Recent comments by: Bob F
Agribuzz with David Leyonhjelm
excellent article and point of view. I couldn't agree more with John Ives. We do need greater research into native species. There is great diversity within a species, from more leafy, productivity, and probably if some one looked hard enough for long enough plants with seed retention characteristics could be found. then we could breed the good characteristics together and have a widely used native grass industry.
Criticism of past crop failures was because of inappropriate agronomy and crop varieties, as well as lack of infrastructure. Todays technology (e.g. CSIRO cotton developed technology and GM insect protected varieties), dramatically changes the future for northern agriculture. It is simply ridiculous to quote past failures and not note that technology has moved on.
A review by "outsiders" of past research would be more sensible than a review by organisations involved in past research. Too many vested interests and protection of past negative outcomes. Maybe overseas experts. Much of the world farm output comes from environments like our north. Future research needs visonary people capable of matching that of progressive northern landholders.
An unelected so called elitist group with no feeling or care for rural communities or agriculture. Few of them have any sound agricultural science background. Typically left wing academic self serving self appointed group.
Anyone who was the executive director of the Australian National University's Climate Change Institute would have to support climate change wouldn't they.
Typical of biased public education across NSW. Always has had and continues to have a biased left (often left of the Labor party, like the ABC) view.
If this is so great where is the research to back it up? None I would guess. Anyone selling a product and promoting it ought to insist on good scientific data to support such claims. Such claims are a dime a dozen and never backed by science.
As Mr Harper says research is needed to validate any claims re value of exhaust gas pumped back into the soil. No science backs this view up. Reporters who help promote non verifiable claims sometimes need a reality check. Yes report all issues is a responsibility, but to help promote it is not professional.
A typical one sided ABC show and worst of all poorly reported by Cawood. It would have been good to have a sensible review of the TV report such as lack of sampling numbers, no response from major suppliers, muddied waters with spray drift on an organic farm (what has that part got to do with dioxin other than to leave an impression all our food is probably contaminated), and issues like past application methods versus today's.
Good research. The anti fertiliser group will never accept any research/views contrary to their own generally non-supportable beliefs.
Is there any scientific evidence to support these claims? If it is so good it should not be that hard for Universities, CSIRO, State agricultural agencies to properly test.
They should all be sent to jail. It seems the ABC and SMH are supporting them.