I don’t know whether it is appropriate to reply to this directly but I do want to make a brief point – first spelled out to me by Professor E R (Bob) Orskov at the Macauley Institute, Aberdeen.

It is that until recently (a) research in government research institutes was mostly initiated by the institute itself and paid for out its own allocated funds, and (b) practical advice passed straight to the farmers via government advisers. Nowadays research is largely paid for by outsiders and when it is ready to be applied it is first placed in the hands of commercial companies. Bob Orskov gives a cogent example of where this really matters. Ie, some years ago he showed that when small ruminants (notably sheep) are given grain supplements, they fare best if the grain comes straight out of the bag, as it grows in the field. Processed sheep nuts or whatever are much less good. But no processor would pass on such advice. They would want to “add value” to the grain first – but in fact, though they would charge more (and use energy along the way) they would in fact reduce the nutritional value.

I don’t know how many examples there are of this. But the general, modern idea that it is necessarily a good thing to hand over good ideas to commercial companies for development is obviously pernicious.

But Orskov is the man to talk to.

Kind regards

Colin Tudge