Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
whining and carrying on about the way things are, and I said “You know, you're
in your fifties now. Why don't you just get out? I'm getting a little bit tired of lis-
tening to you bitch.” [laughter] . . . And some do. Some finally get their fill of it,
and for one reason or another, they just say “I'm tired of this shit, and I'm not
going to take it anymore.” (laughter) And that's fine. That's fine. I don't hold it
against anybody for doing that.
This pragmatic view of environmental regulations was echoed by many
partnership growers: they express some frustration and aggravation with
regulations and complain about their costs, but they understand why
they exist, and expressed a commitment to farming within them. For
these growers, partnerships represent a practical way to be able to
continue farming, and they actively support off-farm institutions, such as
UC Cooperative Extension and their commodity organizations, leading
partnership activities.
This section has summarized traits common to California's perennial
crop growers and described the diverse motivations for wanting to
experiment with agroecological practices. Individual growers have
experimented with alternative practices, but partnerships extend the
impact of this discovery learning through networks, but in order to do
so with credibility, they require the participation of scientists.
California's Hierarchy of Agricultural Science
The work of Rachel Carson and Jim Hightower sparked public interest
in the research activities of agricultural scientists and the consequences
of their work. In 1983, Lawrence Busch and William Lacey published a
groundbreaking book titled
Science, Agriculture, and the Politics of
Research
, which was based on a rigorous survey of LGU scientists about
their research activities.
16
Their work raised new questions about what
constitutes “good” or “legitimate” science (and who has the privilege of
determining these!), before the field of Science and Technology Studies
was formally constituted. Busch and Lacey found that commodity
groups were the most important external influence on LGU scientists'
research agendas, and the selective financial and political support these
groups offered shaped research trajectories. They also found clear evi-
dence that these LGU scientists were ordered into a hierarchical system
with basic research valued over extension practice, and that this system
was on the brink of dramatic changes.
17
This section describes the differ-
