No abstract

Farmers’ perceptions of climate variability is compared with the sensitivity of observed yields for wheat, maize, soybean, and sunflower crops to interannual and intra-annual climate variability in two districts (Junín and San Justo) in central Argentina from the 1970s. A recent transition occurred here between mixed crop and livestock farming to a more specialized system, dominated by transgenic soybean combined with glyphosate. According to the ethnographic fieldwork, farmers ranked drought first and flood second as the main adverse climate factors in both districts. Overall, the farmers’ representations fit rather well with the observed relationships between interannual variability of yields and rainfall, especially in Junín. The adverse impact of long-lasting dry spells, especially during the first half of the crop cycle, is usually combined with the more linear impact of large rainfall amounts (anomalously positive/negative rainfall amounts associated with anomalously positive/negative yields) during the second half of the crop cycle. This relationship is strong for soybeans, similarly large for maize, far weaker for wheat, and reversed for sunflower, which is the only crop that benefits, on average, from anomalously low rainfall amounts at a specific stage of the crop cycle. The adverse effect of flood on soybeans and maize seems less phase-locked and more diluted across the crop cycle. This paper presents the argument that climate and society have a complex relationship, requiring an integrated analysis of the social context, people’s perceptions of climate, and scientific climate knowledge. The concept of “climate social significance” is proposed in order to highlight the strategies implemented by different socioproductive groups to address adverse climate events.

The technological changes that have occurred since the mid-1960s in Argentine agriculture -first the Green Revolution and then the Agribusiness Paradigmhave been conceptualized as revolutionary not only with regard to their productivity improvements but also because they brought with them a change of mentality. Based on two different business conceptions, during each period an agrarian elite led the 'revolutionary' process, offering a technological response as the means of guaranteeing agriculture's 'survival' after various crises. For each period, we can identify a correspondence between the status given to technology, the conception of business and the type of government regulation. This paper analyses how the proposition of a 'technological revolution' corresponds to the construction of the ideological leadership through which the agrarian bourgeoisie managed to orientate agrarian development.

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the "Content") contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.