There is a difference between 'sticking with what works' and refusing to accept new information concerning physical realities of material ecistence. Historically, I don't think that farmers as a group have been known for indulging in the latter.

These days, they have at least as much anecdotal, first-hand knowledge of the changes in weather patterns that are occurring than any other group,. Yet, in the U.S., as a group they are among those most opposed to taking measures to tackle the problem of global warming--even when offered money from the central government to take necesary measures on their own farms.

So where does a purely emotional reaction to any suggestion of 'being told what to do' by 'the government' that is so strong that it trumps literally all else fit into this analytical paradigm?