Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
Resources Conservation Service and Resource Conservation Districts also pro-
vided some funding.
10. I count all five counties of concurrent almond BIOS activity as one partner-
ship. The two walnut BIOS partnerships were separated temporally (1994-1998
and 2000-2002) and spatially (Yolo/Solano and Stanislaus Counties).
11. Source of data: Swezey and Broome 2000, p. 30, table 1.
12. For details of the BIFS bill, see Dlott et al. 1996.
13. The 1998 BIFS request for proposals tried to communicate an alternative
approach to social relations in agricultural extension. It read: “The projects
should use an extension approach that involves public-private cooperation; this
approach is often called a 'farmer-to-farmer'' method of information sharing. It
brings scientists, farmers, and consultants together in a collaborative, 'co-learn-
ing' environment that enables farmers to learn and adapt integrated farming
practices to local conditions.” (SAREP 1999)
14. IPM built on the ecological principles in biological control (e.g., predator-
prey relationships and population dynamics) in one major way: using cultural
strategies to create habitat conducive to beneficial insects and degrade habitat
amenable to pests. Organic growers had carried forward the tradition of
fully integrating cover crops into their farming systems, relying on them as a
major source of fertility and to moderate pest populations (Vos 2000). For an
empirical study of organic practices and the difficulties they face approaching
agroecological ideals, see Guthman 2000.
15. The official history of pesticide regulation is described in California
Department of Pesticide Regulation 2001b. For helpful background information,
see Stoll 1998 and California Environmental Protection Agency 2001.
16. On the creation and development of this massive database, see California
Department of Pesticide Regulation 2000. It was created during a period when
USEPA was developing risk-based approaches to regulation. It appears that the
complex array of federal and state laws shaping pesticide restrictions created a
situation in which the value of knowledge about pesticide use became greater
than the political cost to DPR of remaining ignorant. For an overview of how
they use PUR data to track compliance with the multiplicity of pesticide regula-
tions in California, see California Department of Pesticide Regulation 2002.
Pesticides are reported in terms of pounds of active ingredient (a.i.), but this does
not include other “inert” materials (solvents, emulsifiers, etc.), some of which are
hazardous. DPR explains the fluctuation in pesticide use by pointing to annual
variations in pest problems, weather, acreage and types of crops planted, eco-
nomics, and other factors. For a discussion of limitations associated with PUR
data, see Kegley et al. 2000, p. 16. UC Davis hosts a workgroup dedicated to its
study.
17. See Department of Pesticide Regulation 1995. DPR drew its statutory
authority to encourage less environmentally hazardous pest-control practices
from its previous institutional home at the California Department of Agriculture.
18. Center for Agricultural Partnerships 2002, p. iv.