> My experience with Extension, throughout most of the North East,
> and Upper Midwest, is that information about biological control
> and cultural practices that reduce or eliminate pesticide use is
> prompt, ENTHUSIASTIC, and I could not do my job without it.
> Most of them would like to see pesticides reduced far more than
> they are, and unlike most people with strong opinions on the
> subject, they actually know how it could be done.
I used to have a 20% Extension specialist appointment at the University of
Idaho experiment station at Parma. I got to see a lot of extension activity
on a very wide range of crops in SW Idaho and SE Oregon. It was not unusual
for grower organizations put pressure on extension personnel to help them
manage illegal pesticide application on minor crops. I doubt these uses
were truly dangerous, it is just hard to get anything labeled for minor
Anyhow, in my experience, it is usually growers who tend toward excessive
pesticide and fertilizer use. Extension personnel usually recommend
alternatives and moderation. They are interested in IPM and biological
control because that generates more interesting and publishable research
than being a nozzle-head.
> If there is a conspiracy, it is in the form of subtle and not so subtle
> hints by chem companies about how they would react to criticism of their
Oh yes, but I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, it isn't that subtle. Such
behavior is unethical and should be condemned publicly.
To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 03 2000 - 12:00:38 EDT