A farmer and a scientist say academic research can be disconnected from reality, often producing data that’s hard to duplicate in field conditions
Agricultural research has offered farmers much knowledge and a glimpse of what might be possible on their land.
But farmers must check that science against the truth of what goes on in their own fields, says a father-son agronomic duo.
“If I had based decisions on a popular piece of science or one year’s experience, I would have been wrong more than 50 percent of the time,” said Don Lobb, an Ontario farmer who was an early advocate of no-till agriculture and a soil health advocate.
Read Also
Ag In Motion 2025 site hub of activity
day before Ag in Motion preview.
“Farm trials are essential to ground proof the science to fit our own unique soil conditions and circumstances.”
Don and David Lobb addressed the issue of soil science research and farm realities from different perspectives at the Farm Forum Event held Dec. 3-5 in Saskatoon.
Don is a farmer who has spent decades involved with on-farm testing of research, taking advantage of academic and commercial research but then testing it against results on an actual farm’s fields.
David is a soil scientist at the University of Manitoba and a noted expert resource for farmers and governments.
Even though his father takes a “prove it to me” approach to the test plot and experimental research presented to farmers, David spent little time opposing that perspective.
“There is this disconnect, this detachment from reality,” he said about academic research and modelling, which often produces data that’s hard to duplicate in real field conditions.
“These plots and experiments … can often be very artificial and I don’t feel represent actual farms.”
The Lobbs both take an intellectual and practical approach to agronomic research, enjoying the interplay of theoretical concepts with on-the-field results.
Don said he sees soil-based research as an “art” as opposed to simply a science. The science needs to be fitted to the farm, and sometimes that has to be done by feel and will be different between farms.
“I needed to move beyond but not ignore established science,” said Don. “Farmers are faced with endless and often conflicting soil science.”
That has meant a commitment to run his own tests, often in collaboration with full-time researchers who are willing to try out their ideas on a commercial farm.
“For me, the investigation process is the art that is required to achieve soil health,” said Don.
“Crop system development cannot be the role of the scientists, because classic research only allows comparison of one variable at a time.”
David said he was leery of theoretical and small-plot-proven research that “doesn’t seem to work” in real farm fields.
Doing bigger studies and watching how crops fare in common real-farming situations is important.
“That’s the reality farmers are trying to work with.”
But while it’s good to have skepticism about small-plot research, David suggested farmers should also cast a wary eye at agronomic claims from product promoters for which there is scant evidence.
Especially with soil additives, farmers should demand to see data backing up claims, he said, because some product promoters appear to be providing little backing.
Don said decades of doing his own on-farm tests have shown him their value.
“A key component to success in the art of creating healthy soil is for us as farmers to monitor and document the outcomes of change and to do so over time,” said Don.
His son agreed with the step of checking out research on real farm fields.
“I think this is the only way to provide solutions that are practical and meaningful for land managers,” said David.
