Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
ment costs of the quick test system because of concerns about state regu-
lation of fertilizer use. In all, the “subtleness” pointed to this grower's
concerns about a changing farm ecology, where the risks of change and
the risks of regulation made an uncertain balance between the institu-
tionalized practices of fertilizing and the politics of environmental
change.
The members of the research team understood that the quick test was
on this edge of change, and this was actually their argument for the sys-
tem's implementation. They argued that the quick test was a balanced
approach that accounted for grower practice but also made changes that
would appeal to regulators, perhaps even forestalling regulatory action.
The following excerpt from an interview with the state specialist working
on the quick test team illustrates the balance the team was trying to
achieve and also the context-dependence of the choices:
UC Specialist: It's less compelling for a farmer to make changes in ferti-
lizer use [with the quick test method] than if I was to tell them that they
could change and increase production. I'm telling them that by monitor-
ing their use of [nitrogen] they can save about $50 per acre on a crop that
may cost around $2,000 per acre and yield much more. This is a lot dif-
ferent than telling them that there is a new irrigation method that could
increase their yield by 15 percent. This would really make them pay atten-
tion. On the other hand, if the California EPA hauls [the industry] into
court on a class-action suit, or starts taxing water use, or some other puni-
tive method of dealing with nitrates, then I will suddenly be their best
friend.
Here, the specialist pointed to the potential for more radical state regula-
tory action to change growers' attitudes toward the reduction of fertilizer
use, and he also used this point when speaking to growers about the nitrate
issue. In one meeting that I attended, the specialist explicitly raised the
possibility of imminent state regulation as a reason that growers should
begin managing their own fertilizer use before the state forced them to do
so. This is similar to the advisor who talked about the need to “carefully”
lead growers toward change. Although the specialist portrayed himself as
potentially the industry's “best friend” if the state should decide to regulate
fertilizer use, he also implied that he was already working in the best
interests of the industry.
Search WWH ::




Custom Search