Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
19. I exclude PMA grants awarded to agricultural groups for only one year and
those awarded to urban, school, and floriculture groups. The following agricul-
tural PMA grants were for one year only and are therefore excluded from this
analysis: strawberries, lettuce, poultry, alfalfa seed, cotton, roses, rice, container-
ized nursery products, and turkey. For an analysis of the PMA program, see
Center for Agricultural Partnerships 2002.
20. Benbrook (1996) described how the accretion of US pesticide laws resulted
in contradictions, and policy entrepreneurs exploited these tensions to pass the
FQPA. Smart (1998) describes the political forces and policy negotiations that
lead to its passage. On the implementation of FQPA, see Groth et al. 2001 and
USEPA 2004.
21. On policy windows, policy entrepreneurs, and the coupling of issues, see
Kingdon 1995, pp. 165-195.
22. Osmond 2002, p. 5.
23. Osmond 2002, p. 7. Although large in scope, the Neuse partnership was rel-
atively modest in its goals. It extended Best Management Practices, which many
California agroecological partnerships, such as BIFS, dismiss as insufficient to
promote a shift toward systems thinking on the part of growers.
24. See case study 7 in NRC 1989. See also Glades Crop Care Inc. 2003.
25. Kellogg's use of this term appears to mean integrated with social values or
socially desirable agriculture. It does not refer to the National Research Council's
report.
26. Berkenkamp and Mavrolas (2003) describe the individual projects. Fisk et
al. (1998) describe Kellogg's theory of agricultural change.
27. Dlott et al. (1996) were the first to write about the BIOS partnership model.
Schaffer (1997) built on that work and wrote a guide for reproducing elements
of BIOS. Pence (1998) wrote a depth ethnography of BIOS and the Lodi wine-
grape partnerships. Pence and Grieshop (2001) articulated traits of the model
and tensions with traditional agricultural research and extension practices.
28. Pence 1998, p. 4.
29. For an analysis of forestry partnerships, see Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000.
30. For a tabulation of grants awarded to California's agroecological partner-
ships, see Warner 2004, pp. 146-147.
31. See Pence 1998.
32. See SAREP 2003. For analysis, see Warner 2004, pp. 158-160.
33. “Gray” literature documenting the effects of partnership on participating
growers is assembled in Warner's (2004) methodological appendix.
34. Stone fruit growers have reduced organophosphate use, in part by switching
to “softer products” as have almond growers, but organophosphate use has not
declined as dramatically in this commodity. Stone fruit growers and their organ-
izations have not invested the same degree of effort into partnership activities as
have almond growers. They also have to cope with greater cosmetic concerns.
