Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
of these attempted to use alternative and direct markets to create more
sustainable agriculture, but about a quarter explicitly tried to change
agricultural practices.
Nine California partnerships have emerged independent of any major
funding programs. These generally are local initiatives manifesting var-
ied grassroots interests of growers and their organizations, and have for
the most part aspired only to local impacts. They will be discussed in
subsequent chapters.
Creating a Model
The agroecological partnership model is a socially created mental model,
oppositional to mainstream agricultural science, guided by the belief that
alternative agriculture is possible. Proponents of the model assert that if
extension practices incorporate alternative social relations—growers and
scientists working together—progress can be made toward achieving
positive results in the field. CAFF was the first to describe this model, but
the anthropologist Robert Pence analyzed its dynamics in detail.
27
He
described the partnership model as follows:
1. a
structure
of local management teams;
2. a
process
of grower outreach; and
3. a
goal
of reducing agrochemical use by adopting integrated farming
practices.
28
BIOS explicitly injected pro-small-farmer values into its literature and its
program, but the agroecological partnership model is remarkable for its
flexibility. Other partnerships such as the Randall Island Project and the
Lodi winegrape partnership drew from their own experience and
combined this with selected practices, language, and ideals from BIOS.
Different approaches to the model should not obscure the shared fun-
damental goal of preventing agricultural pollution through collaborative
research and education among growers and scientists. The model was
socially constructed, meaning that practices and social relations were
negotiated, developed, and promoted by participants to help others
imagine an alternative way of farming. It is, therefore, a mental model
put into action, informed by the desire to fuse together improved grower
economics, enhanced grower satisfaction, and environmental resource
protection. Increased environmental regulatory pressures shape the stage
