Comments on: Conflicting results in ag-biotech survey for women farmers http://technyou.edu.au/2010/07/conflicting-results-in-ag-biotech-survey-for-women-farmers/ TechNyou Tue, 31 Jan 2012 03:21:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: M. Davishttp://technyou.edu.au/2010/07/conflicting-results-in-ag-biotech-survey-for-women-farmers/#comment-113 M. Davis Thu, 22 Jul 2010 04:27:17 +0000 http://technyou.edu.au/?p=1727#comment-113 This is (or maybe is not ?) the kind of study that one can just draw conclusions out of the air.I don't see "less passion" for GMOs. Someone is farming them since they are in about 70% of all our processed food. However, I don't believe every farmer even realizes they are growing GMOs! ie don't understand the process. Whereas more organic farmers would be aware of what they are doing because they understand - having millennium of experience behind them. So, no need to put suspected "passion" into the mix.Simply, people who (said) they knew a lot about about Biotech did not show up - they had nothing to learn. People who know little showed up to learn more, and, of course, were more easily confused and, at first encounter, were swayed by the words of the 'leader'. Face to face equals more intimidation factor than online. Peer pressure, leading to words not really meant or not thought out. Also, easy to twist scientific facts to fit the platform - people (some farmers) don't know what questions to ask!Thanks for your replies. This is (or maybe is not ?) the kind of study that one can just draw conclusions out of the air.

I don’t see “less passion” for GMOs. Someone is farming them since they are in about 70% of all our processed food. However, I don’t believe every farmer even realizes they are growing GMOs! ie don’t understand the process. Whereas more organic farmers would be aware of what they are doing because they understand – having millennium of experience behind them. So, no need to put suspected “passion” into the mix.

Simply, people who (said) they knew a lot about about Biotech did not show up – they had nothing to learn.
People who know little showed up to learn more, and, of course, were more easily confused and, at first encounter, were swayed by the words of the ‘leader’. Face to face equals more intimidation factor than online. Peer pressure, leading to words not really meant or not thought out. Also, easy to twist scientific facts to fit the platform – people (some farmers) don’t know what questions to ask!

Thanks for your replies.

]]> By: Jason TechNyouhttp://technyou.edu.au/2010/07/conflicting-results-in-ag-biotech-survey-for-women-farmers/#comment-112 Jason TechNyou Wed, 21 Jul 2010 23:42:13 +0000 http://technyou.edu.au/?p=1727#comment-112 To M. Davis. OK, what conclusions do you draw from my initial question: why are there differences between the two groups? And that is a serious question as my conlusions are just that, mine and I am the first to admit that my analysis may be flawed. If my conclusion that the online results came about becasue some organic/biological farmers informed like-minded colleagues about the survey then that is an assumption and by no means am I suggesting that it is fact. I make the assumption becasue I have seen it happen in surveys before (online polls mainly) where we are reasonably sure this has occurred, and that I am pretty sure the percentage of biological farmers in Australia is as high as suggested in the online respondents.Also, not sure how you can conclude that I was calling anyone a luddite. If it was the biological farming community you think I was referring to, I happen to think they have a perfectly legitimate place in agriculture and that one needs an immense understanding of modern biological knowledge to operate such an enterprise. That is, they are far being luddites. In the farming community the luddites are those that insist on running the farm like their grandfathers - lots of tilling, clearing, chemical applications, burning...etc. But they seem to be a rare breed these days.Jason TechNyou To M. Davis. OK, what conclusions do you draw from my initial question: why are there differences between the two groups? And that is a serious question as my conlusions are just that, mine and I am the first to admit that my analysis may be flawed. If my conclusion that the online results came about becasue some organic/biological farmers informed like-minded colleagues about the survey then that is an assumption and by no means am I suggesting that it is fact. I make the assumption becasue I have seen it happen in surveys before (online polls mainly) where we are reasonably sure this has occurred, and that I am pretty sure the percentage of biological farmers in Australia is as high as suggested in the online respondents.

Also, not sure how you can conclude that I was calling anyone a luddite. If it was the biological farming community you think I was referring to, I happen to think they have a perfectly legitimate place in agriculture and that one needs an immense understanding of modern biological knowledge to operate such an enterprise. That is, they are far being luddites. In the farming community the luddites are those that insist on running the farm like their grandfathers – lots of tilling, clearing, chemical applications, burning…etc. But they seem to be a rare breed these days.

Jason
TechNyou

]]> By: M. Davishttp://technyou.edu.au/2010/07/conflicting-results-in-ag-biotech-survey-for-women-farmers/#comment-111 M. Davis Wed, 21 Jul 2010 19:03:45 +0000 http://technyou.edu.au/?p=1727#comment-111 Jasonmajor, But your whole Conclusions section is biased, without actually calling people Luddites. Jasonmajor,
But your whole Conclusions section is biased, without actually calling people Luddites.

]]> By: jasonmajorhttp://technyou.edu.au/2010/07/conflicting-results-in-ag-biotech-survey-for-women-farmers/#comment-110 jasonmajor Wed, 21 Jul 2010 06:01:00 +0000 http://technyou.edu.au/?p=1727#comment-110 M. Davis: You are right, people who consider themselves knowledgeable on the topic, regardless of whether they are organic, biological or conventional farmers, will be less likely to attend such a workshop, but then I wasn’t trying to find out why people did or did not attend the workshop. The point of the post was to highlight that first there was a significant difference in attitudes between the workshop attendants and those that did the survey online, and second to investigate why the difference existed. You can call it spin if you like. Jason TechNyou M. Davis: You are right, people who consider themselves knowledgeable on the topic, regardless of whether they are organic, biological or conventional farmers, will be less likely to attend such a workshop, but then I wasn’t trying to find out why people did or did not attend the workshop. The point of the post was to highlight that first there was a significant difference in attitudes between the workshop attendants and those that did the survey online, and second to investigate why the difference existed. You can call it spin if you like.
Jason
TechNyou

]]> By: M. Davishttp://technyou.edu.au/2010/07/conflicting-results-in-ag-biotech-survey-for-women-farmers/#comment-109 M. Davis Wed, 21 Jul 2010 01:34:59 +0000 http://technyou.edu.au/?p=1727#comment-109 Dumb spin! Why would someone who know a lot about organic and GMO farming go to a workshop? Workshops are for people who don't know the topic well or at all. they told you that! Dumb spin!
Why would someone who know a lot about organic and GMO farming go to a workshop? Workshops are for people who don’t know the topic well or at all. they told you that!

]]>