether scientific proof is an adequate basis for a good agricultural decision.
Don’t get me wrong – there are stunning examples of where good science is translated into good agricultural practice. The work of AHDB shines as a beacon here – I’ve worked with the arable sides of this farmer and industry-funded body for almost 20 years and have always been impressed at the diligence and dedication shown by its staff. Research projects are carefully selected, they work with the research teams towards conclusions, and then bring those to growers in a way that can actually be implemented on farm. It’s a two-way flow and platforms are created where knowledge can be shared – farmers learn best from farmers.
Contrast that with the way much of the public-funded research is handled. The projects themselves are fantastic, the scientists inspiring, but I can’t help feeling there’s not enough done by those tasked with communicating the results to engage with farming businesses. As someone who’s actively involved in Knowledge Exchange with farmers, I believe little can be gained through a two-minute snip on a local BBC news programme, told by a journalist with no technical knowledge. All it does is trivialise good science, and the real worth gets buried beneath the froth of a good headline. It must make the scientists themselves cringe, and those are the ones lucky enough to have a project deemed worthy of support by their institute’s PR advisors.
This is why the Innovation Hub at the Oxford Farming Conference is such a progressive and engaging idea – it gets the research right to the heart of the agricultural community, from where we can help its passage onto UK farms themselves.
But there’s still a problem of market failure with getting the results through the agricultural trade press and I’m not clear on the solution. To a large extent, these publications are paid for by the companies that place adverts between the pages we, as agricultural journalists, write. We’re presented with plenty of newsworthy, exciting ideas and innovations, and are privileged to work with truly fascinating farmers and researchers. I can look in on the ground-breaking public-funded research that’s going on, I can press my face against its window and yearn to put page space to these mesmerising marvels. But no one is paying me to do so, and frankly I’m grateful for and lucky to have the marvellous stories I currently write.
So for me, there’s a simple reason the Valley of Death exists in agricultural research, and the way science is currently abused and disrespected within the EU, that chasm will only get deeper and wider. The bridge is Knowledge Exchange, and to build it you need to find the right ways to exchange knowledge between farmers and scientists. I hope the OFC Innovation Hub will not just be a fascinating journey through some of the most exciting science ever seen in agriculture. It should also be an opportunity for us to challenge ourselves on what we can do to put it in the hands of those who can use it.
