Understand how science works crucial when getting farm advice

As soon as a talk was over, the microphone would be crowded with people all keen to point out why the scientist on stage was wrong about their findings.

They would ask probing questions about the methods, try to catch them out on little details or ask, pointedly, if they'd even read the very important paper published by the questioner.

It would then be up to the scientist on stage to calmly admit the limitations of the research, politely elaborate on their methods or sometimes vigorously counterattack, depending on their level of patience or personal temperament.

I was even more surprised later, however, when I went to grab a few sandwiches from the buffet table and saw these same deadly enemies having a laugh together over canapes!

I'd see them go out for drinks and reminisce about their days as students when they were forced by their nasty old professors to count sheep poo or massage goat testicles.

Kicking tyres and seeing if you can poke holes in someone else's work is just part of being a scientist - not something to be taken as a personal attack.

This is a hard lesson to learn, but it ultimately leads to better quality research, better quality thinking... and maybe even some better quality dinners with the in-laws.

Something people don't often realise about science is that criticism is a critical part of the scientific process.

I always feel very suspicious of people who say they "believe in science", like it's a universal institution.

Science isn't about blind faith - it's about thinking critically and asking good questions.

The people doing science are some of the most argumentative individuals you'll ever meet!

Any work you try and publish in a (reputable) journal must first run a gauntlet of direct competitors in your field - and only if you can make it past your harshest critics is it likely that you found something of value.

Farmer-scientists tend to be a bit more polite than your garden variety scientist.

I think that's a good thing firstly because, well, it's nice to be nice, as mum would say.

But more practically speaking, scientists tend to sit around all day, while farmers are generally up and about working machinery and wrangling livestock.

It's a lot safer slinging insults at someone with scrawny chicken arms in a lab coat, rather than someone who has a spare patch of dirt, a digger and probably at least one rifle.

With caution, though, I'd like to encourage farmer-scientists to be a little bit more critical of the things that people tell them.

Farmers are always being bombarded with other people's opinions, and sometimes these opinions masquerade as scientific hypotheses or on-farm trials.

Part of the reason for writing this series is to help you to identify what might be a relevant result, and what might be more of a sales pitch.

To summarise, here are a few questions you might want to ask yourself (or the person, politely):

Did they run a fair trial? If someone claims their product or intervention is backed by a trial, then how did they set up that trial?

Did they make a fair comparison between two groups, were the animals randomly selected, and were conditions for the two groups (apart from the treatment) otherwise the same?

Comparing results from two different farms, two different seasons, or two different age groups is a quick way to skew the outcomes.

Sometimes it's impossible to run a perfect trial.

That might be okay - but what were the limitations, and how did they try and account for these? Did they do it in a way that you think is reasonable?

Is there evidence for the claim? If someone says they ran a trial and have got evidence, then that's great.

Ask them what it is! Is it written down somewhere? Can you see it? Is it published in a reputable place? Or is it based on anecdotal observation or a gut feeling?

Human beings are great at seeing what they want to see, or hearing what they want to hear - so insist on (at least) the existence of recorded data.

But hang on, you might say, it's hard to run a fair trial, then how can we be certain of anything?

The answer, simply, is that we can't.

Unlike scientists, farmers need to be making decisions based on limited data, with the understanding that this is the best that you can do, with what you've got.

This is the difference between running a profitable farm business and publishing scientific research.

However, understanding how science works can teach you the right questions to ask, and an appreciation for uncertainty can stop you from jumping two feet first into trouble.

*Ee Cheng Ooi is a cattle veterinarian undertaking a PhD in fertility and genetics at DairyBio. All comments and information in this article are intended to be of a general nature only. Please consult the farm's vet for herd advice, protocols and/or treatments that are tailored to the herd's particular needs. Comments and feedback are welcome. Please email eecheng.ooi@agriculture.vic.gov.au.

Sign up below to receive our e-newsletter delivered fresh to your email in-box twice a week.