AP HUMAN GEOGRAPHYEXTRA EXPLANATIONS REVIEW

UNIT 5 – AGRICULTURAL

U5 - Agriculture Susbsidies

An agricultural subsidyis a governmental subsidy paid to farmers and agribusinesses to supplement their income, manage the supply of agricultural commodities, and influence the cost and supply of such commodities.

Subsidies by Maverick

The EUIn 2010, the EU spent €57 billion on agricultural development, of which €39 billion was spent on direct subsidies. Agricultural and fisheries subsidies form over 40% of the EU budget. Since 1992 (and especially since 2005), the EU's Common Agricultural Policy has undergone significant change as subsidies have mostly been decoupled from production. The largest subsidy is the Single Farm Payment.

AfricaIncreases in food and fertilizer prices have underlined the vulnerability of poor urban and rural households in many developing countries, especially in Africa, renewing policymakers' focus on the need to increase staple food crop productivity.

A study by the Overseas Development Institute evaluates the benefits of the Malawi Government Agricultural Inputs Subsidy Programme, which was implemented in 2006/2007 to promote access to and use of fertilizers in both maize and tobacco production to increase agricultural productivity and food security. The subsidy was implemented by means of a coupon system which could be redeemed by the recipients for fertilizer types at approximately one-third of the normal cash price. According to policy conclusions of the Overseas Development Institute the voucher for coupon system can be an effective way of rationing and targeting subsidy access to maximize production and economic and social gains. Many practical and political challenges remain in the program design and implementation required to increase efficiency, control costs, and limit patronage and fraud.

United StatesThe United States currently pays around $20 billion per year to farmers in direct subsidies as "farm income stabilization" via U.S. farm bills. These bills pre-date the economic turmoil of the Great Depression with the 1922 Grain Futures Act, the 1929 Agricultural Marketing Act and the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act creating a tradition of government support.

The beneficiaries of the subsidies have changed as agriculture in the United States has changed. In the 1930s, about 25% of the country's population resided on the nation's 6,000,000 small farms. By 1997, 157,000 large farms accounted for 72% of farm sales, with only 2% of the U.S. population residing on farms. In 2006, the top 3 states receiving subsidies were Texas (10.4%), Iowa (9.0%), and Illinois (7.6%). The Total USDA Subsidies from farms in Iowa totaled $1,212,000,000 in 2006. From 2003 to 2005 the top 1% of beneficiaries received 17% of subsidy payments. In Texas, 72% of farms do not receive government subsidies. Of the close to $1.4 Billion in subsidy payments to farms in Texas, roughly 18% of the farms

receive a portion of the payments.

"Direct payment subsidies are provided without regard to the economic need of the recipients or the financial condition of the farm economy. Established in 1996, direct payments were originally meant to wean farmers off traditional subsidies that are triggered during periods of low prices for corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton, rice, and other crops."

Top states for direct payments were Iowa ($501 million), Illinois ($454 million), and Texas ($397 million). Direct payments of subsidies are limited to $40,000 per person or $80,000 per couple.

The subsidy programs give farmers extra money for their crops and guarantee a price floor. For instance in the 2002 Farm Bill, for every bushel of wheat sold, farmers were paid an extra 52 cents and guaranteed a price of 3.86 from 2002–03 and 3.92 from 2004–2007. That is, if the price of wheat in 2002 was 3.80 farmers would get an extra 58 cents per bushel (52 cents plus the $0.06 price difference).

Corn is the top crop for subsidy payments. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 mandates that billions of gallons of ethanol be blended into vehicle fuel each year, guaranteeing demand, but US corn ethanol subsidies are between $5.5 billion and $7.3 billion per year. Producers also benefitted from a federal subsidy of 51 cents per gallon, additional state subsidies, and federal crop subsidies that can bring the total to 85 cents per gallon or more. However, the federal ethanol subsidy expired December 31, 2011. (US corn-ethanol producers were shielded from competition from cheaper Brazilian sugarcane-ethanol by a 54-cent-per-gallon tariff, however that tariff also expired December 31, 2011.)

Impact of subsidies

Farm subsidies have the direct effect of transferring income from the general tax payers to farm owners. The justification for this transfer and its effects are complex and often controversial.Global food prices and international trade

Although some critics and proponents of the World Trade Organization have noted that export subsidies, by driving down the price of commodities, can provide cheap food for consumers in developing countries,] low prices are harmful to farmers not receiving the subsidy. Because it is usually wealthy countries that can afford domestic subsidies, critics argue that they promote poverty in developing countries by artificially driving down world crop prices.Agriculture is one of the few areas where developing countries have a comparative advantagecitation needed, but low crop prices encourage developing countries to be dependent buyers of food from wealthy countries. So local farmers, instead of improving the agricultural and economic self-sufficiency of their home country, are instead forced out of the market and perhaps even off their land. This occurs as a result of a process known as "international dumping" in which subsidized farmers are able to "dump" low-cost agricultural goods on foreign markets at costs that un-subsidized farmers cannot compete with. Agricultural subsidies often are a common stumbling block in trade negotiations. In 2006, talks at the Doha round of WTO trade negotiations stalled because the US refused to cut subsidies to a level where other countries' non-subsidized exports would have been competitive.

Others argue that a world market with farm subsidies and other market distortions (as happens today) results in higher food prices, rather than lower food prices, as compared to a free market.citation needed

Mark Malloch Brown, former head of the United Nations Development Program, estimated that farm subsidies cost poor countries about US$50 billion a year in lost agricultural exports:

"It is the extraordinary distortion of global trade, where the West spends $360 billion a year on protecting its agriculture with a network of subsidies and tariffs that costs developing countries about US$50 billion in potential lost agricultural exports. Fifty billion dollars is the equivalent of today's level of development assistance."

Poverty in Developing Countries

The impact of agricultural subsidies in developed countries upon developing-country farmers and international development is well documented. Agricultural subsidies depress world prices and mean that unsubsidised developing-country farmers cannot compete; and the effects on poverty are particularly negative when subsidies are provided for crops that are also grown in developing countries since developing-country farmers must then compete directly with subsidised developed-country farmers, for example in cotton and sugar. The IFPRI has estimated in 2003 that the impact of subsidies costs developing countries $24 billion in lost incomes going to agricultural and agro-industrial production; and more than $40Bn is displaced from net agricultural exports. Moreover the same study found that the Least Developed Countries have a higher proportion of GDP dependent upon agriculture, at around 36.7%, thus may be even more vulnerable to the effects of subsidies. It has been argued that subsidised agriculture in the developed world is one of the greatest obstacles to economic growth in the developing world; which has an indirect impact on reducing the income available to invest in rural infrastructure such as health, safe water supplies and electricity for the rural poor. The total amount of subsidies that go towards agriculture in OECD countries far exceeds the amount that countries provide in development aid.Haiti and US Rice Imports

Haiti is an excellent example of a developing country negatively affected by agricultural subsidies in the developed world. Haiti is a nation with the capacity to produce rice and was at one time self-sufficient in meeting its own needs. At present, Haiti does not produce enough to feed its people; 60 percent of the food consumed in the country is imported. Following advice to liberalize its economy by lowering tariffs, domestically produced rice was displaced by cheaper subsidised rice from the United States. The Food and Agriculture Organization describes this liberalization process as being the removal of barriers to trade and a simplification of tariffs, which lowers costs to consumers and promotes efficiency among producers.

Opening up Haiti's economy granted consumers access to food at a lower cost; allowing foreign producers to compete for the Haitian market drove down the price of rice. However, for Haitian rice farmers without access to subsidies, the downward pressure on prices led to a decline in profits. Subsidies received by American rice farmers, plus increased efficiencies, made it impossible for their Haitian counterparts to compete.39 40 According to Oxfam and the International Monetary Fund, tariffs on imports fell from 50 percent to three percent in 1995 and the nation is currently importing 80 percent of the rice it consumes.

The United States Department of Agriculture notes that since 1980, rice production in Haiti has been largely unchanged, while consumption on the other hand, is roughly eight times what it was in that same year.43 Haiti is among the top three consumers of long grain milled rice produced in the United States.

As rice farmers struggled to compete, many migrated from rural to urban areas in search of alternative economic opportunities.Impact on nutrition

Peer-reviewed research suggests that any effects of U.S. farm policies on U.S. obesity patterns must have been negligible. However, some critics argue that the artificially low prices resulting from subsidies create unhealthy incentives for consumers. For example, in the USA, cane sugar has been replaced with cheap corn syrup, making high-sugar food cheaper; beet and cane sugar are subject to subsidies, price controls, and import tariffs that distort the prices of these products as well.

The lower price of energy-dense foods such as grains and sugars could be one reason why low-income people and food insecure people in industrialized countries are more vulnerable to being overweight and obese. In fact it has been found that meat and dairy production receive 63% of subsidies in the United States, as well as sugar subsidies for unhealthy foods, which contribute to heart disease, obesity and diabetes, with enormous costs for the health sector.

Market distortions due to subsidies have led to an increase in corn fed cattle rather than grass fed. Corn fed cattle require more antibiotics and their beef has a higher fat content.

Cross-border movement of businesses

Tariffs on sugar have also caused large candy makers in the USA to relocate to Canada and Mexico, where sugar is often half to a third the price.Non-farming companies

Subsidies are also given to companies and individuals with little connection to traditional farming. It has been reported that the largest part of the sum given to these companies flow to multinational companies like food conglomerates, sugar manufacturers and liquor distillers. For example in France, the single largest beneficiary was the chicken processor Groupe Doux, at €62.8m, and was followed by about a dozen sugar manufacturers which together reaped more than €103m.

Public Economics Implications

Government intervention, through agricultural subsidies, interferes with the price mechanism which would normally determine commodity prices, often creating crop overproduction and market discrimination. Subsidies are also an inefficient use of taxpayer’s money. For instance, in 2006, the Department of Agriculture estimated that the average farm household income was $77,654 or about 17% higher than the average U.S. household income. From a public economics perspective, subsidies of any kind work to create a socially and politically acceptable equilibrium that is not necessarily Pareto Efficient.Environmental Implications

The monoculture system associated with subsidized large-scale production has been implicated as a contributory factor in Colony Collapse Disorder which has affected bee populations. Bee pollination is an essential ecosystem service essential for the production of many varieties of fruits and vegetables. Subsidies often go towards subsidising meat production which has other nutritional and environmental implications; and it has been found that out of the $200Bn subsidies to subsidise crops from 1995-2010 around two thirds of this went to animal feed, tobacco and cotton production. On the other hand, farmers producing fruits and vegetables received no direct subsidies. The environmental impact of meat production is high due to the resource and energy requirements that go into production of feed for livestock throughout their lifespan, for example, a kilogram of beef uses about 60 times as much water as an equivalent amount of potato. The subsidies contribute to meat consumption by allowing for an artificially low cost of meat products.

http://lewishistoricalsociety.com/wiki2011/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=138

U5 - Factory Farms The distinctive characteristic of factory farms is the intense concentration. Note how in America it is much more concentrated to certain areas than in China or Europe. This is because we have more factory farms than those areas.

Factory farming is the practice of raising livestock in confinement at high stocking density, where a farm operates as a factory

The main product of this industry is meat (mainly chicken and pigs), milk and eggs for human consumption.

Factory farms are usually associated with pig and chicken meat production

DescriptionConfinement at high stocking density is one part of a systematic effort to produce the highest output at the lowest cost by relying on economies of scale, modern machinery, biotechnology, and global trade. Confinement at high stocking density requires antibiotics and pesticides to mitigate the spread of disease and pestilence exacerbated by these crowded living conditions. In addition, antibiotics are used to

stimulate livestock growth by killing intestinal bacteria. There are differences in the way factory farming techniques are practiced around the world. There is a continuing debate over the benefits and risks of factory farming. The issues include the efficiency of food production; animal welfare; whether it is essential for feeding the growing global human population; the environmental impact and the health risks.

Distinctive characteristicsFactory farms hold large numbers of animals, typically cows, pigs, turkeys, or chickens, often indoors, typically at high densities. The aim of the operation is to produce as much meat, eggs, or milk at the lowest possible cost. Food is supplied in place, and a wide variety of artificial methods are employed to maintain animal health and improve production, such as the use of antimicrobial agents, vitamin supplements, and growth hormones. Physical restraints are used to control movement or actions regarded as undesirable. Breeding programs are used to produce animals more suited to the confined conditions and able to provide a consistent food product.

For more details including details on environmental impact, health concerns and ethical issues, please see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_farming

http://lewishistoricalsociety.com/wiki2011/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=64

U5 - Local Food Movement

Above is a map of where all of the ingredients of one taco came from. This is definitely not local food. Is this a good thing?

Local food (also regional food or food patriotism) or the local food movement is a "collaborative effort to build more locally based, self-reliant food economies - one in which sustainable food production, processing, distribution, and consumption is integrated to enhance the economic, environmental and social health of a particular place" and is considered to be a part of the broader sustainability movement

Local food systems are an alternative to the global corporate models where producers and consumers are separated through a chain of processors/manufacturers, shippers and retailers.-of course these are the corporate owned food producers that operate commercial farms, industrial farms and factory farms

Local food systems on the other hand-help to link together local farmers that produce food and then come together to sell it at a farmers market-increasingly they use the internet to come together and pool resources thereby lowering costs

Defining a movementDuring the early 20th century, the demise of the family farm and the growth of corporate farms was experienced through much of the United States. In the late 1960s and early '70s with the growth of the back to the land movement there were increasing numbers of small farms selling a variety of products to local communities. Since the 1970s the increase of multinational food companies has increased the size of not only farms but also the overall food system. During this same time period, a slow and steady movement of farmers and consumers building relationships and changing purchasing habits occurred and is still occurring.

The concept is often related to the slogan "Think globally, act locally'', common in green politics. Those supporting development of a local food economy consider that since food is needed by everyone, everywhere, every day, a small change in the way it is produced and marketed will have a great effect on individual's health, the ecosystem and preservation of cultural diversity. Activists in the movement claim that shopping decisions favoring local food consumption directly affects the well-being of people, improve local economies and may be more ecologically sound.

-Local food networks include community gardens, food co-ops, and farmers' markets.

Definitions of "local"

The definition of "local" or "regional" has for a long time been flexible and defined differently depending on the person in question. Neither the USDA nor any legal authority has adopted a definition.

Some local business with specific retail and production focuses, such as cheese, may take a larger view of what is 'local' while a local farm may see the area with in a day's driving as local because it is a reasonable distance to transport goods and services—in fact, 400 miles is essentially a DGD (day-goods-distance).

Some see "local" as being a very small area (typically, the size of a city and its surroundings) Others suggest the ecoregion or bioregion size, while others refer to the borders of their nation or state. The concept of "locally-processed" however has recently been introduced by the produce industry including organic

produce wholesalers and retailers. This is potentially a dubious concept as it appears to be an excuse to ship across country and re-package in order to retain the "local" definition. This would enable huge processors to retain a local edge theoretically anywhere on the planet.

The concept of "local" is also seen in terms of ecology, where food production is considered from the perspective of a basic ecological unit defined by its climate, soil, watershed, species and local agrisystems, a unit also called an ecoregion or a foodshed. The concept of the foodshed is similar to that of a watershed; it is an area where food is grown and eaten. The size of the foodshed varies depending on the availability of year round foods and the variety of foods grown and processed. In a way, replacing the term 'water' with 'food' reconnects food with nature. "The term "foodshed" thus becomes a unifying and organizing metaphor for conceptual development that starts from a premise of the unity of place and people, of nature and society."

Labelling Local versus Corporate Non-local

LocalLocal food is, by definition, food produced locally. Whether the seed - an integral part of the "food" - was grown or procured locally as well is usually left out of this definition, leading to even greater ambiguity as to its meaning. Many local food proponents tend to equate it with food produced by local independent farmers, while equating non-local food with food produced and transformed by large agribusiness. They may support resisting globalization of food by pressing for policy changes and choosing to buy local food. They may also follow the practice of the boycott or buycott.

CorporateNon-local food is often seen as a result of corporate management policies, globalization, heavy subsidies, urban sprawl, poor animal welfare, lack of care for the environment, and poor working conditions. This limited interpretation is likely due to the fact that the organic movement is largely responsible for renewed public interest in local and regional markets. Those subscribing to this interpretation often insist on buying food directly from local family farms, through direct channels such as farmers' markets, food cooperatives and community-supported agriculture plans. For many, local food is interpreted as unprocessed food, to be transformed by the consumer or local shop rather than by the food industry. As such, local food (as opposed to global food) reduces or eliminates the costs of transport, processing, packaging, and advertising.

As large corporations and supermarket distribution increasingly dominate the organic food market, the concept of local food, and sometimes 'sustainable food', is increasingly being used by independent farmers, food activists, and aware consumers to refine the definition of organic food and organic agriculture. By this measure, food that is certified organic but not grown locally is viewed as possibly "less organic" or not of the same overall quality or benefit, as locally grown organic products. Some consumers see the general advantages of "organic" as also invested in "locally grown", therefore local food not grown "organically" may trump generically "organic" in purchase decisions. Also, because local food tends to be fresh (or minimally processed, such as cheese and milk), as opposed to processed food, the bias against processed food is often at least implicit in the local food argument. The marketing phrase, fresh, local, organic, summarizes these arguments.

Impacts of local food systemsFood qualityAnother effect is the increase in food quality. Locally grown fresh food is consumed usually right after harvest, so it is sold fresher and usually riper (e.g. picked at peak maturity, as it would be from a home garden). Also, the need for chemical preservatives and irradiation to artificially extend shelf-life is reduced or eliminated.

Polyculture and sustainable farming - Pros of LocalA major impact of local food systems is to encourage multiple cropping, i.e. growing multiple species and a wide variety of crops at the same time and same place, as opposed to the prevalent commercial practice of large-scale, single-crop monoculture.

With a higher demand for a variety of agricultural products, farmers are more likely to diversify their production, thereby making it easier to farm in a sustainable way. For example, winter intercropping (e.g. coverage of leguminous crops during winter) and crop rotation reduces pest pressure, and also the use of pesticides. Also, in an animal/crop multiculture system, the on-farm byproducts like manure and crop residues are used to replace chemical fertilizers, while on-farm produced silage and leguminous crops feed the cattle instead of imported soya. Manure and residues being considered as by-products rather than waste, will have reduced effects on the environment, and reduction in soya import is likely to be economically interesting for the farmer, as well as more secure (because of a decrease of market dependence on outside inputs).

In a polycultural agroecosystem, there is usually a more efficient use of labour as each crop has a different cycle of culture, hence different time of intensive care, minimization of risk (lesser effect of extreme weather as one crop can compensate for another), reduction of insect and disease incidence (diseases are usually crop specific), maximization of results with low levels of technology (intensive monoculture cropping often involves very high-technology material and sometimes the use of genetically modified seeds). Multiculture also seeks to preserve indigenous biodiversity.

Cost to consumerCritics of the movement often say that local food tends to be more expensive to the consumer than food bought without regard to provenance and could never provide the variety currently available (such as having summer vegetables available in winter, or having kinds of food available which can not be locally produced due to soil, climate or labor conditions).

Effect on exporting countriesSome critics argue that by convincing consumers in developed nations not to buy food produced in the third world, the local food movement damages the economy of third world nations, which often rely heavily on food exports and cash crops.

Environmental Impact - Mixed ResultsA study by Lincoln University in New Zealand challenges claims about food miles by comparing total energy used in food production in Europe and New Zealand, taking into account energy used to ship the food to Europe for consumers[

New Zealand has greater production efficiency in many food commodities compared to the UK. For example New Zealand agriculture tends to apply less fertilizers (which require large amounts of energy to produce and cause significant CO2 emissions) and animals are able to graze year round outside eating grass instead of large quantities of brought-in feed such as concentrates. In the case of dairy and sheep meat production NZ is by far more energy efficient even including the transport cost than the UK, twice as efficient in the case of dairy, and four times as efficient in case of sheep meat. In the case of apples NZ is more energy efficient even though the energy embodied in capital items and other inputs data was not available for the UK.

An August 6, 2007 article in The New York Times gave examples of how eating locally grown food sometimes causes an increase, instead of a decrease, in the carbon footprint. As one example, the article stated, "... lamb raised on New Zealand’s clover-choked pastures and shipped 11,000 miles (18,000 km) by boat to Britain produced 1,520 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per ton while British lamb produced 6,280 pounds of carbon dioxide per ton, in part because poorer British

pastures force farmers to use feed. In other words, it is four times more energy-efficient for Londoners to buy lamb imported from the other side of the world than to buy it from a producer in their backyard."

Final Important Point on the Environment

Of course, what should be pointed out is that the local food movement does not believe you should grow or eat meats that should not be grown locally or are not sustainable locally. It would be fine environmentally if each area grew and ate the materials suitable for that region.

This would also create variation. Each area would have its own foods and would have those things which are good for the local environment. This would be environmentally sustainable.

Meat Causes Damage According to a study by engineers Christopher Weber and H. Scott Matthews of Carnegie Mellon University, of all the greenhouse gases emitted by the food industry, only 4% comes from transporting the food from producers to retailers. The study also concluded that adopting a vegetarian diet, even if the vegetarian food is transported over very long distances, does far more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, than does eating a locally grown diet.

Local food (because it is local) would be more likely to be seasonal

http://lewishistoricalsociety.com/wiki2011/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=72

U5 - Organic Versus Subsistence versus Agribusiness

Organic Agriculture

Definition: Organic foods are foods that are produced using methods that do not involve modern synthetic inputs such as synthetic pesticides and chemical fertilizers, do not contain genetically modified organisms, and are not processed using irradiation, industrial solvents, or chemical food additives

Longer Description: Organic agriculture is an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity by relying on crop rotation, green manure, compost, biological pest control, and mechanical cultivation to maintain soil productivity. It controls pests, excluding or strictly limiting the use of synthetic fertilizers and synthetic pesticides, plant growth regulator. It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony. Organic farming combines tradition, innovation and science to benefit the shared environment and promote fair relationships and a good quality of life for all involved.

Certified Organic- means that the item has been grown according to strict uniform standards that are verified by independent state or private organizations. Certification includes inspections of farm fields and processing facilities, detailed record keeping, and periodic testing of soil and water to ensure that growers and handlers are meeting the standards which have been set.

There is a USDA label for organic foods.

Environmental Impact:

Organic farms do not consume or release synthetic pesticides into the environment—some of which have the potential to harm soil, water and local terrestrial and aquatic wildlife.

Organic farms are better than conventional farms at sustaining diverse ecosystems, i.e., populations of plants and insects, as well as animals.

When calculated per unit area, organic farms use less energy and produce less waste, e.g., waste such as packaging materials for chemicals.

Critics argue that the land on organic farms does not produce enough food but there is debate on this point.

Food & items: Organic foods are becoming available in an impressive variety, including pasta, prepared sauces, frozen

juices, frozen meals, milk, ice cream and frozen novelties, cereals, meat, poultry, breads, soups, chocolate, cookies, beer, wine, vodka and more. These foods, in order to be certified organic, have all been grown and processed according to organic standards and must maintain a high level of quality. Organic fiber products, too, have moved beyond T-shirts, and include bed and bath linens, tablecloths, napkins, cosmetic puffs, feminine hygiene products, and men’s, women’s and children’s clothing in a wide variety of styles.

Commercial agriculture

Definition: Agriculture that involves the production of crops for sale, crops intended for widespread distribution to wholesalers or retail outlets and any non-food crops such as cotton and tobacco. Commercial agriculture includes livestock production and livestock grazing. Commercial agriculture does not include crops grown for household consumption.

Every day the environmental and health consequences of commercial farming become more apparent. Pesticides and nitrates from fertilizers and manure have been detected in the groundwater of most states. In fact pollutants from agriculture can be detected in both the north and south poles and in the deepest reaches of the oceans. Commercially-grown food we eat contains detectable levels of pesticides and antibiotics. And recent studies have implicated pesticides as the possible culprits in causing Parkinson's disease, as well as increased aggression in children

Commercial farming is a progression from mixed farming, when the farmer's intention is to produce goods for sale primarily for widespread consumption by others. At this point, it may become more profitable for the farmer to specialize and focus on one or a few particular crops due to economies of scale. This may be further augmented by higher levels of technology that might significantly reduce the risk of poor harvests.

Another important difference between commercial farming and less-developed forms of agriculture is the new emphasis on capital formation, scientific progress and technological development, as opposed to a reliance mainly on natural resource utilization that is common to subsistence and diversified agriculture.Due to the expensive nature of capital formation and implementation of technological processes, the landowners of such farms are often large agricultural corporations (especially in developing countries). Large-scale commercial farming, in terms of some of its processes, may be conceptually not very different from large industrial enterprises.

Organic vs. Commercial Agriculture

Commercial farms consume or release synthetic pesticides into the environment — some of which have the potential to harm soil, water and local terrestrial and aquatic wildlife.• Organic farms are better at sustaining diverse ecosystems,• Organic food is healthier to its lack of synthetic pesticides and organic foods are minimally processed without artificial ingredients, preservatives, or irradiation to maintain the integrity of the food. Organic food tends to be more expensive than commercial due to the fact that organic products typically cost 10 to 40% more than similar conventionally produced products. Processed organic foods vary in price when compared to their conventional counterparts Prices may be higher because organic produce is produced on a smaller scale, and may need to be milled or processed separately. Furthermore, there is an increase in shipping costs from more centralized production in otherwise regional markets

Subsistence Agriculture

The opposite of commercial agriculture is subsistence farming, in which that the farmer takes most of the product for their family and commercial farming is that the products are being distributed to the supermarkets.

Subsistence agriculture is a form of self-sufficient farming in which farmers grow only enough food to feed their family and pay taxes. The typical subsistence farm has a range of crops and animals needed by the family to eat during the year. Planting decisions are made with an eye toward what the family will need during the coming year, rather than market prices.

Subsistence farming typically uses few fertilizers and no machines. Instead the farmers may use draft animals which can be fed and raised on the farm. Subsistence farmers often rely on crop rotation, animal manure, and compost to restore the nutrients rather than purchasing expensive synthetic fertilizers. This agriculture can limit the amount of growth in a season. All of the crops or livestock raised are used to maintain the farmer and his family, leaving little, if any, surplus for sale or trade. Preindustrial agricultural peoples throughout the world have traditionally practiced subsistence farming. Some of these peoples moved from site to site as they exhausted the soil at each location.

As urban centers grew, agricultural production became more specialized and commercial farming developed, with farmers producing a sizable surplus of certain crops, which they traded for manufactured goods or sold for cash.Subsistence farming persists today on a relatively wide scale in various areas of the world, including large parts of sub-

Saharan Africa. Subsistence farms usually consist of no more than a few acres, and farm technology tends to be primitive and of low yield.

http://lewishistoricalsociety.com/wiki2011/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=68

U5 - Origins of Agriculture

IntroThe origins of agriculture cannot be documented with certainty, because it began before recorded history. Scholars try to reconstruct a logical sequence of events based on fragments of information about ancient agricultural practices and historical environmental conditions. Determining the origin of agriculture first requires a definition. Agriculture is deliberate modification of Earth’s surface through cultivation of plants and rearing of animals to obtain sustenance or economic gain.

Agriculture thus originated when humans domesticated plants and animals for their use. The word cultivate means “to care for, and a crop is any plant cultivated by people.

Hunters and Gatherers - Pre-Agriculture RevolutionBefore the invention of agriculture, all humans probably obtained food they needed for survival by being either a hunter or a gather in the society. Hunters and gatherers lived in a small group, usually fewer than 50 people, because a larger number would quickly exhaust the available resources within walking distance. As with having to migrate often for food resulted in migrant mothers having to carry around their children and generally having longer birth intervals and lower birth rates than settled people.

Hunters GatherersMen hunted animals and fishWomen collected berries, nuts and rootsd roots

- Up to 80% of the food is obtained by gathering

They survived by collecting food, perhaps daily. The food search might have taken the whole day depending on the local conditions. The division of labor sounds like typical gender roles from the past when the men do a certain job as well as the females and not being mixed. However, this is based on evidence from archaeology and anthropology.

The direction and frequency of migration, depended on the movement of game and the seasonal growth of plants at various locations. We can assume the groups communicated to each other concerning hunting rights, intermarriage, and other subjects. For the most part, they kept the peace by steering clear from each other’s territory.

Contemporary Hunting and GatheringIn today’s society less than 0.005 percent of the world’s population still survives by hunting and gathering rather than agriculture. These societies are isolated groups living on the periphery of world settlement. Hunter gatherers are in fact, taller, better nourished, suffered less disease and live longer than farmers. This is the result of the gathering of wild grains which produces more calories of food for each calorie of energy invested than any form of agriculture. Hunter gatherers provide an insight to human customs that prevailed in prehistoric times and before the invention of agriculture.

Invention of Agriculture Over thousands of years, plant cultivation probably evolved a combination of accident s and deliberate experiments. Hunters probably observed that damaged or discarded food produced new plants. Then they may have deliberately cut plants and dropped them on the ground to see if they new plants. Subsequently generations learned to pour water over the site and introduced manure along with other ways to improve the soil. Meanwhile, animals were originally domesticated for noneconomic reasons, such as sacrifices and other religious ceremonies. Other animals were domesticated as household pets, surviving on the group’s food scraps.

Two Types of Cultivation Vegetative planting is according Carl Sauer the earliest form of plant cultivation. Vegetative planting is the reproduction of plants by direct cloning from existing plants such as cutting stems and dividing roots.

Coming later, according to Sauer, was seed agriculture, which is the reproduction of plants through annual planting of seeds that result from sexual fertilization. This type of agriculture is most practiced by farmers today.

Several areas started farming independently of one another.-Vegetative probably originated in southeast Asia-Livestock also likely originated in southeast Asia-Northwest South America and west Africa were also likely starting points of vegetative farming-Seed agriculture has 3 starting points (western India, northern China, Ethiopia)-Southwest Asia was likely the first area to integrate seed agriculture and domestication of herdanimals like goats, cattle and sheep-two independent hearths for seed agriculture were in Mexico and Peru-these techniques then diffused throughout the world

http://lewishistoricalsociety.com/wiki2011/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=65

U5 - Strategies to Increase the Food Supply Whether food supply can keep pace with an expanding human population is an old question. In 1798, Thomas R. Malthus predicted that population growth would outstrip food supply, causing great human suffering. In the early 1960s, most nations were self-sufficient in food, but alarm about a rapidly growing population (~2% annually) caused many to echo

Malthus' prediction. Then, the Green Revolution (high-yield crops and energy intensive agriculture) brought about remarkable increases in crop production. World grain output expanded by a factor of 2.6 from the 1950s to the 1980s. Today, per capita production has now slowed and appears to be declining.

The application of these four strategies can increase the food supply:Expand the land area used for agricultureIncrease the productivity of land now used for agricultureIdentify new food sourcesIncrease exports from other countriesEven with these strategies there are still challenges that face them

Increase food supply by expanding land area for agricultural useHistorically, world food production increased primarily by expanding the amount of land devoted to agriculture.

-The human population has increased faster than the expansion of agricultural land.

-At first glance, new agricultural land appears to be available because only 11 percent of the world's land area is currently cultivated.

-Farmland is abandoned for lack of water. Especially in semiarid regions, human actions are causing land to deteriorate to desert like condition, a process called desertification.I don't think the woman above can cook for the world so she probably does not represent an effective strategy

-Excessive crop planting, animal grazing, and tree cutting exhaust the soil's nutrients and prelude agriculture.-Urbanization can also contribute to reducing agricultural land. -As urban areas grow in population and land area, farms on

the periphery are replaced by homes, roads, shops, and other urban land uses.

Increase food supply through higher productivity-New agricultural practices have permitted farmers worldwide to achieve much greater yields from the same amount of

land.-The invention and rapid diffusion of more productive agricultural techniques during the 1970s and 1980s is called the

green revolution.1.It involves two main practices-the introduction of new higher-yield seeds and the expanded use of fertilizers.2.The green revolution agricultural productivity at a global scale has increased faster than population growth.-Miracle seeds were created and responded better to fertilizers and matured faster.-Scientists identified nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium as the critical elements in these substances that improved

fertility.-Scientists have continued to create higher-yield hybrids that are adapted to environmental conditions in specific regions.-Tools such as herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides reduce crop losses both before and after harvest, and increase crop

yields.-Selective plant breeding produced high yielding varieties of rice and other crops, particularly maize, sorghum, and wheat.-These high yield varieties (HYVs) performed best under high applications of fertilizer, and also required more

expenditures for pesticides, irrigation, farm machinery, etc.-The Green Revolution's great success with rice explains the former; lack of success with breeding new arid-land crop

varieties, combined with a large dose of political instability, explain Africa's worsening condition. Per capita grain production in Africa is down 12% since 1981 and down 22% since 1967. Some 20 years ago, Africa produced food equal to what it consumed; today it produces only 80% of what it consumes.

Increase food supply by identifying new food sourcesDevelopment of new food sources3 strategies being considered are: cultivate the oceans, develop higher-protein cereals, and improve palatability of rarely consumed foods.

1.Cultivate OceansIncreased fish consumption could meet the needs of a rapidly growing global population. The worlds annual fish catch has increased from 22 million tons in 1954 to 100 million tons in 1991.However the population of some fishes have declined due to being harvested faster than they can reproduce.

2. Develop Higher-Protein CerealsPeople in MDCs obtain protein by consuming meat, but people in LDCs generally rely on wheat, corn, rice, which lack certain proteins.People can also obtain needed nutrition by consuming foods that are fortified during processing with vitamins, minerals, and protein-carrying amino acids.However, fortification has limited application in LDCs, where most people grow their own food rather than buy processed food.

3. Improve Palatability of rarely consumed foodsPeople consume types of food adapted to their community's climate, soil, and other physical characteristics.People also select foods on the basis of religious values, taboos, and other social customs that are unrelated to nutritional or environmental factors.To make more effective use of existing global resources is to encourage consumption of foods that are avoided for social reasons.

For example, soybean, which is one of the region's leading crops, most of the output is processed into animal feed, in part

because many North Americans avoid consuming tofu, sprouts, and other recognizable soybean products.In Asia, high protein beverages made from seeds resemble popular soft drinks.

Increase food supply by increasing exports from other countriesExport more food from countries that produce surpluses. Top three export grains are wheat, maize (corn), and rice.Before WWII, Western Europe was the only major grain-importing region.In response to the increasing global demand for food imports, the U.S. passed Public Law 480, the Agricultural Trade, and Assistance Act of 1954.South Asia and Southeast Asia have now become net exporters. Thailand has replaced the U.S. as the leading exporter of rice, accounting for one-third of the world total, followed by India in second place with one-sixth.

USE OF BIOTECHNOLOGY IN SEED PRODUCTION AND PLANTING MATERIAL PROPAGATIONBiotechnological tools have greatly contributed to the production and supply of improved quality seed and planting material to farmers worldwide. Among other uses, biotechnology is employed to:speed-up the multiplication process for vegetative propagated crops, detect diseases transmitted by seed or planting material, eradicate diseases transmitted by planting material, protect seed with biological control agents, andtest varietal identity and purity.

3. USE OF BIOTECHNOLOGY IN PLANT BREEDINGCrop improvement is the exploitation of genetic variability, followed by several generations of selection. Breeders have always used the most modern technologies available to them. This has permitted them to make considerable progress during the last twenty years, thanks in particular to the development of biotechnology. These tools permit:an acceleration of the selection process,new genetic combinations that are not possible through conventional breeding, andgreater precision in the desired modifications of the genome.Towards Improved AgricultureGenes from the wild have been used to protect Brazil's coffee plantations; while a Mexican wild maize confers resistance to seven major diseases. According to the American Medical Association, these foods are "substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts," and no long-term side effects have yet been detected.Crops and foods can produced using recombinant DNA techniques which enhance their agronomic potential, nutritional characteristics, or one or more features of pest protection (insect and viruses) and tolerance to herbicides.

http://lewishistoricalsociety.com/wiki2011/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=66

U5 - Sustainable Agriculture

Three principal practices distinguish sustainable agriculture:-Sensitive land management-Limited use of chemicals-Better integration of crops and livestocks

Sensitive land managementSustainable agriculture protects soil in part through ridge tillage, which is a system of planting crops on ridge tops. Ridge tillage is attractive for two main reasons- lower production costs and greater soil conservation.

Production costs are lower with ridge tillage in part because it requires less investments in tractors and other machinery than conventional planning.An agricultural practice that preserves and enhances environmental quality.

Ridge tillage features a minimum of soil disturbance from harvest to the next planting. A compaction-free zone is created under each ridge and in some row middles. Keeping the trafficked area separate from the crop-growing area improves soil properties. Over several years the soil will tend you have increased organic matter, greater water holding capacity and more earthworms. The channels left by the earthworms and decaying roots enhance drainage.

Note: The picture above depicts the problems that will occur if we do not have sustainable agriculture.

Limited use of chemicalsSustainable agriculture involves the application of limited if any herbicides to kill weeds. In principle, farmers can control weeds without chemicals, although it requires additional time and expense that few farmers can afford. Researchers have found that combining mechanical weed control with some chemicals yields higher returns per acre than relying solely on one of the two methods.

Conventional agriculture uses more chemical methods such as seeds that are genetically modified to survive when herbicides and insecticides. These are called "Roundup-Ready" seeds because of its creator Monsator Corp, sells it under the brand name "Roundup."

Ridge tilling also promotes decreased use of chemicals which can be applied only to the ridges and not the entire field. Combining herbicide banding- which applies chemicals in narrow bands over crop rows- with cultivating may be the best option for many farmers.

Integrated crops and livestocksSustainable agriculture attempts to integrate the growing of crops and the raising of livestock as much as possible at the level of the individual farm.

In conventional agriculture, integration between crops and livestock generally takes place through intermediaries rather than inside an individual farm. Many farmers in the mixed crop and livestock region actually choice to grow only crops or only to rise animals. They sell their crops off to farms or purchase feed for their animals from outside suppliers.

Sustainable agriculture's sensitive to the complexities of biological and economic interdependencies between crops and livestock.

-The first complexity is finding the correct number and distribution of livestock for the area based on landscape and forage sources.

-The second complexity in integrating crops and livestock for sustainable agriculture is animal confinement.

-The third complexity in sustainable integration of crops and livestock is management of extreme weather conditions.Finally, feeding and marketing are flexible in animal production systems.

http://lewishistoricalsociety.com/wiki2011/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=71

U5 - Three Agriculture Revolutions

The First Agricultural Revolution:

Geographer Carl Sauer believed the experiments necessary to establish agriculture and settle in one place would occur in lands of plenty. Only in a land of plenty could people afford to experiment with raising plants and breed them for

domestication. Plant domestication may have originated from Southeast and South Asia (and later in South America) more than 14,000 years ago with the domestication of tropical plants. In Asia, the combination of human settlements, forest margins, and fresh water streams may have given rise to the earliest planned cultivation of root crops—crops that are reproduced by cultivating either the roots or cuttings from plants.In the first agricultural revolution, shifting cultivation was a common method of farming. One specific kind of shifting cultivation is slash-and-burn agriculture (also called milpa agriculture and patch agriculture). It consisted of the controlled use of fire in places. Trees are cut down and all existing vegetation is burned off. In slash-and-burn, farmers use tools (machetes and knives) to slash down trees and tall vegetation, and then burn the vegetation on the ground. A layer of ash from the fire settles on the ground and contributes to the soil’s fertility. Shifting cultivation conserves both forest and soil: its harvests are substantial given the environmental limitations, and it requires a lot of organization. Shifting cultivation uses substantially little energy and has been a sustained method of farming for thousands of groups. It gave ancient farmers opportunities to experiment with various plants, to learn the effects of weeding and crop care, to cope with environmental vagaries, and to discern the decreased fertility of soil after sustained farming.Subsistence farming is becoming marginalized. Ever since colonialism (1500-1950), subsistence land use is giving way to more intensive farming and cash (or luxury) cropping. In the process, societies from South America to Southeast Asia are being profoundly affected. Land that was once held communally is being parceled out to individuals for cash cropping. The system that ensured an equitable distribution of wealth has become stratified, with poor people at the bottom and rich landowners at the top.

The Second Agricultural Revolution:The second agricultural revolution coincided with the Industrial Revolution; it was a revolution that would move agriculture beyond subsistence to generate the kinds of surpluses needed to feed thousands of people working in factories instead of in agricultural fields. The second agricultural revolution was composed of a series of innovations, improvements, and techniques in Great Britain, the Netherlands, Denmark, and other neighboring countries.By the 17th and 18th centuries, new crops came into Europe from trade with the Americas, including corn and potatoes. The governments of Europe played a role in spurring on the second agricultural revolution by passing laws such as Great Britain’s Enclosure Act that encouraged consolidation of fields into large, single-owner holdings. Farmers increase the size of their farms, piecing together more contiguous parcels of land, fenced in land, and instituted field rotation. Methods of soil preparation, fertilization, crop care, and harvesting improved.New technologies such as the seed drill enabled farmers to avoid wasting seeds and to easily plant in rows, making it simpler to distinguish weeds from crops. Advances in breeding livestock enabled farmers to develop new breeds that were either strong milk producers or good for beef. By the 1830s, farmers were using new fertilizers on crops and feeding artificial feeds to livestock. Increased agricultural output made it possible to feed much larger urban populations, enabling the growth of a secondary (industrial) economy.Innovations in machinery that occurred with the Industrial Revolution in the late 1800s and early 1900s helped sustain the second agricultural revolution. The railroad helped move agriculture into new regions, such as the United States Great Plains. Geographer John Hudson traced the major role railroads and agriculture played in changing the landscape of that region from open prairie to individual farmsteads. Later, the internal combustible engine made possible the mechanization of machinery and the invention of tractors, combines, and a multitude of large farm equipment. New banking and lending practices helped farmers afford the new equipment.

In the 1800s, Johann Heinrich von Thünen (1983-1850) experienced the second agricultural revolution firsthand—because of which he developed his model (the Von Thünen Model), which is often described as the first effort to analyze the spatial character of economic activity.

Also, geographer Lee Liu studied the spatial pattern of agricultural production in one province of China, giving careful consideration to the intensity of the production methods and the amount of land degradation.

The Third Agricultural Revolution (also called the Green Revolution):The Green Revolution was a period in time when new agricultural practices were created to help farmers all over the world. It was an international effort that was planned to eliminate hunger by improving crop performances. This plan provided new practices that allowed farmers to produce more of the same product within the same amount of land. This meant that the farmers could get more out of their land than they used to. This rapid diffusion of more productive agriculture techniques occurred throughout the 1970s and the 1980s. The plan had two main practices: the introduction of newer higher-yield seeds and the expanded use of fertilizers. This would lead to the increase of the agricultural productivity at a global scale, which increased faster than population growth. The Green Revolution answered questions from experts about massive global famine.The Green Revolution has strong cases on why it is a success and a failure. The Green Revolution allowed scientists to create higher-yield hybrids that are adapted to environmental conditions in specific regions. This allowed scientists to predict the maximum annual crop yield in Asia and Latin America, which was about 6,000 kilograms per hectare. The Green Revolution was largely responsible for preventing a food crisis in these regions during the 1970s and 1980s. But the Green Revolution has not proven itself to be a successful strategy in ending world hunger. The question of famine is not that we need more food, but how we distribute it within the world. The Green Revolution does not alter the distribution of economic power—more specifically purchasing land and purchasing power. Redistributing power and distributing food to those who need it can only solve world hunger. So if poor people do not have the money to buy food, then increase in production of food is not going to help them. Some other problems of the Green Revolution are that there have been problems with production after a dramatic increase in technological production. After dramatic increases in the early stages of production, yields have been falling in a number of Green Revolution areas. In Central Luzon, Philippines, rice yields grew steadily during the 1970s, peaked in the early 1980s, and have been gradually dropping ever since. The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in both Central Luzon and Laguna Province conducted long-term experiments that confirm these results. Similar patterns have been observed for rice-wheat systems in India and Nepal. The causes of this problem have to do with forms of long-term soil degradation and are still poorly understood by scientists.An example of the Green Revolution on a global scale would be India’s wheat production. After only importing 10 million tons of wheat annually from 1964 to 1965, India had, by 1971, a surplus of wheat by several million tons. India’s wheat production had more than doubled in five years during the Green Revolution. The Green Revolution allowed India to have extra food because its land had grown more food than before.

Also, an entire field of biotechnology has sprung up in conjunction with the third agricultural revolution, and the development of genetically engineered crops (GE) or genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is its principal orientation. Since the origin of agriculture, people have experimented with hybrid crops and cross-breeding of animals. Today, genetically modified organisms are found in 75% of all processed foods in the United States. The United States leads the world in production of genetically engineered crops, with 38% of all acres in corn and 80% of all acres in soybeans in the

U.S. sown with genetically engineered seeds. Some regions have either banned or embraced genetically engineered crops. Many of the poorer countries of the world do not have access to the necessary capital and technology. Moreover, ideological resistance to genetically engineered foods is strong in some places—especially in Western Europe where GMOs have been declared safe but there is a strong aversion to its taste and how it may affect one’s health. Such concerns have spread to less affluent parts of the world as well. In many poorer regions, seeds are a cultural commodity, reflecting agricultural lessons learned over generations. In these regions, many resist the invasion of foreign, genetically engineered crops.

In a Nutshell…-The First Agricultural Revolution*Simple farming with cultivation, subsistence and sustainable farming, and shifting cultivation.*Goes along with the first cities (first urban revolution)-The Second Agricultural Revolution*Coincided with the Industrial Revolution*Farming became mechanized and commercial with the development of new inventions and technology (tractor, seed

drill)*Goes along with the second stage of the demographic transition*Goes along with the second urban revolution (massive expansion of cities and urban societies)-The Third Agricultural Revolution*More advanced technology is used for farming and to increase farming yieldsand/or outputs from the same amount of land—efficient use of land*Development of genetically engineered crops (GE) or genetically modifiedorganisms (GMOs)

First Agricultural Revolution- Also known as the Neolithic Revolution was when human beings first domesticated plants and animals and no longer relied entirely on hunting and gathering. By growing plants and raising animals, human beings created larger and more stable sources of food, so more people could survive. Areas still remained in stage one of the demographic transition with the first agricultural revolution. The First Agricultural Revolution came about 10,000 years ago in Melanesia and around 2,500 BC in Subsaharan Africa. Geographer Carl Sauer, however, believes that plant domestication began in Southeast and South Asia more than 14,000 years ago with the planned cultivation of root crops-crops that are reproduced by cultivating either the roots or cuttings from the plants. A similar but later development may have taken place in northwestern South America. The First Agricultural Revolution changed the small, mobile groups of hunter-gatherers that were common into sedentary societies based in built-up villages and towns. These societies modified their natural environment by means of specialized cultivation and storage technologies (e.g. irrigation) that created surplus production. These changes were the beginnings of high population densities, complex labor diversification, trading economies, centralized administrations and political structures, ideologies and systems of knowledgelike writing.

Second Agricultural Revolution- The second agricultural revolution was the innovation, improvements and techniques developed in Great Britain and other neighboring countries between the 17th century and the end of the 19th century. This brought a massive increase in agricultural productivity and net output which in turn supported unprecedented population growth, freeing up a significant percentage of the workforce, and thereby helped drive the Industrial Revolution. The governments of Europe played a role in spurring on the Second Agricultural Revolution by passing laws such as Great Britain’s Enclosure Act that encouraged consolidation of fields into large, single-owner holdings. Farmers increased the size of their farms, fenced in their land, and started to rotate fields. Methods of soil fertilization, crop care and harvesting improved. New technologies improved production as well. These include: the seed drill that made planting in rows easier and advances in breeding livestock that made breeds better producers of food such as milk or beef. The Industrial Revolution helped sustain the second agricultural revolution through machines such as the railroad that helped build agriculture in the Great Plains of the United States as well as other machines such as the tractor and combine. By the 1830s, fertilizers and artificial feeds to livestock helped make it possible to feed larger urban populations which in turn led to the growth of an industrial economy. More efficient agriculture freed people to work in factories, producing other goods and generating enough food for the industrial workers.

Third Agricultural Revolution- also known as the Green Revolution involves two main practices: the introduction of new higher-yield seeds and the expanded use of fertilizers. The green revolution dates as far back as the 1930s, when agricultural scientists in the Midwest began manipulating seed varieties to increase crop yield. In the 1940s research on corn production in Mexico produced a hybrid seed that would grow better. By 1960 Mexico was no longer importing corn because production within the country was high enough to meet demand. Because of the green revolution, agricultural productivity at a global scale has increased faster than population growth. Today, most famines result from political instability rather than failure in production. India became self-sufficient in grain production by the 1980s, and Asia saw a 2/3 increase in rice production between 1970 and 1995. The geographical impact of the Green revolution is highly variable; as in Africa where it has had only a limited impact since agriculture is based on different crops and there is lower soil fertility. An entire field of biotechnology has sprung from the Third Agricultural Revolution and the development of genetically modified organisms, which is principally, genetically engineered crops.

http://lewishistoricalsociety.com/wiki2011/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=70

U5 - Von Thunen

This model was first proposed by Johann Heinrich von Thunen in 1826 in his book, The Isolated State. He was a farmer in northern Germany and a nineteenth century economist.

The Von Thunen model depicts how commercial farmers figure out which crops and animals to cultivate based upon the market location. A commercial farmer cultivates land for the purpose of making a profit. A critically variable in this model that these commercial farmers take note of is the cost of land versus the cost of transporting products to markets because their goal is to make a high profit. Transportation cost depends on the distance from the market and the different kind of products. Locational rent is a term used by Von Thunen to explain his theory which is the equivalent to land value. It corresponds to the maximum amount a farmer could pay for using the land, without making losses.The equation is L = Y(P − C) − YDF (L= locational rent, Y= Yield, P= Market price of the crop, C= Production cost of the crop, D= Distance from the market, F= Transport cost)

The model consists of four rings that surround the city or central market. The central market can be compared to the central business districts in the city models. The rings starting from the one closest to the city are:

1. Horticulture and Dairy because the products are perishable and need to be close to the city so they will not become spoiled.2. Foresty such as the production of timber and firewood for practical uses such as fuel and building material. They also have to be close to the center because of their weight and transportation issues.3. Extensive fields, such as grains for bread, because they last longer than those in the first ring so they can be farther away from the central market. They are also lighter making it easier for transportation.4. Ranching or grazing is in the outermost ring because they require the most space and farmers can walk/herd animals to market if needed.Beyond the last ring is land that is too great of a distance to make a profit from the city.

Although this model can be accurate today in some area, Von Thunen assumed a lot of factors and did not consider site or human factors making his model weak in many ways and attracts a lot of criticism. Some of the things he assume include:

The city is located centrally within an "Isolated State." The Isolated State is surrounded by wilderness. The land is completely flat and has no rivers or mountains. A river might modify the shape of the rings because

transportation costs change when products are shipped by water routes rather than over roads. Soil quality and climate are consistent. Farmers in the Isolated State transport their own goods to market via oxcart, across land, directly to the central city. There are no roads. Farmers behave rationally to maximize profits Government policies and changes in demand or price of the commodity

Von Thunen also did not consider modern technology that had yet to be invented in his time. For example there are refrigerated cars for the transportation of dairy products which make them last longer and travel longer distance. Also there is the transportation of animals by rail which is faster than having them being grazed into the city.

His ideas do tend to apply in LDCs where some of the advantages of modernization apply less so.

All in all, the Von Thunen model is a good example of the balance between land cost and transportation costs. The closer you get to the city, the higher the price of land increases. These commercial farmers have to balance the cost of transportation, land, and profit to produce the most cost-effective product for their market. In reality however, things don't work out exactly how they’re suppose to in this model which is true in every model.

http://lewishistoricalsociety.com/wiki2011/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=69