Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
the manufacture of commercial quantities of fertilisers which resulted in increased
levels of crop productivity of previously unachievable dimensions (Smil
2001
). At
about the same time, Mendel's work was rediscovered in 1900 (Bateson
1909
) and
formed a scientific basis for genetics and plant breeding leading to the development
of higher yielding and better quality crop cultivars. This is a classic example of the
convergence of commercial research and development providing fertilisers on the
one hand and more basic academic studies providing new genetic forms capable of
profiting from added nutrients on the other.
Throughout the ensuing twentieth and now twenty-first centuries, fundamental
science has been and continues to be the foundation from which most developments
and innovations in the art and science of horticulture spring. The pathways by which
fundamental science is turned into horticultural science and subsequent technol-
ogy are neither straightforward nor short term. Although many years may elapse
between an initial basic “blue-skies” discovery and its translation into applied sci-
ence and related technologies once these offer increased efficiency then changes are
adopted by industry very quickly. The pathways for the thinking which translates
science into application are complex, frequently indirect and most certainly not
linear as some pundits regrettably and damagingly pretended in the 1980s. Horti-
culture, and agriculture and forestry for that matter, are rooted in industrial practice.
Not infrequently that means that information derived by practitioners unlocks an
understanding of science which then turns full circle formulating novel processes
which resolve a practical problem.
The organisational structures within which horticultural science uses basic sci-
ence and turns it into technology are changing in parallel with worldwide social,
religious and political evolution. Nonetheless, the requirement for new basic scien-
tific discoveries remains continuous. Without new science, horticulture itself cannot
evolve and move forward, continuing the processes of wealth creation for society,
conserving and safeguarding the environment, and enhancing human health and
welfare. It is foolhardy in the extreme to pretend that mankind's urgent needs for
horticultural production can be met by anything other than continuous evolution of
new scientifically-based knowledge. This is exemplified by the huge advances that
studies of molecular biology have brought in our basic understanding of how organ-
isms are constructed and the delicate metabolisms which control their activities as,
for example, described by Enrico Coen (
1999
). Horticulture has an enviable reputa-
tion for being capable of turning new science into technological improvements at
least on a par with the pharmaceutical industry. This perhaps should not be surpris-
ing given the close origins and evolution of horticulture and pharmacy.
Social change is placing new demands on horticulture and satisfying these de-
mands means altering the requirements for science and technology. In a very per-
ceptive prediction Oosten (
1999
) (echoed by Warrington
2011
) argued that major
shifts in the world economy (globalization), society and technology would cause
dramatic changes in Dutch horticulture and the attitude of the government towards
research by 2010. He contended that the horticulture industry would change from a
product-driven to customer-driven strategy while developing market-oriented prod-
uct chains. Knowledge would become a critical factor in competition and applied
