|
Seymour, IL |
That you bring up here...
"Do we base those decisions on empirical or anecdotal evidence?"
One of the realities of our world today, is that even empirical data should be studied with a critical eye. Funding of university research programs by major companies causes me to cast a wary eye toward most findings. I have found the data from competitors is often a better guide to the expectations of a product. Anecdotal data is useful in that some strategies cannot be evaluated by a three year study in a controlled environment. However the source is important. Anecdotal evidence submitted by Dr Gruver with sound empirical data as a base is of more value to me than that of the salesman for the new "miracle" product.
Healthy skepticism and respect for research are not mutually exclusive. Also, consideration of the source of the information is an important part of decision making. We tend to give more credence to those sources we respect, or those that have been accurate in the past. And yes, one should check out sponsored research. Were researchers allowed to report all the data and results, or only portions of it?
If I were a high dollar cash renter in Champaign County with an annual lease I would have a monster disk ripper and maximize the mineralization of that black dirt and grow continuous corn, which is exactly your point. However you made no mention of the simple fact that what I do on my own farm does affect my neighbors and it does sometimes have a cost. I have spent some of my goodwill currency with rotting radishes and turkey manure in populated locations. I have been the recipient of silt from my neighbors (My father, brother and I set that line of posts below by hand when I was a young man. The fence was built to limit access to the creek, with the second wire of a four wire barb now at ground level.) and have shared some of my own.
Whether we agree with it or not, public sentiment is that our industry is the last of the great polluters of the nations waterways. I thought we would be closer to the timeline of the Chesapeake Watershed, or the CAFO rules in respect to row-crop nutrient and sediment loss. I have been a bit early to this dance, but I do think that participation will not be optional. All that to ask where this cost fits in?
Can we both measure and monetize the effect or item in question. Sometimes the answers are yes, sometimes no, and sometimes only for part. When discussing externalities, they are typically very difficult to monetize, and are often difficult to measure. Making this even more difficult is that these externalities will have different values to different people as they are usually not monetized.
Lastly in regard to the Cheasapeake bay, NLRS, et.al......we will all probably be involved. However, solutions seem to be more politically based/motivated than based on facts, causation and correlation.
Bryon
| |
|
- Of economics, profits, and science - farmerbk : 11/29/2016 20:28
- RE: Of economics, profits, and science - badger@uw : 11/29/2016 21:07
- RE: Of economics, profits, and science - ajblair : 11/30/2016 06:03
- RE: Of economics, profits, and science - ocfarms : 11/30/2016 07:25
- RE: Of economics, profits, and science - tntfarm : 11/30/2016 09:46
- RE: Of economics, profits, and science - Jackrabbit : 11/30/2016 12:42
|
Of economics, profits, and science
