Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
Grower:
Yeah, I think in some cases—Monterey County has a nitrate
problem, and the state is rattling their saber about that. But it's a problem
that does have to be cured and solved. Extension probably is not as capable
of solving that type of problem because it's not a day or night situation.
It's very long-term, because what you did two years ago probably still
affects what you're doing today. And, it's very subtle, what your results are
gonna be. And so they probably do a poorer job of that than they do on
other stuff. [UC Specialist's] data shows that if you test [the soil]...you
may be able to reduce how much nitrogen you put on by as much as 50
percent in some cases....He's done this experiment two or three times,
and it hasn't been accepted by the industry. Because nobody's gonna skip
a $40 fertilizer application and possibly lose everything they got out there.
They would rather make sure they have enough or too much. And, it's
hard to sell that on paper. . . . Because everybody knows, well, you know:
that was this time but what about next time? You don't get paid for
blowing a $2,500 crop because you were trying to save $40. It's not their
fault, that Extension isn't effective—the research has been good and the
results have been proven. But it's subtle, and it's very diffi cult for Extension
to do that well.
This grower described the quick test's results as “subtle,” but what
makes it subtle? For this grower and many others, the quick test repre-
sented an edge of change, marking off the institutionalized industry
practice (overfertilize as insurance) and the threat of more drastic change
(instigated by regulatory agencies). The subtlety stemmed from an uneasy
sense of being placed on this edge without a clear and easy decision.
One might argue that this grower and others were simply responding to
an economic calculation about the risks and benefi ts of change, and it is
true that the grower made a very direct reference to the costs saved by
using the quick test compared with the costs of potential failure of a
profi table crop. This decision, however, is highly context-dependent. The
defi nition of the quick test as either a cursory act of maintenance or a
more radical form of repair is shaped by the larger ecology of the farm
industry as a whole, especially the grower's sense of risk in terms of reg-
ulation. In a sense, this grower was already thinking about the realities
of the nitrate problem and even mentioned that the state was “rattling
their saber,” alluding to the threat of increased regulation. Further, the
fertilizer industry itself had funded much of the research and develop-
