Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
efforts to facilitating social learning about agroecological strategies and
practices, not simply new technologies. Partnerships that promote grow-
ers undertaking an inventory of analysis of their entire farming system
appear to be more successful over time than those that simply propose
an input substitution. Partnerships' focus on knowledge and learning
distinguishes them from traditional “transfer of technology” extension
activities, and makes different demands on extension actors and grower
learners. The economics of new methods are still critical, but not
absolutely determinative.
Agroecological partnerships re-shape a commodity's practices through
three general stages. The first stage consists of initial research into
why some growers have had success with agroecological methods.
Hendricks's study in the late 1980s performed this function. Several part-
nerships, such as Rice BIFS and Strawberry BIFS, have conducted
valuable research toward this objective, but were not able to improve
practices beyond grower participants.
The second stage demonstrates the agronomic viability of new meth-
ods. Most partnerships have developed effective practices, but they
require more (expert monitoring) labor, or are more expensive. For
example, the same pheromone mating disruption practices used by pear
growers have not been widely adopted by walnut growers because their
orchards occupy roughly three times the volume of pears, and the cost of
using pheromones is not economically viable yet. Growers participating
in partnerships at this stage are motivated to learn about new methods
when they are subsidized or supported, but few are willing to spend
much more for them once the partnership has ended. The 2003 BIFS
progress report documents the pesticide reductions achieved by its part-
ner growers, and describes the potential commodity-wide reduction were
partnership practices to become the norm.
The third stage depends on widespread circulation of knowledge about
practices among growers of a specific commodity, but depends on those
methods being economically viable. Agroecological partnership activities
are not the only reason for pesticide reductions in these commodities.
Pesticide resistance, weather, and the economics of new “softer” pesti-
cides are also critically important factors, but partnerships have helped
all of these commodities and provided the social relations necessary to
support widespread learning about alternative practices and how to use
them successfully.
