Q&, A with Mike
Q. Do you see the increased use of molecular methods for determining genetic differences as the Proposed Lists evolve, for instance? Moreover, in the move towards renewable gardening are priorities changing? Is achieving a higher potential yield in ideal conditions more important than returning a credible yield in negative circumstances?
A. We have access to a sizable collection of phenotypic trial information from the past 80 years. We are looking into ways to apply information more effectively, and some fresh data-related methods may be just the start.
The RL’s guiding principles as an independent evaluation will never change. There is nothing quite like a niche test in your area to give you a fair idea of how well your performance is performing. However, these studies are significant investments, but parallel studies are being done to examine other methods for determining genetic potential.
Moreover, many levy payers would like to use the data to examine it in their own gardening scenarios, even though there will always be a need for the benchmark and consistency provided by the RL. For instance, a sort of ‘ RL plus ‘ for those moving to a lower type method. We are working on those parts.
But, yes, I can see us expanding and improving the RL information while also benefiting from a deeper understanding of new technology, particularly in relation to data modeling. This will help us make this tool more valuable. It would be obvious where we should go if we could use the levy finances to use the data to more gardening situations.
Q. One of your associates at Groundswell earlier this year was talking about consumer insights and the distinction between what consumers claim to want from a product with great animal welfare and less harmful environmental effects. A member of the audience suggested that a carbon tax been placed on imports, especially those that have been produced more effectively, as opposed to putting a premium on those that have been produced more effectively?
A. I have a lot of sympathy for the idea that you should n’t allow products to enter that market if your domestic production is required to meet a certain standard. Social challenges are abound in global trading preparations.
I can envision a scenario where we essentially have a farm license and you do n’t farm if you do n’t uphold certain standards.
However, there is a fundamental difference between what I as a farmer may seek to in order to add value and get a premium price compared to what is required as a basic level of standards.
Q. Looking to the future, do you think there is a require for a ‘ area use technique’?
A. There are over 8 billion people on the planet who are only dead because of their diet. As a farmer, I think it’s very polite to make food to feed society, and I think we should be extremely glad of that.
Looking forward, the demands on us as food producers will grow even more, and we will have to consider how to provide the nourishment that society requires.
I had only notice that someone’s needs are vastly different from those of someone who can afford to waste 30 % of the foods they buy each year.
