Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:54:13.968Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Extending agroecology: Grower participation in partnerships is key to social learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2007

Keith Douglass Warner
Keith Douglass Warner*
Affiliation:
Environmental Studies Institute, Santa Clara University, 500 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, CA, 95053, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: Email: kwarner@scu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The extension of agroecology requires an alternative extension pedagogy. Agroecology is more than merely the promotion of new technologies or practices, but rather a fresh understanding of how to optimize the configuration of biological and technological components of farming systems informed by ecological principles. This necessarily requires a shift in roles among growers and extensionists so that they can actively participate in networks of social learning. Agro-environmental partnerships have emerged in California as the primary strategy for extending alternative, agroecological knowledge in conventional agriculture. Partnerships are an intentional, multi-year relationship among at least growers, a growers' organization, and one or more scientists to extend agroecological knowledge and protect natural resources through a field-scale demonstration. Partnerships have been particularly successful in perennial crop farming systems, and have played critical roles in helping California's almond and pear growers to reduce organophosphate use by over 75%. This study provides a cross partnership comparison of grower participation in partnerships and proposes a five-part typology to rank this.

Keywords

agroecologyagricultural extensionagricultural partnershipsfarmer participationsocial learningsocial networksCalifornia
Type
Review Article
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , June 2006 , pp. 84 - 94
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

01Chambers, R. 1990. Farmer-first: a practical paradigm for the third agriculture. In Altieri, M.A. and Hecht, S.B. (eds). Agroecology and Small Farm Development. Boca Raton FL, CRC PressGoogle Scholar
02Pretty, J.N. 1995. Regenerating Agriculture. Earthscan, London.Google Scholar
03Röling, N. 1988. Extension Science: Information Systems in Agricultural Development. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
04Uphoff, N. (ed.) 2002. Agroecological Innovations: Increasing Food Production with Participatory Development. Earthscan, London.Google Scholar
05Altieri, M.A. 2002. Agroecology: the science of natural resource management for poor farmers in marginal environments. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 93: 1–24.Google Scholar
06Norgaard, R.B. and Sikor, T.O. 1995. The methodology and practice of agroecology. In Altieri, M.A. (ed.). Agriculture: The Science of Sustainable. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
07Chambers, R. 1983. Rural Development: Putting the Last First. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
08Chambers, R., Pacey, A. and Thrupp, L.A. 1989. Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. Bootstrap Press, New York.Google Scholar
09Pretty, J.N. 1995. Participatory Learning for Sustainable Agriculture. World Development 23(8): 1247–1263.Google Scholar
10Thrupp, L.A. (ed.) 1996. New Partnerships for Sustainable Agriculture. World Resources Institute, Washington DC.Google Scholar
11Röling,, N. and Wagemakers,, A. 1998. Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture: Participatory Learning and Adaptive Management in Times of Environmental Uncertainty. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
12Röling, N. and Jiggins, J. 1998. The ecological knowledge system. In Röling, N.G., Wagemakers, M.A.E. (eds). Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
13Rivera, W.M. and Gustafson, D.J. (eds). 1991. Agricultural Extension: Worldwide Institutional Evolution and Forces for Change. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
14Kidd, A.D., Lamers, J.P.A., Ficarelli, P.P. and Hoffmann, V. 2000. Privatising agricultural extension: caveat emptor. Journal of Rural Studies 16: 95–102.Google Scholar
15Wolf, S.A. and Zilberman, D. (eds). 2001. Knowledge Generation and Technical Change: Institutional Innovation in Agriculture. Boston Kluwer, Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16McDowell, G.R. 2001. Land-Grant Universities and Extension into the 21st Century: Re-Negotiating or Abandoning a Social Contract Ames Iowa State University PressGoogle Scholar
17National Research Council 1989. Alternative Agriculture. National Academy Press, WashingtonDC.Google Scholar
18Auburn, J.S. and Baker, B.P. 1992. Re-integrating agricultural research. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 7(3): 105–110.Google Scholar
19Thompson, R. and Thompson, S. 1990. The on-farm research program of practical farmers of Iowa. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 5: 163–167.Google Scholar
20Stevenson, G.W., Posner, J., Hall, J., Cunningham, L. and Harrison, J. 1994. Addressing the challenges of sustainable agriculture research and extension at land-grant universities: radially organized teams at Wisconsin. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 9(1): 76–83.Google Scholar
21Wuest, S.B., McCool, D.K., Miller, B.C. and Veseth, R.J. 1999. Development of more effective conservation farming systems through participatory on-farm research. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 14(3): 98–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22Swezey, S.L. and Broome, J.C. 2000. Growth predicted in biologically integrated and organic farming. California Agriculture 54(4): 26–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23Woodhill, J. and Röling, N. 1998. The second wing of the eagle: the human dimension in learning our way to more sustainable futures. In Röling, N.G. and Wagemakers, M.A.E. (eds). Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
24Warner,, K.D. 2004. Agroecology in action: how the science of alternative agriculture circulates through social networks. Dissertation, Department of Environmental Studies, UC Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
25Gliessman, S.R. 1998. Agroecology: Ecological Processes in Sustainable Agriculture. Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, MI.Google Scholar
26Altieri, M.A. 1989. Agroecology: a new research and development paradigm for world agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 27: 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27Friedland, W.H., Barton, A.E. and Thomas, R.J. 1981. Manufacturing Green Gold: Capital, Labor and Technology in the Lettuce Industry. Cambridge University Press, London.Google Scholar
28FitzSimmons, M. 1990. The social and environmental relations of U.S. agricultural regions. In Lowe, P., Watson, T. and Whatmore, S. (eds). Technological Change and the Rural Environment. David Fulton, London.Google Scholar
29Stoll, S. 1998. The Fruits of Natural Advantage: Making the Industrial Countryside in California. University of California Press, Berkeley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30Dlott, J., Nelson, T., Bugg, R., Spezia, M., Eck, R., Redmond, J., Lewis, L 1996. California, USA: Merced County Bios project. In Thrupp, L.A. (ed.). New Partnerships for Sustainable Agriculture. World Resources Institute, Washington DC.Available at website http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/Grants/Dlott/Google Scholar
31Pence, R.A. and Grieshop, J.I. 2001. Mapping the road for voluntary change: partnerships in agricultural extension. Agriculture and Human Values 18: 209–217.Google Scholar
32Hendricks, L. 1995. Almond growers reduce pesticides in Merced County field trials. California Agriculture 49(1): 5–10.Google Scholar
33Pence,, R.A. 1998. Leveling the Learning Fields: An Assessment of the Agriculture Partnership of Bios-Merced and Bifs-Lodi. Department of Human and Community Development, UC Davis.Google Scholar
34Blank, S.C. 2000. Is this California agriculture's last century. California Agriculture 54(4): 23–25.Google Scholar
35CAFF 1995. Bios for Almonds. Davis, CA Community Alliance with Family Farmers Foundation, with the Almond Board of California, Davis, CA.Google Scholar
36Ohmart,, C. 1998. Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission's Biologically Integrated Farming Systems for Winegrapes, Final Report. LWWC, Lodi, CA.Google Scholar
37California Association of Winegrape Growers, and The Wine Institute 2003. Code of Sustainable Winegrowing Practices Self-Assessment Workbook, CAWG & TWI, San Francisco.Google Scholar
38Olson, W., Pickel, C., Buchner, R., Krueger, W., Niederholzer, F., Norton, M., Reil, W.O., Sibbett, S., Thomas, F. and Whitted, L. 2003. Integrated Prune Farming Practices Decision Guide. UC ANR, Oakland, CA.Google Scholar
39Aspelin, A.L. 2000. Pesticide Usage in the United States: Trends During the 20th Century. Accessed 19 January 2004. Available at website http://www.pestmanagement.info/pesticide_historyGoogle Scholar
40Aspelin,, A.L. and Grube,, A.H. 1999. Pesticides Industry Sales and Usage: 1996 and 1997 Market Estimates. USEPA, Washington DC. Document 733-R-99-001. Available at website http://www.epa.gov/oppbead1/pestsales/.Google Scholar
41California Department of Pesticide Regulation. 1997. Pesticide Use Analysis and Trends from 1991 to 1996. CDPR, Sacramento. Available at website http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur97rep/pur_anal.htm.Google Scholar
42California Department of Pesticide Regulation. 1999. Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data, 1997. CDPR, Sacramento. Available at website http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur97rep/97_pur.htm.Google Scholar
43California Department of Pesticide Regulation. 2002 Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data 2001. CDPR, Sacramento.Google Scholar
44California Department of Pesticide Regulation. 2000. DPR Pesticide Use Reporting: An Overview of California's Unique Full Reporting System. CDPR, Sacramento.Google Scholar
45Epstein, L., Bassein, S., Zalom, F. and Wilhoit, L. 2001. Changes in pest management practice in almond orchards during the rainy season in California, USA. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 83: 111–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
46Epstein, L., Bassein, S. and Zalom, F. 2000. Almond and stone fruit growers reduce Op, increase pyrethroid use in dormant sprays. California Agriculture 54(6): 14–19.Google Scholar
47Elliott,, B., Wilhoit,, L., Brattesani,, M., and Gorder,, N. 2004. Pest Management Assessment for Almonds Reduced-Risk Alternatives to Dormant Organophosphate Insecticides. CDPR, Sacramento. Available at website http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pmap/pubs/pm0401asmnt.pdf.Google Scholar
48Zhang,, M., Wilhoit,, L., and Geiger,, C. 2004. Dormant Season Organophosphate Use in California Almonds. CDPR, Sacramento. http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pmap/pubs/pm0401.pdf.Google Scholar
49Epstein, L. and Bassein, S. 2003. Patterns in pesticide use in California and the implications for strategies for reductions of pesticides. Annual Review of Phytopathology 41: 23.1–23.25Google Scholar
50Campos,, J. and Zhang,, M. 2004. Progress toward reduced-risk pest management. Practical Winery & Vineyard March/April ( http://agis.ucdavis.edu/publications.html ):1–6.Google Scholar
51Arounsack,, S.S., Zhang,, M. and Broome,, J.C. Understanding winegrape weed management practices of a biologically integrated farming system in San Joaquin County, California. Poster for the American Society of Agronomy, California Chapter: Plant and Soil Conference. Available at website http://agis.ucdavis.edu/posters.html.Google Scholar
52Culver, D. 1993. Lodi-Woodbridge District-Wide IPM Program. In Thompson, M., Rutherford,, CA (ed.). The Greening of the California Grape and Wine Industry. Senate Committee on California's Wine Industry, Rutherford, CA.Google Scholar