Dr Doug Edmeades's ode to the Fergie 28

Dr Doug Edmeades - serious about Myrtles...

Myrtles are on my mind. Not the genus 'Myrtle', but the subspecies 'Myrtlus Fergus', the common and garden Fergie 28. I want to reverse the current trend. Fergies towing boats down to the marina - how degrading! How belittling for the mighty machine that displaced the horse on so many farms after World War II. From one horse to 28 horses - just one small step for Myrtle.

I want to ennoble all Myrtles and enshrine them in the glory they justly deserve. I have been waiting for an appropriate time and I think I have found it.

The Rural News recently ran a headline "Make a Noise on R & D." "Noise matters; Governments listen to noise." These encouraging hints to New Zealand farmers come from the impeccable authority, Sir Peter Gluckman, the Prime Minister Science Advisor. He wants farmers to get more involved in R & D.

One Myrtle at full revs is unlikely to shake the pigeon poo off Parliament Buildings but think of say 100 or 200 Myrtles at full throttle driving up the steps of Parliament? Move over Ardern, forget the Fart Tax, we are here for some serious industrial strength protesting. We will make Joshua's Jericho trumpets sound like children's play time. There will be such a cacophony that the Minister of Science, the Hon Steven Joyce, will be forced to open the R & D vaults of Treasury. Farmers will take control of agricultural R & D. Long live Sir Peter!

Of course this is all satirical nonsense. A million miles of myrtles coupled together would not have the horsepower to tear down the walls that now surround agricultural science or to be more precise, the management of agricultural science. Thanks to the science reforms, farmers have been and remain disenfranchised from government funded agricultural R & D.

The predecessor of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) the Ministry of Research Science and Technology (Morst) and the Foundation of Research Science and Technology (Forst) were specifically designed to take the decision making out of the hands of those involved in the planning, funding managing and conducting agricultural research, and that included farmers - remember the funder versus provider split? "We cannot leave it them to set priorities and doll out the dosh." "That is the government's roll" was the then pompous assessment.

What was MAF is now inaptly named the Ministry for Primary Industry (MPI). A more descriptive moniker would be the Ministry for Monitoring and Controlling Agricultural, for that, it appears to me, is its primary role. A recent refuge from MPI told me he got out because there was no one left in the organisation that understood farming.

Scroll through the descriptors of the Board of the agricultural CRI, agResearch. It is all about business and very little about farming, reflecting clearly the bias inherent in the CRI Act towards commerce and away from science. The same consequence can be seen in the ratio of full time scientists to full time managers. We are open for business - those without money and that includes most farmers need not apply. As one farmer put it me, "the only information we get from agResearch is in the form of glowing press releases paraphrasing that mighty hymn "How Great thou Art."

The only research organisation that appears to be remotely related to the farming sector, albeit only one part, is DairyNZ, although I know a few farmers who will argue that their levy is being wasted.

Juxtaposed against this background we have Sir Peter suggesting that "the primary sector has sat back and largely left the decisions on R & D to the government departments and the CRI's...... ". And urging: "Farmers must actively suggest research objectives because they know what they need". And, "Strong dialogue with science policy people and providers is essential." And: "Farmers need to invest in R&D and apply technology if they are to remain competitive. "

I agree with all these sentiments for that was the way the system we rejected in our reforming zeal used to work. But the solution is not as Sir Peter suggests - that farmers need to change their attitudes. The solution is to reform the current model so that it facilitates exactly the behaviors Sir Peter calls for, what farmers want and the nation deserves. When this is done I can rest easy for the mighty Fergie 28 will be immyrtlelized.