Campus Review Volume 27. Issue 07 | July 17 | Page 17

campusreview.com.au industry & research interaction between those sorts of systems and an awful lot of farm machinery, which is also gathering data all the time about the quality of the paddock, the level of yield in different parts, so that you can then start to turn this around and have variable rate fertiliser, for example, and so make the whole process much more efficient. It is very much driven by the use of data. Are there enough people to fill the roles that will be required to do this research, even though recently university enrolments in this field have increased? There’s always the need for bright and inquiring minds to come into agriculture. People tend to refer to agriculture as a discipline, but it’s really a meeting place for a very large number of different disciplines. A lot of this new technology and new ideas that are needed for the digital world are coming from mathematics. They’re coming from computer science, rather than from the more traditional areas which have supported agriculture in the past. Whether or not there are enough people interested in applying their skills in agriculture is another issue, and that’s partly the need for agriculture to be seen to be a dynamic, interesting and appealing area of science for people to become involved in. You’ve also noted that the culture in this field can be competitive. How does the academy propose collaboration can be achieved? 5ml or something like that – very small quantities. To get across that, or to fill that gap, you need to have resources to be able to plant large-scale field trials, or whatever it is, to generate the amount of material an industrial partner would need to test it and make sure it is commercially viable. The culture in virtually all areas of science is very competitive. A large part of the reason for that competition is the availability of funding. As everybody is aware, the success rate on getting grants from the Australian Research Council and other bodies is always very low. There is a very strong feeling of competition in order to push forward your area of science. I think one of the things we have to do to reduce that level of competition is encourage people to be more collaborative, to work together in bigger teams, and to really look for significant and real partnerships going forward. In terms of where the resources are coming from, clearly there’s always going to be a finite amount of resources relative to all the ideas that scientists come up with. There’s no universal panacea of saying, “Well, we’ll suddenly put in a vast amount of extra money, and it will allow everybody to do everything they want.” There is a need to be more efficient, and hopefully in that process we will end up with some resources being better utilised. Then we do hope that the government will contribute a modest amount to a fund, which would help us to identify significant areas of research which need to be tackled. Those resources would then be used to try to increase the level of collaboration among researchers who wanted to get into that area. One of the ideas you’ve lobbied for is the creation of ‘digital paddocks’. Can you explain what this is? On that note, Nationals MP Luke Hartsuyker said that he supports the plan, but he didn’t specifically say that the government will fund the $100 million that the academy’s asking for. Do you have any indication of whether this money will be provided? There are a number of interesting new technologies coming through. We identified areas of science and technology which we believe are going to make significant impact on agriculture over the next 10 years. Clearly one of those is the application of robotics, automation and big data into agriculture. The digital paddock brings those opportunities together. To drive those, you need to be able to run things off the internet, and be able to get data in, and so forth. It’s really making use of those opportunities which are coming through with the analysis of big data and the Not at this stage. I don’t have any direct indication, no. With most of these sorts of plans, one gets the plan onto the table and then that to some extent is only part of the job that needs to be done. We will be continuing to talk to government and endeavouring to persuade them of the merits of our case. Then ultimately it will be up to the government to decide whether it wishes to support those areas. It’s a very standard way in which ideas are put up to government to get included into each year’s budget rounds, and we’ll be pursuing that. ■ 15