Good question. It would be a good start to answer the first two,
which is probably achievable. The last three, farmers can probably
decide for themselves. Improved health will be in the too-hard
category for a long time.
> If we research the problem and find that the answer is "not
> better" does that mean that people have wasted valuable time?
Exploring is not a waste of time. Being misled is.
>
> It appears that the answer is still unknown and maybe that justifies
> research and resources.
There aren't enough resources to follow all possible unknowns. Some
judgement is necessary.
We will get more resources if we can get some initial evidence of
effectiveness. That initial evidence need not be very expensive, and
may be within the discretionary resources of academics and farmers,
if they think it is important enough. Probably some recent data will
be needed, since papers from the 30s tend to be discounted as being
full of effects which were not recognised then (true or not).
If a biodynamic preparation kills your weeds, for example, think
"can I make this into a controlled trial?" . Then there is a chance
of getting resources to follow it up.
************************
Rod McDonald
Engineer/scientist
Horticulture and Food Research Institute,
Hamilton, New Zealand
Phone +64-7-8385675 work, +64-7-8552019 home, Fax +64-7-8385655
************************