By Roelof Bezuidenhout

Be cautious of clever salespeople, sometimes posing as scientists, who use smooth talking, booklets, pamphlets and media releases to convince farmers that their claims are the latest research findings – when in reality they may be nothing more than empty promises. Most of us have likely fallen for this at some point, buying something that ultimately proves useless.

I recall a researcher telling me that his lab discovered that mixing aloe powder into animal feed actually stimulated the growth of ticks and fleas on the calves and dogs used in a trial. And a Fort Hare professor said that so-called essential oils were rendered completely ineffective by heat during processing, and that some could even be harmful. Then there are the claims that certain feed agents sell “cheaper” feeds that lack a crucial ingredient needed for optimal growth.

While I can’t speak to these specifics, it’s worth noting that in 18th-century America, people believed oil from snake fat could treat rheumatism and gout, and even cure deafness. Before long, conmen were selling bottles of this supposed miracle cure. The term “snake oil” has since come to symbolise ineffective or fraudulent products, services, ideas and even political promises.

With this in mind, a team of genuine scientists published a conference paper – “Fact or fiction? How do I know who’s telling the truth?” – offering farmers advice on how to navigate the overwhelming flood of information and save both time and money.

The lead authors of the paper, Dr John Roche, a scientist at New Zealand’s dairy research organisation Dexcel, and Dr Doug Edmeades, a consultant at AgKnowledge, cite the example of alternative medicines, such as homeopathy, being accepted as equal to antibiotics for treating mastitis. “Studies have shown that homeopathy is no more effective than doing nothing, while antibiotics can cure up to 80% more cows than doing nothing.” The authors argue that the tolerance of such misguided ideas had led to the widespread use of unproven remedies for various ailments, while overlooking food production methods that could help alleviate the suffering of the billions still facing hunger.

Mother Nature and science

Although scientific evidence refutes many of these beliefs, it often doesn’t matter to the believers. Facts are dismissed in favour of the notion that we should be in harmony with Mother Nature. Ironically, it is only through the success of science that food production has stabilised over the past century, allowing people the luxury of worrying about anything other than where their next meal will come from.

Tricksters often prey on a farmer’s desire for healthy cows or healthy soil. The salesperson’s proposition can seem appealing, especially in light of the flood of exaggerated, and often false, reports about the negative effects of modern technology on human and soil health. “Beware of going against common sense,” Drs Roche and Edmeades warn.

Of course, many remedies do work. While your herd may be thriving without numerous medicines, there are times when intervention is necessary – especially in the areas of parasite control and disease prevention.

Real science is a tool that enables us to determine the effect of a treatment, distinguishing it from changes that might occur by chance, Dr Roche stresses. “Science is a well-defined process developed over the past 600 years. It culminates in a scientific paper presenting the result of an experiment, following a review by experts. Science is a logical, objective process for testing ideas, and thereby reaching a conclusion. If that conclusion stands the test of time, we can say we have found a truth.

“There has been considerable research into factors affecting complex biological systems and their responses to external stimuli such as fertilisers and animal supplements. These findings have been published, allowing us to predict, with reasonable accuracy, the response to specific fertilisers and supplements under a range of conditions. Responses greater than these, although possible under certain circumstances (poor initial fertility in the case of fertilisers, a hungry cow in the case of supplements), are unlikely in most cases. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.”

Buyer beware

Dr Roche warns farmers about the danger of relying on anecdotal evidence that lacks scientific backing, especially when scientific research contradicts the claims made; and the questionable value of data collected in other countries under different conditions.

He also cautions them to be wary of salespeople:

• who claim to have conducted their own experiments on their product;

• who use meaningless, exaggerated or out-of-scale graphs to make a small difference appear significant; and

• who manufacture “facts” through inductive reasoning.

It works like this: Organic matter is good for soil (true), and Product C contains organic matter (true); therefore, Product C will be beneficial (false.) Many products contain organic matter, Dr Roche says, but the amount present when the product is used as recommended is usually insignificant compared to what is already present in the soil.

The best way to distinguish science from pseudoscience is to ask whether the information has been published in a recognised scientific journal, Dr Roche suggests. “Publication of results in such a journal ensures that the way in which the work was carried out, the analysis of the data, and the interpretation of the results are all done correctly. It is science’s quality control.”

Also read:

• Animal nutrition: Supplementary feeding principles

• Karan video series – Episode 3: Energy & protein supplements

• Supplement trace elements