Being a Scientist,
--a Real Scientist--
Carries With It Certain Responsibilities
|
|
|---|
An Open Mind---Objectivity---A Scrutinizing Mind &
A Profound Desire to Ascertain the Truth,
---not perpetuate pure Bull---
Predetermined conclusions, opinions maintained in the face
of contradictory facts, accepting unproven assertions as axiomatic truths,
and employing scientifically erroneous premises or standards --which even
a fictitious, idealized technology could not attain-- have no place in true,
scientific inquiry. Yet, such flaws have been more prevalent in today's
Precision Agriculture "tests" than one would hope or expect.
This page addresses the true components of "On Being a Scientist"
and lists a handful of scientists in Agriculture whose work reflects good,
honest, probing Science. Unfortunately, this page must also address the
handful of "scientists" who unexpectedly, brazenly violate
professional guidelines and ethics. Although gossip tends to reach everyone
else before it reaches (if it ever does) its intended victims; it is CTI's
intent to log-in such incidents as soon as they are discovered.
Additionally, unlike the crew of the Star Ship Enterprise, it is also CTI's deliberate intent to interfere with such unethical practices, and since 8/97, progress appears to have been made. For Example: one scientist who typically acts in the best interests of the fertilizer industry is now taking on seemingly-environmentally friendly studies. Only time, of course, will tell about the sincerity of this work. Will successful reductions in fertilizer usage be regarded as a mere Fluke of the season, or as Proof that truly efficient fertilizer management helps growers' income as much as it does the quality of our environmental?
In short, this page is provided to help the reader separate
simple, independently verifiable fact from distorted or baseless fiction.
If you have ever wondered why Crop Technology, Inc. or other pioneers of
Precision Agriculture (PA), leading companies every one, are not included
in the programs of every PA conference around, you should know that the
reason may have absolutely nothing to do with product efficacy. Example:
some of these "conference" programs cost their participants an
impressive $10,000 per Hour, while other such programs are sponsored
by those organizations that --with the broad adoption of effective
PA technologies- (technologies which Significantly increase an operation's
Efficiency)-will only lose income.
====================================================
* Robert (Bob) G.
Hoeft
Although he has never used a Soil Doctor® Unit, never seen one in use,
and has never even spoken to a single Soil Doctor System owner, Dr. Bob
Hoeft (an agronomist with the University of Illinois at Urbana) has been
amazingly preoccupied with Soil Doctor technology and with Crop Technology,
Inc. (CTI). For years, along with telling growers that "the Soil Doctor
doesn't work", he has also told them that he has placed "many
calls to [CTI]" and that "[CTI] wouldn't return my calls".
His implication was clear, but his statements were false. That particular
nonsense continued until, at an industry/academia conference, we asked Deere
& CO's chief agronomist to introduce us to Dr. Hoeft (who looked a lot
like a deer caught in the headlights as he saw us approach him from across
the room). Deere's agronomist kept quietly muttering to himself "I
don't know why, but I thought for sure you had already met him". Bob's
latest "dirty trick" (and, of course, we are not in the position
to know about them all) was to "authoritatively" tell the
overseeing manager of a large Illinois fertilizer Co-op (a manager over
many, many regional fertilizer dealers) that the "Soil Doctor system
does not work", representing that he knew this as fact, not as a baseless
opinion or his personal hopes. To
see two Unbelievable Rumors
*Farmland Industries
Farmland employees have been telling growers the same bull as above, for
years. Unlike Bob Hoeft, however, they are not completely inexperienced
with the Soil Doctor® System, but their experience --when reviewed with
an honest eye-- supports Soil Doctor Efficacy and undermines the
technology Farmland and the Fertilizer Industry support: Grid Sampling and
VRT Floaters (which are wholly dependent upon the efficacy of Grid Sampling).
In 1990, one of their highly placed agronomists, Dr. Gary Colliver, was
contracted to oversee field tests on soil nutrient variability. A total
of over 200 soil samples were extracted by the company that contracted him.
They were analyzed by two reputable Nebraska soil labs of Dr. Colliver's
specific choosing. Consistent with the Soil Doctor® System readings,
those two labs proved extreme soil nutrient variability, even from inch
to inch, a level of high nutrient variability which blocks the ability
of Grid Sampling to provide cost-effective benefits to the grower.
Dr. Colliver's and Farmland's brazen 180 degree spin, however, was to claim
that "the Soil Doctor System did not work." Amazingly, Gary actually
advised those who hired him to "Invest in [a technology which wholly
depends upon Grid Sampling]"--in spite of the soil data he reviewed
which contradicted the validity of that advice. Naturally, he had to wave
his hands in the air, bring out the smoke and mirrors, and then magically
sweep the results of the hundreds of soil samples (analyzed by labs of his
choosing) under the rug, but that seemed to present Dr. Colliver with no
moral dilemma. Ironically, Gary's contract with the company that hired him
legally forbade him from discussing that test with anyone, even from
telling his associates at Farmland about it. Seven years later, however,
Farmland is still freely expressing its less-than-forthright opinions, even
though their assertions are contradicted by the only Soil Doctor® data
to which they have had access. Farmland also "authoritatively"
told the overseeing manager of a large Illinois fertilizer coop (a manager
over many, many regional fertilizer dealers) that the "Soil Doctor
system does not work". Typically saving growers 30% to 50% and ---even
above 60%-- of the fertilizer they would normally have used, they only wish
they were telling the truth. To see more Rumors
* Dr. Alfred M. Blackmer
A university agronomist with Iowa State University, Dr. Blackmer has been
telling growers and many others for many, many years that "the Soil
Doctor System does not work", but what he has never told them is that
he has been promoting a nitrate soil sampling test kit, which could be considered
a competitive product to the Soil Doctor's Nitrogen Applicator. In 1994,
he and his associates infringed on CTI's sensor patent. Amazingly, Alfred
declared their infringement to be "highly accurate", while maintaining
to growers that the original (CTI's soil sensor) "is not accurate",
even though he has never tested the CTI system nor even spoken to anyone
who has.
These considerable differences aside, Dr. Blackmer, through Iowa State University,
has accumulated the largest data base in the world with nitrate/PSNT
data. This data is invaluable. Among other things, it dispels the myth
that soil samples must be taken at two to three foot depths --that a one
foot depth is quite satisfactory--. The data also clarifies that --unless
the operation has had decades of steady manure applications-- using starter
fertilizer is imperative. To see more "Fair"
Tests
* Dr. John W. Hummel
An ag-engineer with the Agricultural Research Service (ARS, USDA), Dr. Hummel
has been telling growers and many others --including scientists of the federal
government-- for many, many years that "the Soil Doctor System does
not work", but what he has seldom told them is that he is a clear competitor
of CTI. Fully-entitled to collect private licensing fees from developments
made through public funds, Dr. Hummel has developed and licensed to industry
(since 1991) his own on-the-go, organic matter soil sensor. Currently, he
is also working on an on-the-go, nitrate soil sensor. NEITHER of his SOIL
SENSORS are currently AVAILABLE to the market, not even the long-licensed
one.
* Dr. Larry Gaultney
Now working with the company that believes in better things for better
living, Dr. Gaultney was previously with Purdue University. An ag-engineer,
Dr. Gaultney has been telling growers and many others --including those
employed by his chemical company employer-- for many, many years that "the
Soil Doctor System does not work", but what he has never told them
is that he is a clear competitor of CTI. His on-the-go, organic matter soil
sensor was licensed to industry way back in 1989, when he was still with
the university. Seven years later, his SOIL SENSOR is still NOT currently
AVAILABLE to the market.
To see more "Fair" Tests
Dr. Agronomist
A midwest university agronomist --through a test best described as "A
Test Which No Yield Monitor Could Pass"--, not by ours, not even by
a "perfect" Yield Monitor "evaluated" an extremely popular
(with its paying customers) competing yield monitor. In Precision Agriculture
--the field of science created to address the problem of field variability--
the scientist began with the erroneous premise that: yields from round
to round at each adjacent point were identical. Based on that non-science,
he then decided that our competitor's yield monitor sub-field total from
one round must match the conventionally-measured total from the adjacent
round. He then pronounced that any difference between the two totals would
be indicative of product inaccuracies, not of field or yield variability.
Understandably, the study's assessment was not as favorable as those of
the customers, who have been cross-checking their yield monitor totals with
their elevator totals since yield monitors were first introduced to the
market. Amazingly, that study, which falsely presumes that field variability
does not exist, was never rebuked as "unscientific". On the contrary,
it has been used as a model for subsequent yield monitor studies, studies
whose results have, also understandably, not been nearly as favorable as
those of the paying customers.
It is studies like this one, and the Land Grant University example below,
that fuel some scientists to persist: "Growers Just aren't Qualified
to Judge the Performance of Agricultural Products", while irretrievably
convincing growers: "You Just Can't Trust Those Scientists! They
Don't Care About Our Problems or Our Needs. They Just Care About Their Odd
Interests."
Long Line Manufacturer
Another leading manufacturer had fifteen of its units bought by a major
ag-manufacturer and shipped down south with no directions for installation,
operation, etc. The inevitable occurred. The product was not installed,
used, or maintained according to the manufacturer's directions. As a result,
even those who attempted to use the technology correctly and in-good-faith
erroneously concluded that the technology was ineffective, a stark contrast
to its midwest paying customers who protest to another long line manufacturer:
"You can't take my [equipment] away from me, and expect me to use yours
until you get it right!" To see Due Diligence
Land Grant University
Known since the 1920s, typical farm field soil variability ranges prevents
--altogether block-- Grid Sampling from being cost-effective. Every study
of sub-acre soil variability conducted to date confirms this fact. Yet about
a decade ago, scientists from one university began releasing studies, one
after another, which supported a technology which was/is wholly dependent
upon coarse grid sampling (less than 5 samples per acre). The positive findings,
undermined by decades of research, were never directly challenged by their
colleagues. No one took exception with their history-contradicted conclusions.
Recently, however, those "findings" have been indirectly --but
profoundly-- challenged as researcher after researcher has released report
after report declaring: "Precision Agriculture Is Not Cost-Effective".
Well worth realizing, those studies did not examine, nor even attempt to
examine, all of Precision Agriculture's technologies. They specifically
examined only grid sampling and the minimum number of soil samples required
to begin to positively affect fertilizer application and yield production.
As such, because it is scientifically inept to make judgments over technologies
which are wholly independent of and irrelevant to all that was studied;
that general conclusion is amazingly erroneous.
But an erroneous heading does not undermine the validity of the many studies'
data nor the validity of the solid conclusions that logically flow from
all that recent data, from all those independent studies. Known since the
1920s: "Grid Sampling Is Not Cost-Effective"
and "Technologies Which Depend Upon Grid Sampling Cannot be
Cost-Effective" either.
=============================================
Before proceeding with the following, the reader should be made aware of
what is perhaps the most insidiously unfair of criticisms against the Soil
Doctor System. When asked about the Soil Doctor® Applicator, many scientists
(particularly those employed by competitors) complain:
"No research/ No studies/ No reports/ No papers/ No presentations
about Soil Doctor® Technology have been presented or released to the
public!"
(for Rebuttal See Patents -- Downloads -- Dr. Murdock's Report -- and
Owner Data)
=============================================
The Double-Standard
Dr. Lloyd Murdock, University of Kentucky, began
studying the Soil Doctor® Nitrogen Applicator in 1990, and is SATISFIED
that it performs for the grower as CTI represents. In 1991, Dr. Murdock
was invited to present a paper on his findings to the 1991 North Central
Extension-Industry Soil Fertility Conference. That presentation marks the
first and the last time anyone was ever ASKED or ALLOWED to present a paper
on CTI technology to that group. WHY? Because a few "scientists"
took strong exception with his findings.
Amazingly, however, none of them took exception with his Technical Approach,
his Scientific Methodology, his Integrity, his Data, nor with the Logic
Dr. Murdock Applied to His Data. No, those "scientists" take exception
--and freely take exception-- only with the positive nature of his findings
of the Soil Doctor® Nitrogen Applicator.
That's right. When a qualified, unbiased researcher reports a favorable
evaluation of Soil Doctor® technology (a Technology Not Invented
by the old Infrastructure of Agriculture), those who have Never Tested
it themselves, Never Seen it in use, and have Never Even Talked to Anyone
Who Has --for reasons best explained as the "Not Invented Here"
Over-ruling Bias-- declare themselves technically qualified to summarily
reject the honest, unbiased, and scientific hard work of qualified,
unbiased researcher. To see more of this
Double Standard
The Same Conference --- An Interesting Exclusion
Dr. Ted Peck of the University of Illinois at Urbana conducted experiments
to examine the findings and the claims of a technical report authored by
CTI's president, John W. Colburn, Jr. Dr. Peck presented his paper at the
Fall 1991 Meeting of the North Central Extension-Industry Soil Fertility
Conference. That was the same session where Dr. Murdock presented his positive
findings on the Soil Doctor Nitrogen Applicator. Mysteriously, however,
the manuscript Dr. Peck conscientiously forwarded to the Potash and Phosphate
Institute was not included in the bound printed proceedings. As a result,
only those who attended the conference had the benefits of learning about
Dr. Peck's favorable, corroborating evaluation of the CTI paper and claims.
Dr. Peck has a wealth of data on soil variability, including a study where
P&K soil samples were analyzed and diagrammed at the frequency of 40
samples per acre. He has conducted annual reviews where a single soil sample
was split into approximately fifty different parts, sent to as many Illinois
soil labs to be analyzed for P&K, and resulted in almost as many different
parts per million. The spread in lab values was as high as 100%. To see more Deliberate Exclusions
====================================================
It is unfortunate that --mixed among good, sound, scientific
inquiry in agriculture-- is questionable, unscientific, even "dirty
tricks" behavior by non-producers.
Non-science generates much of "controversy" --the contradictions
and enigmas-- that surround the precision technologies developed by the
small manufacturers of agriculture.
Non-science explains how scrutinizing, paying customers can be so satisfied
with their yield monitor, variable-rate planter, Soil Doctor, etc.; while
so-called "experts" boldly tell the public a less positive story,
and we do mean "story".
Sadly, those with no practical experience or with hidden personal agendas
do not identify themselves as such. Instead, they speak as authoritatively,
decisively and seemingly-sincerely as those who truly are experienced, honest,
and objective researchers.
Some even claim "Yield and Producer Data are not Important"
and say that Yield is too much trouble to consider, while others ignore
field variability (in the discipline created to address this tenacious problem).
They assert (pretend) that soil sensor readings should change no more than
every twenty feet or that yield should be identical from round to adjacent
round. And still others insist that saving fertilizer while maintaining
(or even increasing yield) is irrelevant to product efficacy and to "real"
product performance. "Other tests are far more important and revealing!"
Oh, Really?
So, the Next Time Someone Professes to
be an "Expert" on a Subject,
Do Yourself a Favor.
If the review is positive,
Satisfy yourself that the reviewer is not biased --by matters beyond product
efficacy. (such as friendship, kinship, colleagues, a $600,000 contract,
etc.)
If the review is negative,
Satisfy yourself that the reviewer is not prejudiced--by matters beyond
product efficacy. (such as competition, conflict of interest, or a relationship
with those who have either) At a Minimum, Satisfy yourself that the "expert"
has at least seen the technology in use!
PROTECT YOURSELF.
Instead of, Waiting Until the Truth Gets Out On Its Own Strength.
Take the Trouble to Find the Simple Truth.
Don't Glorify and Strengthen Baseless Gossip
by Accepting and Distributing it as "Fact".
====================================================
For an independent view of what constitutes proper scientific conduct; the following preface, prepared by the National Academy of Science, is offered:
On Being a Scientist
PREFACE
"The scientific research enterprise, like other human activities, is built on a foundation of trust. SCIENTISTS TRUST that the results reported by others are valid. SOCIETY TRUSTS that the results of research reflect An Honest Attempt by scientists to describe the world Accurately And Without Bias. The level of trust that has characterized science and its relationship with society has contributed to a period of unparalleled scientific productivity. But this trust will endure only if the scientific community devotes itself to exemplifying and transmitting the values associated with ETHICAL SCIENTIFIC CONDUCT."
Regarding "Peer Reviews", Dr. Arden Anderson has written:
"It is ironic that would-be scientists insist on seeing new discoveries and work printed in peer-review literature because they really have no understanding what they are asking. Pioneers have no peers and certainly no peer publications to publish their work.
When Bruno suggested that the earth revolved around the sun, he was put to death by his peers. Galileo was threatened with torture by his peers for suggesting the same thing. Simmelweis's peers ran him out of his homeland for suggesting that physicians wash their equipment and hands between patients. Nikola Tesla was laughed at by his peers, including Thomas Edison, for suggesting that alternating-current electricity ought to be the electricity of the day. ..............Peer review is actually political review, designed to determine whether the work alienates the monopoly."
====================================================
Descriptions of their Experience and their work with
the CTI System still under construction....
Dr. Fred Magdoff, University of Vermont at Burlington
Discoverer of the approximately twenty year
old: June Nitrate Test, the Agronomic Basis for the Soil Doctor® System's
Nitrogen Applicator.
Now called the PSNT,
the PreSidedress Nitrate Test protocols include: 1) analyzing field soils
when the corn crop is 8"-12" high at the whorl, 2) determining
deficiencies for the pre-selected yield goals based on local agronomic experts,
and 3) applying only what is needed, instead of the full flat rate which
would be otherwise dictated by the yield goal which is typicaly based upon
the field's five year average.
This test has slowly made its way westward from Vermont to the
Midwest, having been proven, state by state, to be an effective method for managing
nitrogen fertilizer, in corn, in the non-irrigated regions of the U.S. One aspect
of the test incorporates the mineralization
of organic matter into nitrate. Irrigation interferes with that process
for assessment. In 1991, Dr. Magdoff confirmed unequivocally that any field
test where outside forces come in and alter yield-affecting factors (such as
when plant population stands are severely altered by rain, pests, or substandard
soil) should be thrown out --regardless of the countless hours (a whole year's
worth of work) invested in preparation for the tests. (At least one "scientist"
from above has used such occasions to preselect the test "results"
he wanted to see.) Dr. Magdoff evaluated the system's sensor measurement efficacy
on midwest soil samples and found coefficients of determination to be above
90 percent.
Dr. LLoyd Murdock, University of Kentucky at Princeton
Dr. Murdock began testing the Soil Doctor® System
in 1990, and recorded significant fertilizer savings with yields which were
not just maintained; they were modestly increased, but increased nonetheless.
In early 1991, after Dr. Murdock had worked with the system only one season,
before his second, he was asked to present a paper on the efficacy of the Soil
Doctor technology. He was asked by the same Dr. Colliver described above. Amazingly,
Dr. Colliver, although legally forbidden from discussing the 1990 test
(a product of CTI and of those who had contracted him), Dr. Colliver told Dr.
Murdock that "the technology did not work in the test I reviewed".
His troubling revelation compelled Dr. Murdock to suspect --for a while-- whether
it was possible for CTI to know the subject field as well as his many, many
soil samples had taught him, and then to program the Soil Doctor system to apply
fertilizer, while he and others ran the applicator in that field, according
to that mysteriously acquired, but highly detailed, knowledge.
By the time the 1992 season began, however, Dr. Murdock had already concluded
that if CTI had the technology to do all those analyses --without ever having
been observed toiling in that field, hour-after-hour, day-after-day, like he
and his assistants were forced to do-- and if CTI had the technology to rapidly
change rates according to such detailed field information, foot-to-foot, to
affect the very real results he recorded; then, he decided, that CTI probably
had the capability to develop the variable rate applicator it describes, or
--in the worst case-- had already developed an alternative technology which
was an equally significant technical contribution to agriculture. Regardless,
Dr. Murdock knew that the results he measured were real. At the fall 1991 Potash
and Phosphate Institute-sponsored meeting, Dr. Murdock upset a lot of people
by reporting, in his two years of study, the significant fertilizer savings
and particularly the modest yield increase. Consequently, because of the positive
nature of his findings, he has been virtually forbidden from talking about CTI
technology to many of his colleagues. Neither the PPI nor the Fertilizer Institute
have invited him again (or anyone) to speak on CTI products at any of the functions
they sponsor or have influence over (there are many).
Because CTI has written the Potash and Phospahte Institute TWICE, asking to
present a paper on Soil Doctor Technology, but has received no reply whatsoever;
it is safe to say that they probably never will invite anyone to speak about
the Soil Doctor® System, again. The deliberate exclusion encourages CTI
detractors to blame CTI, instead of the fertilizer industry, for the scarcity
of publicly available reports on Soil Doctor technology. Had Dr. Murdock presented,
at the 1991 Conference, the results that Dr. Colliver and his colleagues anticipated
he would when Dr. Colliver invited him, then perhaps they would have asked him
again and again. To see a Rumor, To see
Dr. Murdock's report.
Dr. Dave Mengel, Purdue University
Dr. Mengel first observed the Soil Doctor® Nitrogen Applicator in 1990,
at the Pine Village, Indiana A+ Farms of Alan and David Anderson. David and
Dr. Mengel took the unit through a "test drive" over a remarkably
flat, featureless corn field. From the sidelines, it looked like an exercise
in futility. It looked like a field where the sensor would show a relatively
flat, non-changing reading throughout. But when Dr. Mengel and David came back
from the drive, they were both impressed. By What? It seems that the applicator
the Andersons used earlier that season had one or more accidents in the field,
either way over-applying in one place and/or running-out completely in another.
Whatever it was, David and Dr. Mengel knew exactly where to go to see if the
System's sensor could pick up the problems. Their broad smiles on their return
indicated that the unit did its job. The Andersons have used the Soil Doctor®
System every year since. Dr. Mengel was finally able to begin a modest series
of studies of the Soil Doctor® System in 1995. His limited work has encouraged
him to relate that the system will pay for itself in manure operations. As with
most agricultural field tests, disruptive weather conditions in 1995 and 1996
have significantly impeded recent testing efforts. More work continues.
Dr. Jay Johnson, Ohio State University at Columbus
Dr. Johnson has organized a program to fulfill many notable investigations,
one of which is to test the Soil Doctor® System through use by average producers
and fertilizer dealers. Dr. Johnson is sincerely concerned for the water quality
of his state and for the economic welfare of its growers. Unfortunately, he
believes that the only way to change/improve the nitrogen management practices
in his state is through its influential fertilizer dealers, whom he believes
directly apply the vast majority of fertilizer used in the state of Ohio.
While we do not challenge his knowledge of the infrastructure of his state,
we know --by experience-- that depending upon fertilizer dealers to promote
technologies or methods which significantly reduce fertilizer usage, while maintaining
or optimizing yields, is a hopeless undertaking ---like pushing water uphill
with your bare hands.
Although the fertilizer dealers in Dr. Johnson's program are nice enough, they
are under-whelmed by and under-appreciative of saving significant levels of
nitrogen fertilizer. It's literally a "Ho-Hum" feature to them. They
are far more interested in one of the Soil Doctor System's mere sideline options,
in mapping system-logged data. Most of them hope to eventually, routinely provide
the mapping service to their customers.
Logically, --like most red-blooded Americans-- fertilizer dealers are more interested
in technologies which will make them money, rather than lose them money.
In stark contrast to the confident recommendations typically made by Soil
Doctor System owners, no fertilizer dealer has ever recommended the purchase
of a single Soil Doctor unit to a single prospective buyer. CTI believes
that this fact speaks quite highly of its technology, as it bodes poorly
for the prospect of fertilizer dealers leading Ohio, or any state, in adopting
and encouraging improved nitrogen management efficiency.
E-Mail: colburn@soildoctor.com