Notes - Agroecology in Action - page 230

19. Buttel 2005, p. 2.
20. Ibid., pp. 5-6.
21. Biological control is “the action of parasites, predators, and pathogens in
maintaining another organism's density at a lower average than would occur in
their absence.” These three ecological actors are collectively known as “natural
enemies.” The definition is DeBach's (1964), taken from van den Bosch et al.
1982. This definition describes biological control as a natural phenomenon, as a
field of study, and as a pest-control strategy.
22. On the original biocontrol campaign and its effect on growers' imaginations,
see Sawyer 1996 and Stoll 1995, 1998.
23. Smith's development of the biological control concept and institutions
is described in Sawyer 1996. That UC had created an experiment station dedi-
cated to scientific research on one crop demonstrates the power of the citrus
industry during this period.
24. This is a central thesis of Palladino 1996.
25. Perkins (1982), Sawyer (1996), Palladino (1996), and Stoll (1998) describe
the development of entomological ideas in their historical and social contexts,
and the development trajectory of entomology as an academic discipline. Their
work substantially shapes my own understanding of relationships between
nature, insects, society, scientists, and technology in this section.
26. Stern et al. 1959. Carson lauded biological control, but IPM was not wide-
ly known by the time she wrote Silent Spring .
27. These principles are adapted from Perkins 1982.
28. Perkins (1982, pp. 76-81) makes reference to the field-based research that
led to the formulation of IPM. The case studies in Flint and van den Bosch 1981
also suggest these kinds of local regional collaborations.
29. This history is recounted in Lyons 2004, which is supplemented by
California Environmental Protection Agency 2001. For summaries of the UC
IPM program's accomplishments and analyses of their funded research projects,
see California Agriculture 44, no. 5 (September 1990) and 54, no. 6 (November
2000).
30. This term is from Rosenberg 1961.
31. Woodworth 1912, p. 358.
32. On the history of Woodworth and the development of insecticides and their
institutions, see Stoll 1995, 1998; Sawyer 1996.
33. Van den Bosch 1978.
34. On the development of the tomato harvester, see Friedland and Barton 1975.
On the lawsuit, see Scheuring et al. 1995 and Friedland 1991.
35. Buttel et al. (1993) describe a watershed meeting, sponsored by the
Rockefeller Foundation, that launched the “Science for Agriculture” report
(Rockefeller Foundation 1982), which spurred the LGUs toward greater scien-
tism. For a UC perspective on this re-orientation, see Learn et al. 1987. For
retrospective analyses, see Buttel 2001 and Buttel 2005.