Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
Despite the antipathy of UC leadership toward the applied nature of
partnerships, 92 UC personnel—scientists of all types—formally enrolled
in partnerships, more than any other social group except growers. This
represents roughly 8 percent of UC agricultural scientists.
24
“Enrollment” for UC extensionists and researchers is formally desig-
nated by having their name (and reputation!) inscribed on partnership
documentation, but it can have a range of operational meanings.
25
Farm
Advisors perceive partnership as providing a service to growers by
helping them manage regulatory uncertainty and the evolving social
pressures on agriculture. This was one of the reasons Diana Roberts
worked with the ACIRDS group. Several partnership leaders have
worked intensively with the Farm Advisors who serve growers of their
commodity. One of them reported mixed results: “UC Farm Advisors are
the strongest aspect of what I have in my program, compared to other
programs. It [
sic
] is also the most difficult problem to deal with in my
program. Even more so than the growers.” This comment reveals how
difficult it can be to promote agroecological perspectives among Farm
Advisors. A few of them see agroecological partnerships as a way to bet-
ter serve growers, but many also perceive them as yet another intrusion
by yet another institution into their work. Several observers have noted
that an individual Farm Advisor may quietly contribute critical knowl-
edge resources to a partnership, but may also exert pressure on their
peers and publicly speak against further erosion of UCCE scientific
authority.
One specific kind of Farm Advisor has taken to partnerships enthusi-
astically, the UC IPM Advisors. When the California Legislature created
the UC IPM program in 1979, it included six regional IPM Advisors who
would promote field implementation of IPM practices in clusters of sim-
ilar crops.
26
Not surprisingly, IPM Advisors had the highest proportion
of personnel participating in partnerships: five of the seven contributed
to them. Two IPM Advisors, Walt Bentley and Carolyn Pickel, partici-
pated in eight partnerships each, more than any other individual. Their
standing professional responsibilities are research and grower education
on IPM in tree crops. Upon their formation, many partnerships
consulted with IPM Advisors because they had much of the necessary
applied knowledge. Partnership leaders frequently lauded IPM Advisors
for their singular contributions. Partnerships were a boon to IPM
