tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5650185541350122932024-02-20T04:53:21.298-08:00All About Farmricky kurniadihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11453774853927972848noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-565018554135012293.post-67857927659571843842008-08-05T07:35:00.000-07:002008-08-05T07:41:31.124-07:00Pickup truckA pickup truck is a light motor vehicle with an open-top rear cargo area.<br /><br />In North America, the word pickup generally refers to a small or medium sized truck. This light commercial vehicle features:<br /><br />a separate cabin <br />and rear load area or compartment (separate cargo bed). <br />Instead of a well-type bed (short rigid sides) with an opening rear gate, some pickups have a flat tray back (a.k.a. flatbed). Others may have a specialty body mounted behind the cabin.<br /><br />Three North American vehicles, the Chevrolet El Camino, Pontiac G8 (also available as a 4-door sedan), and Ford Ranchero are not technically trucks[citation needed]. This is because they have a spot welded sheet steel monocoque (unit-body) chassis in the same style as modern passenger cars. Trucks on the other hand usually have a heavy 'C' section rail chassis with a fully floating cab and separate cargo section[citation needed]. The sheet steel in both of these sections is not a stressed member. A combination of the two styles, monocoque cab and engine bay welded to a 'c' section chassis rear is offered in Australia. It is known as the 'one tonner' because it is rated to carry some 250 kg (551 lb) more than the all monocoque style.<br /><br />A vehicle like the Holden Ute and FPV Pursuit, colloquially called a ute or utility (from "Coupe utility"), in Australia and New Zealand, is known in South Africa as a bakkie (pronounced "bucky"), in Egypt as "half truck", and in Israel as a tender. Panel vans, popular in Australia during the 1970s, were based on ute chassis; known in Egypt as "box".<br /><br />The design details of such vehicles vary significantly, and different nationalities seem to specialise in different styles and sizes of vehicles. For instance, North American pickups come in full-size (large, heavy vehicles often with V8 or six-cylinder engines), mid-size, and compact (smaller trucks generally equipped with inline 4 engines).<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />History<br />The first factory-assembled pickup debuted in 1925 and sold for $281. Henry Ford billed it as the "Ford Model T Runabout with Pickup Body." The 34,000 built that first year featured a cargo box, adjustable tailgate, four stake pockets and heavy-duty rear springs.[citation needed]<br /><br />In 1928, the Model A replaced the Model T, becoming the first closed-cab pickup and sporting innovations like a safety glass windshield, roll-up side windows and three-speed transmission. It was powered by a four-cylinder L-head engine capable of 40 horsepower (30 kW).[citation needed]<br /><br />1931 was the first year for a factory-built Chevrolet pickup, known as the "Independence Series".[citation needed]<br /><br />In 1932, the 65 horsepower (48 kW) Ford flathead V8 engine was offered as an option in the truck. By 1936, Ford had already produced 3 million trucks and led the industry in sales.[citation needed]<br /><br />For 1933, a vehicle debuted in Australia known as the utility or "ute".<br /><br />Main article: Coupe Utility<br />During the Great Depression, money was very tight. Farmers could not afford both a car for their families and a truck for their farms. Banks would not lend money to farmers to buy a luxury like a car, but would lend money for a working vehicle like a truck. So a farmer (or his wife) wrote a letter to the managing director of Ford, saying, "Why don't you build people like me a vehicle in which I can take my family to church on Sunday, and my pigs to town on Monday?"<br /><br />In response, Lewis Bandt, the body designer at Ford Australia, created the first ute. He married the front of the car with the back of a truck. It was called a coupe utility- coupe, because it was designed to carry two people, and utility because the farmer could use the back section to carry stock or other things.<br /><br />This Australian-made utility was the first to offer a fully-sealed passenger compartment, made of metal. It was based on the front of the new Ford V-8 sedan. It had metal doors, a metal roof, and glass windows. The cargo section, side panels, and rear of the cab were all pressed from a single piece of metal. The cargo section (capable of carrying half a tonne, 1100 pounds) was totally separate, and could be covered with a tonneau or hard cover, if required. The suspension had been specially designed to suit the ute.<br /><br />By October 1933, Ford Australia had built two prototypes of the utility. They were immediately sent to farms; the banks would lend farmers the money to buy them, because they could be considered a work vehicle.<br /><br /><br />In 1935, Bandt took two of his coupe utilities to America and showed them to Henry Ford, who called them "kangaroo chasers". In most of America it was called a "pick-up truck"- because it was like a small truck, and they could pick up loads with it. The Texans called them "rancheros" because they used them on their ranches. The utility was a worldwide success.[1]<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Types of pickups<br /><br />Compact pickups<br />The compact pickup (or simply "pickup", without qualifier) is the most widespread form of pickup truck worldwide. It is built like a mini version of a two-axle heavy truck, with a frame providing structure, a conventional cab, a leaf spring suspension on the rear wheels and a small I4,I5, I6 or V6 engine, generally using gasoline.<br /><br />The compact pickup was introduced to North America in the 1960s by Japanese manufacturers. Datsun (Nissan 1959) and Toyota dominated under their own nameplates through the end of the 1970s. Other Japanese manufacturers built pickups for the American "Big Three": Isuzu built the Luv for Chevrolet, Mazda built the Courier for Ford and Mitsubishi built the Ram 50 for Dodge. It wasn't until the 1980s that Mazda introduced their own B-Series, Isuzu their P'up and Mitsubishi their Mighty Max.<br /><br />Compact trucks sold in the US market in 2008 include:<br /><br />Ford Ranger <br />Mazda B-Series <br />Toyota Tacoma <br />In Europe, compact pickups dominate the pickup market, although they are popular mostly in rural areas. There are few entries by European manufacturers, the most notable of which is perhaps the Peugeot 504 Pick-Up, which continued to be sold in Mediterranean Europe and Africa long after the original 504 ceased production. Eastern European manufacturers such as ARO or UAZ have served their home markets faithfully for decades, but are now disappearing. The near-majority of compact pickups sold in Europe use Diesel engines.<br /><br /><br />North American full-size pickups<br /><br />A full-size pickup is a large truck suitable for hauling heavy loads and performing other functions. Most full-size trucks can carry at least 1,000 lb (450 kg) in the rear bed, with some capable of over five times that much. The bed is usually constructed so as to accommodate a 4 ft (1.2 m) x 8 ft (2.4 m) sheet of plywood. Most are front-engine and rear-wheel drive with four-wheel drive optional, and most use a live axle with leaf springs in the rear. They are commonly found with an I6, V6, V8, V10, or Diesel engines. The largest full-size pickups feature doubled rear tires (two on each side on one axle). These are colloquially referred to as "duallies" (DOOL-eez), or dual-wheeled pickup trucks, and are often equipped with a fifth wheel for towing heavy trailers.<br /><br />Full-size pickups in North America are sold in four size ranges - ½ Ton, ¾ Ton, 1 Ton, and now 1 1/2 ton. These size ranges originally indicated the maximum payload of the vehicle, however modern pickups can typically carry far more than that. For example, the 2006 model Ford F-150 (a "½ Ton" pickup) has a payload of between 1,400 lb (640 kg) and 3,060 lb (1,390 kg), depending on configuration. Likewise, the 2006 model F-350 (a "1 Ton" pickup) has a payload of between 4,000 lb (1,800 kg) and 5,800 lb (2,600 kg) depending on configuration.<br /><br />Full-size trucks are often used in North America for general passenger use, usually those with ½ ton ratings. For a number of years, the ½ ton full-size Ford F150 has been the best-selling vehicle in the United States, outselling all other trucks and all passenger car models.<br /><br />Until recently, only the "Big Three" American automakers (Ford, GM and Chrysler) built full-size pickups. Toyota introduced the T100 pickup truck in 1993, but sales were poor due to high prices and a lack of a V8 engine. Some call the T100 a full- size pickup, but due to the frame, payload, lack of a V8, and size, it was officially classified as a mid-size. However, the introduction of the Tundra and Nissan Titan marked the proper entry of Japanese makers in the market. Originally the Tundra was still only classified as a 7/8 scale pickup, however, with the new design for 2007 it is now a full-size, along with the Titan. Both of these trucks are assembled in North America.<br /><br />As of 2007, seven pick-ups are sold as full-size in North America:<br /><br />Chevrolet Silverado/GMC Sierra <br />Dodge Ram <br />Ford F-Series/Lincoln Mark LT <br />Nissan Titan <br />Toyota Tundra <br /><br /><br />Muscle trucks<br />Several high performance versions of trucks have been produced over the years. Besides the obvious big block equipped trucks, other notable models include:<br /><br />Dodge: Warlock (1976–1979), Li'l Red Express (1978–1979), Midnite Express (1978), Macho Power Wagon, Shelby Dakota (1989), Ram VTS (1996–2001), SRT 10 (2004–2006), and even the regular Hemi powered Ram which also includes the Rumble Bee, GTX and Hemi Sport (2004–2005), Daytona (2005 only), and the Night Runner (2006 only).<br /><br />Holden: Commodore SS Ute (1990–present), (HSV) Maloo (1990–present).<br /><br />Ford: 5.8 HO F-150 (1985–1986), Lightning (1993–1995 and 1999–2004), Nascar edition F-150 (1998 only), Harley Davidson Edition F-series.<br /><br />Ford (Australia): Falcon XR8 (2001–present), (FPV) Pursuit (2003–present), (FPV) Super Pursuit (2004–present), (FPV) F6 Tornado (2004–present).<br /><br />General Motors: Chevrolet 454 SS (1990–1993), GMC Syclone, Chevrolet Silverado SS, Joe Gibbs Silverado (2004–2006) GMC Sierra Denali.<br /><br />Of all these, the HSV Maloo is currently the official holder of the "world's fastest production standard utility/pick up truck" record, achieving an average of 271.44 km/h (168.66 mph) to oust the Dodge RAM SRT-10 equipped with a 8.3-litre V10 (248.783 km/h (154.59 mph)) from top position.<br /><br /><br /><br />Mid-size pickups<br />In North America, pickup trucks were commonly used as general purpose passenger cars. They were popular not only with construction workers, but also with housewives and office workers. Thus arose the need for a pickup that was bigger than a compact and smaller and more fuel efficient than the full-size pickup.<br /><br />The first mid-size pickup was the Dodge Dakota, introduced in 1987 with V6 engine availability to distinguish it from the smaller compact trucks which generally offered only four cylinder engines. Its hallmark was the ability to carry the archetypical 4x8 sheet of plywood (4 feet by 8 feet) flat in the cargo bed, something which compact pickups could only carry at an angle. While the Frontier, the Tacoma, and the Ridgeline are only available with I-4s or V-6s, since 1991 the Dakota has utilized various V-8 motors. New for 2006, the Mitsubishi Raider was a rebadged Dakota and it used the same V-6 and V-8 motors.<br /><br />In 2006, mid-size and large pickups dominate the US market. Mid-size models include:<br /><br />Chevrolet Colorado/GMC Canyon <br />Dodge Dakota/Mitsubishi Raider <br />Ford Sport Trac <br />Nissan Frontier <br />Toyota Tacoma <br />Honda Ridgeline <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Coupé utilities<br /><br />The coupé utility body style is a light-duty truck, based on an automobile platform — frequently but not necessarily a unibody platform — with a two-door passenger cabin and an integral cargo bed. They often share sheet metal and instruments panels from their passenger car antecedants — and are more carlike in appearance and performance than pickups trucks. This type of car-based truck is commonly known in Australia formally as a utility and colloquially as a ute, and in South Africa as a Bakkie. In the USA, popular coupé utilities — although not commonly known by this term — were the Ford Ranchero and the Chevrolet El Camino. The recent Subaru Baja resembled a coupé utility but with four doors.<br /><br />The coupé utility body style is especially popular in Australia. The ute had its origins in Australia from the open top passenger car models of the mid 1920s. The ute body type was first available in Australian Chevrolet then Dodge models, the bodies of which were made by Holden under contract. Australia has developed a culture around utes, particularly in rural areas with events known as Ute musters. Many young drivers customise their utes and are not willing to scratch the paintwork doing anything utilitarian[citation needed]. Other drivers[who?] customise their utes in the B&S style[citation needed][vague] with roobars, spotlights, oversized mudflaps, exhaust pipe flaps and UHF aerials. The ute culture has been romanticised by country singers such as Lee Kernaghan, who has written odes to the ute such as She's My Ute, Scrubbabashin, Baptise The Ute and Love Shack.<br /><br />The two current Australian-built utilities — Holden Ute and the Ford Falcon ute — derive from currently marketed passenger cars.<br /><br /><br /><br />Latin American pickups<br />In Latin America, single cab pickups which are based on superminis, are fairly popular. They are called "compact," in contrast with "mid-size" (Ranger, S10, Hilux) and "full-size" (Ram, Avalanche, F150), and also nicknamed "picápinhas" in Brazil. Best-sellers are models such as the Chevrolet Montana, Volkswagen Saveiro and Fiat Strada.<br /><br /><br /><br />European pickups<br />Over the past few decades, nearly all pickups from European manufacturers are coupe utility pickups. Manufacturers from both western and eastern Europe have produced coupe utility pickups.<br /><br />Citroën 2CV Pickup <br />Citroën Méhari <br />Dacia Pickup <br />Fiat Strada <br />Fiat 125P <br />Ford Sierra P100 <br />Lada Niva <br />Opel Corsa Pickup <br />Peugeot 504/404 <br />Talbot Rancho découvrable <br />SEAT Inca <br />Škoda Felicia Fun <br />Volkswagen Caddy <br />One of the smallest pickups to be produced in commercial quantities was the British Austin/Morris Mini Pickup. At a little over 3 meters in length, it was nonetheless quite popular as a practical, working truck, selling 58,000 vehicles between 1961 and 1983. (Another mini pickup was the Japanese 1985-1988 3-cylinder 550 cc Suzuki Mighty Boy.)<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />African pickups<br />Pickups are popular in South Africa, including the Ford Bantam, originally a locally designed model based on the Ford Escort and later the Mazda 323, but now a Brazilian-designed Ford Fiesta. The Ford P100, a pickup version of the Ford Cortina (and later Ford Sierra), was exported to the UK until 1993.<br /><br />Toyota, Mazda and Nissan have popular ranges, while Tata and Mahindra are just entering the market.<br /><br />Visitors to South Africa will often hear pickups referred to as 'Bakkies'. This is dervided from the Afrikaans term 'Bak' - literally a baking bin, such as those used for baking loaves of bread. Early pickups dating from the 1940s were sedans with a cargo carrier bin added almost as an afterthought - which gave rise to the term, and its widespread use.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Pickup cab styles<br />Pickup trucks have been produced with a number of different configurations or body styles.<br /><br /><br /><br />Standard cab<br />A standard cab pickup has a single row of seats and a single set of doors, one on each side. Most pickups have a front bench seat that can be used by three people, however within the last few decades, various manufacturers have begun to offer individual seats as standard equipment.<br /><br /><br /><br />Extended cab<br />Extended or super cab pickups add an extra space behind the main seat. This is normally accessed by reclining the front bench back, but recent extended cab pickups have featured suicide doors on one or both sides for access. The original extended cab trucks used simple side-facing "jump seats" that could fold into the walls, but modern super cab trucks usually have a full bench in the back. Dodge introduced the Club Cab in 1973. Ford followed with the SuperCab concept on their 1974 F-100. In 1977 Datsun introduced the first minitruck with extended cab, their King Cab. GM, oddly enough, didn't offer one on their full-size pickups until 1988. The S-Series(Chevrolet S-10/GMC S-15) pickups has extended cab models in 1983.<br /><br /><br /><br />Crew cab<br />Main article: Crew cab<br />A true four-door pickup is a crew cab, double cab or quad cab. It features seating for up to five or six people on two full benches and full-size front-hinged doors on both sides. Most crew cab pickups have a shorter bed or box to reduce their overall length.<br /><br />International was the first to introduce a crew cab pickup in 1957, followed by Ford with their 1965 F-250 (short bed) and F-350 (long bed), Dodge in the same era, and Chevrolet followed with their 1973 C/K. Japanese makes offered crew cab versions of their pick-ups from the mid-80s.<br /><br />Four-door compact pickup trucks are quite in vogue outside North America, due to their increased passenger space and versatility in carrying non-rugged cargo. In the United States and Canada, however, four-door compact trucks have been very slow to catch on and are still quite rare. In recent years seat belt laws, requirements of insurance companies and fear of litigation have increased the demand for four door trucks which provide a safety belt for each passenger. Mexican four-door compact pickups are quite popular.<br /><br /><br /><br />Cab-forward<br /><br />A cab-forward pickup is derived from a cab-forward van; a van where the driver sits atop the front axle. The first cab-forward pickup was the Volkswagen Transporter which was introduced in 1952. It had a drop-side bed which aided in loading and unloading. American, British, and Japanese manufacturers followed in the late 1950s and 1960s. American manufacturers adopted this design only later, most notably on the 1956-1965 Jeep Forward Control and the first generation Ford Econoline, Chevrolet Corvair Rampside and Loadside pickups, and Dodge A-100.<br /><br />The Japanese, however, embraced this design because of its high maneuverability on narrow streets and fields. The smallest ones are 360/550/660cc Kei trucks based on microvans from Daihatsu, Honda, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Subaru and Suzuki where the statutory limitation on length makes a short cab necessary. The British also continued this design on the Ford Transit.<br /><br />While this configuration remains popular for large commercial trucks and buses, it is largely regarded as unsafe in smaller vehicles due to the lack of a crumple zone. In the event of a frontal impact, there is nothing in front of the passenger cabin to absorb the force of impact, thus crushing the entire front of the vehicle, occupants included. There have been many accidents in Europe involving large trucks where the cabin was crushed when rear-ending another truck at high speed in conditions with heavy fog. They remain popular due to unimpeded forward visibility and flexible maneuverability, but have largely fallen into disuse in the United States with the exception of purpose-built school and transit buses, as well as garbage and fire trucks.<br /><br /><br /><br />Pickup bed styles<br />Full-size pickup trucks are generally available with several different types of beds attached. The provided lengths typically specify the distance between the inside of the front end of the bed and the closed tailgate; note that these values are approximate and different manufacturers produce beds of slightly varying length.<br /><br />Most compact truck beds are approximately 50 in (1,270 mm) wide, and most full-size are between 60 in (1,524 mm) and 70 in (1,778 mm) wide, generally 48 in (1,219 mm) or slightly over between the wheel wells (minimum width).<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Short bed<br />The short bed is by far the most popular type of pickup truck bed. Compact truck short beds are generally 6 ft (1.8 m) long and full-size beds are generally 6.5 ft (2.0 m) long. These beds offer significant load-hauling versatility, but are not long enough to be difficult to drive or park.<br /><br /><br /><br />Long bed<br />The long bed is usually a foot or two longer than the short bed and is more popular on trucks of primarily utilitarian employ (for example, commercial work trucks or farm trucks). Compact long beds are generally 7 ft (2.1 m) long and full-size long beds are generally 8 ft (2.4 m) long. Full-size long beds offer the advantage of carrying a standard-size 4 ft×8 ft sheet of plywood with the tailgate closed. In the United States and Canada, long beds are not very popular on compact trucks because of the easy availability of full-size pickup trucks.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Step-side<br />Most pickup truck beds have side panels positioned outside the wheel wells. Conversely, step-side truck beds have side panels inside the wheel wells. Pickup trucks were commonly equipped with step-side beds until the 1950s, when General Motors (Chevrolet Cameo Carrier and GMC Suburban Carrier) and Chrysler (Dodge Sweptside) introduced smooth-side pickup beds as expensive, low-production options. These smooth side panels were cosmetic additions over a narrow step-side bed interior. In 1957, Ford offered a purpose-built "Styleside" bed with smooth sides and a full-width interior at little extra cost. Most manufacturers followed and switched to a straight bed, which offer slightly more interior space than step-side beds, and due to better aerodynamics, tend to produce less wind noise at highway speeds. Step-side beds do have the added advantage of a completely rectangular interior, although most modern trucks with a step-side bed are that way purely for styling.<br /><br />General Motors calls the step-side option sportside, while Ford Motor Company dubs it flareside. Another common designation until recently was "thriftside," so named for its lower cost.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Very short bed<br /><br />As mentioned above, some compact four-door pickup trucks are equipped with very short beds or super short beds. They are usually based on sport utility vehicles, and the bed is attached behind the rear seats. The Ford Explorer Sport Trac is an example of this, as is the Ssangyong Musso Sport. Early very short bed trucks had only a regular cab.<br /><br /><br /><br />No bed (cab chassis)<br />In some cases, commercial pickup trucks can be purchased without a bed at all; the fuel tank and driveline are visible and easily accessible through the top of the frame rails until a proper bed (many times customized to fit a particular business' needs) is attached by the customer. These are called "Cab & Chassis" models, and are usually finished by the customer to use a flatbed (flat deck) cargo carrier, stake bed, or specialized fixtures such as tow rigs, glass sheet carriers or other types. A common type is the "utility body" which in the US is usually of metal and has many lockable cabinet compartments (a type of large tradesman's tool box)<br /><br />Other varieties of commercial pickups without beds are called "Cowl & Chassis" models and "Cowl & Windshield" models. Both are similar to cab & chassis models, but have incomplete cabs, most of which are replaced with the commercial bodies themselves. Ice cream vending trucks were commonly built on cowl & windshield pickups until the 1970s, while walk-in delivery bodies and even some Class C motor homes were often attached to cowl & chassis pickups.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />The cultural significance of the pickup<br /><br />The pickup in American culture<br />Americans have a special fondness for the pickup truck, and it has developed a mythos that is similar to that of the horse in the American Old West. In the United States, pickups tend to be portrayed as symbols of male virility. They figure prominently in "tough guy" and neo-Western motion pictures, such as Hud, Urban Cowboy, The Fall Guy and Every Which Way But Loose. They are also a fixture in American politics, as in the famous campaign speech by Fred Thompson, who explained his opponent's shortcomings by saying "He hasn't spent enough time in a pickup truck." In 2004, Democratic Senate candidate Ken Salazar campaigned with his green pickup truck; Salazar later won the election.[1] Even President George W. Bush has been seen cruising around his Crawford, Texas ranch in a white Ford F-250 while vacationing, sometimes with foreign heads of state riding shotgun, such as Russian president Vladimir Putin.<br /><br />The term "Texas Cadillac" is a euphemism referring to the pickup truck of a cowboy or someone into the cowboy/country music culture, especially if the truck is large and has been customized rather opulently. Texas is sometimes called the "land of pickup trucks," even going so far as to offer lower taxation on vehicle registration compared to other vehicle types.[2]<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Pickups in China<br />The People's Republic of China has the third largest first-hand pickup truck market in the world. In the year of 2006, 145,836 units had been sold.<br /><br /><br /><br />Pickups in Thailand<br />As the world's second largest manufacturer of pickup trucks, aided by punitive excise taxes on passenger cars, pickup trucks have long been extremely popular in Thailand: between 1987 and 1996, 58% of all cars sold in the country were pickup trucks.<br /><br />[2] Pickups are used extensively for shipping and transport, notably the converted songthaew (lit. "two row") minibus that forms the backbone of public transportation in and between many smaller cities.<br /><br />Thailand is also the world's second largest market for pickup trucks, after the United States; 490,000 pickups were sold there in 2005.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Pickups in Europe<br />In Europe, pickups are considered light commercial vehicles for farmers. Until the 1990s, pickups were preferred mainly as individual vehicles in rural areas, while vans and large trucks were the preferred method of transportation for cargo.<br /><br />The largest pickup market in Europe is Portugal, where crew cab 4WD pickups have somewhat replaced SUVs as offroad vehicles, after a change in taxation removed light commercial vehicle status from SUVs. The introduction of more powerful engines in pickups, benefiting from variable vane turbochargers and common rail direct injection technology, have made these cars interesting prospects in the eyes of the public.<br /><br />In France, Spain and Germany, pickups carry little cultural significance. In the United Kingdom on the other hand, pickups are gaining popularity fast; they are the UK's fastest growing vehicle sector. Through 2006 pick up sales have increased by 14 per cent to reach a total topping 36,000, where overall new car sales are down by 4.2 per cent. The biggest sellers in the UK are mid size trucks like the Nissan Navara, the Mitsubishi L200 and the Isuzu D-Max. These are often seen as a lifestyle statement associated with surfing or other extreme sports.<br /><br /><br /><br />Military use<br />Pickup trucks have been used as troop carriers in many parts of the world, especially in countries with few civilian roads or areas of very rough terrain. Pickup trucks have also been used as fighting vehicles, often equipped with a machine-gun mounted in the bed. These are known as technicals.<br /><br /><br /><br />Other uses<br />Whilst pickups are commonly used by tradespeople all over the world, they are popular as personal transport in Australia, the United States, and Canada, where they share some of the image of the SUV and are commonly criticised on similar grounds.ricky kurniadihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11453774853927972848noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-565018554135012293.post-3172997698083899562008-08-05T07:34:00.000-07:002008-08-05T07:35:35.892-07:00MowerA mower is a machine for cutting crops or plants that grow on the ground. A smaller mower used for lawns and sports grounds (playing fields) is called a lawn mower or grounds mower, which is often self-powered, or may also be small enough to be pushed by the operator. Grounds mowers have rotary or reel cutters. Larger mowers are used to cut hay or other crops and place the cut material into rows, which are referred to as windrows. Often, such mowers are called windrowers or mower-conditioners. Swathers are also used to cut hay and grain crops.<br /><br />Larger mowers are usually ganged (equipped with a number or gang of similar cutting units), so they can adapt individually to ground contours. They may be powered and drawn by a tractor or draft animals. The cutting units can be mounted underneath the tractor between the front and rear wheels, mounted on the back with a three-point hitch or pulled behind the tractor as a trailer. There are also dedicated self propelled cutting machines, which often have the mower units mounted at the front and sides for easy visibility by the driver.<br /><br />Prior to the invention and adoption of mechanized movers, (and today in places where use of a mower is impractical or uneconomical), hay and grain was cut by hand using scythe or sickle.<br /><br />Boom or side-arm mowers are mounted on long hydraulic arms, similar to a backhoe arm, which allows the tractor to mow steep banks or around objects while remaining on a safer surface.<br /><br />The cutting mechanism in a mower may be one of several different designs—<br /><br />Sickle mowers, also called reciprocating mowers, bar mowers, or finger-bar mowers, have a long (typically six to seven and a half feet) bar on which is mounted fingers with stationary guardplates. In a channel on the bar there is a reciprocating sickle with very sharp sickle sections (triangular blades). The sickle bar is driven back and forth along the channel. The grass, or other plant matter, is cut between the sharp edges of the sickle sections and the finger-plates (this action can be likened to an electric hair clipper). The bar rides on the ground, supported on a skid at the inner end, and it can be tilted to adjust the height of the cut. A springloaded board at the outer end of the bar guides the cut hay away from the uncut hay. The so-formed channel, between cut and uncut material, allows the mower skid to ride in the channel and cut only uncut grass cleanly on the next swath. These were the first successful horse-drawn mowers on farms and the general principles still guide the design of modern mowers. <br /><br />Rotary mowers, also called drum mowers, have a rapidly rotating bar, or disks mounted on a bar, with sharpened edges that cut the crop. When these mowers are tractor-mounted they are easily capable of mowing grass at up to 20 miles per hour (32 km/h) in good conditions. Some models are designed to be mounted in double and triple sets on a tractor, one in the front and one at each side, thus able to cut up to 20 foot (6 metre) swaths. In rough cutting conditions the blades attached to the disks are swivelled to absorb blows from obstructions. Mostly these are rear-mounted units and in some countries are called scrub cutters. Self-powered mowers of this type are used for rougher grass in gardening and other land maintenance. <br />Reel mowers, also called cylinder mowers (familiar as the hand-pushed or self-powered cylinder lawn mower), have a horizontally rotating cylindrical reel composed of helical blades, each of which in turn runs past a horizontal cutter-bar, producing a continuous scissor action. The bar is held at an adjustable level just above the ground and the reel runs at a speed dependent on the forward movement speed of the machine, driven by wheels running on the ground (or in self-powered applications by a motor). The cut grass may be gathered in a collection bin. This type of mower is used to produce consistently short and even grass on bowling greens, lawns, parks and sports grounds. When pulled by a tractor (or formerly by a horse), these mowers are often ganged into sets of three, five or more, to form a gang mower. A well-designed reel mower can cut quite tangled and thick tall grass, but this type works best on fairly short, upright vegetation, as taller vegetation tends to be rolled flat rather than cut. <br />Flail mowers have a number of small blades on the end of chains attached to a horizontal axis. The cutting is carried out by the ax-like heads striking the grass at speed. These types are used on rough ground, where the blades may frequently be fouled by other objects, or on tougher vegetation than grass, such as brush (scrub). Due to the length of the chains and the higher weight of the blades, they are better at cutting thick brush than other mowers, because of the relatively high inertia of the blades. In some types the cut material may be gathered in a collection bin. As a boom mower (see above), a flail mower may be used in an upright position for trimming the sides of hedges, when it is often called a hedge-cutter.ricky kurniadihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11453774853927972848noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-565018554135012293.post-15484747960039489432008-08-05T07:28:00.000-07:002008-08-05T07:34:17.284-07:00TractorA tractor is a vehicle specifically designed to deliver a high tractive effort at slow speeds, for the purposes of hauling a trailer or machinery used in agriculture or construction. Most commonly, the term is used to describe the distinctive farm vehicle: agricultural implements may be towed behind or mounted on the tractor, and the tractor may also provide a source of power if the implement is mechanised. Another common use of the term is for the power unit of a semi-trailer truck.<br /><br />The word tractor was taken from Latin, being the agent noun of trahere "to pull". [1],[2]. The first recorded use of the word meaning "an engine or vehicle for pulling wagons or ploughs" occurred in 1901, from the earlier term traction engine (1859).[3]<br /><br />The first tractors were steam-powered ploughing engines. They were used in pairs either side of a field to haul a plough back and forth between them using a wire cable.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />National variations<br />In Britain, Ireland, Australia, India, Spain, and Poland the word "tractor" usually means "farm tractor", and the use of the word "tractor" to mean other types of vehicles is familiar to the vehicle trade but unfamiliar to much of the general public. In Canada and the US the word is also used to refer to a road tractor.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />History<br />The first powered farm implements in the early 1800s were portable engines – steam engines on wheels that could be used to drive mechanical farm machinery by way of a flexible belt. Around 1850, the first traction engines were developed from these, and were widely adopted for agricultural use. Where soil conditions permitted, like the US, steam tractors were used to direct-haul ploughs, but in the UK and elsewhere, ploughing engines were used for cable-hauled ploughing instead. Steam-powered agricultural engines remained in use well into the 20th century, until reliable internal combustion engines had been developed.[4]<br /><br />In 1892, John Froelich built the first practical gasoline-powered tractor in Clayton County, Iowa. Only two were sold, and it was not until 1911, when the Twin City Traction Engine Company developed the design, that it became successful.<br /><br />In Britain, the first recorded tractor sale was the oil-burning Hornsby-Ackroyd Patent Safety Oil Traction engine, in 1897. However, the first commercially successful design was Dan Albone's three-wheel Ivel tractor of 1902. In 1908, the Saunderson Tractor and Implement Co. of Bedford introduced a four-wheel design, and went on to become the largest tractor manufacturer outside the USA at that time.<br />While unpopular at first, these gasoline-powered machines began to catch on in the 1910s when they became smaller and more affordable. Henry Ford introduced the Fordson, the first mass-produced tractor in 1917. They were built in the U.S., Ireland, England and Russia and by 1923, Fordson had 77% of the U.S. market. The Fordson dispensed with a frame, using the strength of the engine block to hold the machine together. By the 1920s, tractors with a gasoline-powered internal combustion engine had become the norm.<br /><br />The classic farm tractor is a simple open vehicle, with two very large driving wheels on an axle below and slightly behind a single seat (the seat and steering wheel consequently are in the center), and the engine in front of the driver, with two steerable wheels below the engine compartment. This basic design has remained unchanged for a number of years, but enclosed cabs are fitted on almost all modern models, for reasons of operator safety and comfort.<br /><br />Originally, plows and other equipment were connected via a draw-bar, or a proprietary connecting system; prior to Harry Ferguson patenting the three-point hitch. Recently, Bobcat's patent on its front loader connection has expired; and compact tractors are now being outfitted with quick-connect attachments for their front-end loaders.<br /><br />There are also lawn tractors. Cub Cadet, Husqvarna, John Deere, Massey Ferguson and Toro are some of the better-known brands.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Operation<br />Modern farm tractors usually have five foot-pedals for the operator on the floor of the tractor. The pedal on the left is the clutch. The operator presses on this pedal to disengage the transmission for either shifting gears or stopping the tractor. Two of the pedals on the right are the brakes. The left brake pedal stops the left rear wheel and the right brake pedal does the same with the right side. This independent left and right wheel braking augments the steering of the tractor when only the two rear wheels are driven. This is usually done when it is necessary to make a tight turn. The split brake pedal is also used in mud or soft dirt to control a tire that spins due to loss of traction. The operator presses both pedals together to stop the tractor. For tractors with additional front-wheel drive, this operation often engages the 4-wheel locking differential to help stop the tractor when travelling at road speeds.<br /><br />A fifth pedal just in front of the seat operates the rear differential lock (diff lock) which prevents wheelslip. The differential allows the outside wheel to travel faster than the inside one during a turn. However, in traction conditions on a soft surface the same mechanism could allow one wheel to slip, thus preventing traction to the other wheel. The diff lock overrides this, causing both wheels to supply equal traction. Care must be taken to unlock the differential, usually by hitting the pedal a second time, before turning, since the tractor cannot perform a turn with the diff lock engaged.<br /><br />The pedal furthest to the right is the foot throttle. Unlike in automobiles, it can also be controlled from a hand-operated lever ("hand throttle"). This helps provide a constant speed in field work. It also helps provide continuous power for stationary tractors that are operating an implement by shaft or belt. The foot throttle gives the operator more automobile-like control over the speed of the tractor for road work. This is a feature of more recent tractors; older tractors often did not have this feature. In the UK it is mandatory to use the foot pedal to control engine speed while travelling on the road. Some tractors, especially those designed for row-crop work, have a 'de-accelerator' pedal, which operates in the reverse fashion to an automobile throttle, in that the pedal is pushed down to slow the engine. This is to allow fine control over the speed of the tractor when manoeuvring at the end of crop rows in fields- the operating speed of the engine is set using the hand throttle, and if the operator wishes to slow the tractor to turn, he simply has to press the pedal, turn and release it once the turn is completed, rather than having to alter the setting of the hand throttle twice during the maneuver.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Power and transmission<br />Modern farm tractors employ large diesel engines, which range in power output from 18 to 575 horsepower (15 to 480 kW). Tractors can be generally classified as two-wheel drive, two-wheel drive with front wheel assist, four-wheel drive (often with articulated steering), or track tractors (with either two or four powered rubber tracks). Variations of the classic style include the diminutive lawn tractors and their more capable and ruggedly constructed cousins, garden tractors, that range from about 10 to 25 horsepower (7.5-18.6 kW) and are used for smaller farm tasks and mowing grass and landscaping. Their size—especially with modern tractors—and the slower speeds are reasons motorists are urged to use caution when encountering a tractor on the roads.<br />Most tractors have a means to transfer power to another machine such as a baler, slasher or mower. Early tractors used belts wrapped around a flywheel to power stationary equipment. Modern tractors use a power take-off (PTO) shaft to provide rotary power to machinery that may be stationary or pulled. Almost all modern tractors can also provide external hydraulic fluid and electrical power.<br /><br />Most farm tractors use a manual transmission. They have several sets of gear ratios divided into speeds. In order to change the ratio, it is usually necessary to stop the tractor. Between them they provide a range of speeds from less than one mile per hour suitable for working the land, up to about 25 miles per hour (40 km/h) for road use. Furthermore it is usually not necessary to change gear in order to reverse, one simply selects a lever. Older tractors usually require that the operator depress the clutch in order to shift between gears (a limitation of straight-cut gears in the gearbox), but many modern tractors have eliminated this requirement with the introduction of technologies such as power shifting in the 1960s and more modern continuously variable transmissions. This allows the operator more and easier control over working speed than the throttle alone could provide.<br /><br />Slow, controllable speeds are necessary for most operations that are performed with a tractor. They help give the farmer a larger degree of control in certain situations, such as field work. However, when travelling on public roads, the slow operating speeds can cause problems, such as long queues or tailbacks, which can delay or aggravate other road users. To alleviate conditions, some countries (for example the Netherlands) employ a road sign on some roads that means "no farm tractors". Some modern tractors, such as the JCB Fastrac, are now capable of much more tolerable road speeds of around 50 mph (80 km/h).<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Backhoe loader<br /><br />The most common variation of the classic farm tractor is the hoe, also called a hoe-loader. As the name implies, it has a loader assembly on the front and a backhoe on the back. Backhoes attach to a 3 point hitch on farm or industrial tractors. Industrial tractors are often heavier in construction particularly with regards to the use of steel grill for protection from rocks and the use of construction tires. When the backhoe is permanently attached, the machine usually has a seat that can swivel to the rear to face the hoe controls. Removable backhoe attachments almost always have a separate seat on the attachment.<br /><br />Backhoe-loaders are very common and can be used for a wide variety of tasks: construction, small demolitions, light transportation of building materials, powering building equipment, digging holes,loading trucks, breaking asphalt and paving roads. Some buckets have a retractable bottom, enabling them to empty their load more quickly and efficiently. Buckets with retractable bottoms are also often used for grading and scratching off sand. The front assembly may be a removable attachment or permanently mounted. Often the bucket can be replaced with other devices or tools.<br /><br />Their relatively small frame and precise control make backhoe-loaders very useful and common in urban engineering projects such as construction and repairs in areas too small for larger equipment. Their versatility and compact size makes them one of the most popular urban construction vehicles.<br /><br />In the UK, the word "JCB" is sometimes used colloquially as a genericized trademark for any such type of engineering vehicle. The term JCB now appears in the Oxford English Dictionary, although it is still legally a trademark of J. C. Bamford Ltd.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Safety<br />Agriculture in the United States is one of the most hazardous industries, only surpassed by mining and construction. No other farm machine is so identified with the hazards of production agriculture as the tractor.[5] Tractor related injuries account for approximately 32% of the fatalities and 6% of the non-fatal injuries in agriculture. Over 50% is attributed to tractor overturns.[6]<br /><br />The roll over protection structure(ROPS) and seat belt, when worn, are the two most important safety devices to protect operators from death during tractor overturns.[7]<br /><br />Modern tractors have rollover protection systems (ROPS) to prevent an operator from being crushed if the tractor overturns. It is important to remember that the ROPS does not prevent tractor overturns. Rather, it prevents the operator from being crushed during an overturn. This is especially important in open-air tractors, where the ROPS is a steel beam that extends above the operator's seat. For tractors with operator cabs, the ROPS is part of the frame of the cab. A ROPS with enclosed cab further reduces the likelihood of serious injury because the operator is protected by the sides and windows of the cab.<br /><br />ROPS were first required by legislation in Sweden in 1959. Before ROPS were required, some farmers died when their tractors rolled on top of them. Row-crop tractors, before ROPS, were particularly dangerous because of their 'tricycle' design with the two front wheels spaced close together and angled inward toward the ground. Some farmers were killed by rollovers while operating tractors along steep slopes. Others have been killed while attempting to tow or pull an excessive load from above axle height, or when cold weather caused the tires to freeze down, in both cases causing the tractor to pivot around the rear axle.<br /><br />For the ROPS to work as designed, the operator must stay within the protective frame of the ROPS. This means the operator must wear the seat belt. Not wearing the seat belt may defeat the primary purpose of the ROPS.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Applications<br /><br />For farming<br />The most common use of the term is for the vehicles used on farms. The farm tractor is used for pulling or pushing agricultural machinery or trailers, for plowing, tilling, disking, harrowing, planting, and similar tasks. Charles City, Iowa is the birthplace of the farm tractor in the early 1900s by the Hart-Parr Company,[citation needed] Later sold to White Tractor.<br /><br />Farm implements can be attached to the rear of the tractor by either a drawbar or a three-point hitch. The three-point hitch was invented by Harry Ferguson and has been standard since the 1960s. Equipment attached to the three-point hitch can be raised or lowered hydraulically with a control lever. The equipment attached to the three-point hitch is usually completely supported by the tractor. Another way to attach an implement is via a Quick Hitch, which is attached to the three-point hitch. This enables a single person to attach an implement quicker and put the person in less danger when attaching the implement.<br /><br />Some farm-type tractors are found elsewhere than on farms: with large universities' gardening departments, in public parks, or for highway workman use with blowtorch cylinders strapped to its sides and a pneumatic drill air compressor permanently fastened over its power take-off. These are often fitted with grass (turf) tyres which are less damaging to soft surfaces than agricultural tires.<br /><br />Supposedly, I4 [8] (industrial bar tires) are less damaging to lawns and soft surfaces than agricultural tires, but provide similar traction, and have the benefit of being self-cleaning. Often, these can be seen on road construction backhoes.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Precision agriculture<br />Space technology has found its way down to agriculture in the form of GPS devices, and robust on-board computers installed as optional features on farm tractors. These technologies are used in modern, precision farming techniques. The spin-offs from the space race have actually facilitated automation in plowing and the use of autosteer systems drone on tractors that are manned but only steered at the end of a row, the idea being to neither overlap and use more fuel nor leave streaks when performing jobs such as cultivating.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Other types of tractors<br /><br />Engineering tractors<br /><br />The durability and engine power of tractors made them very suitable for engineering tasks. Tractors can be fitted with engineering tools such as dozer blade, bucket, hoe, ripper, and so on. The most common attachments for the front of a tractor are dozer blade or a bucket. When attached with engineering tools the tractor is called an engineering vehicle.<br /><br />A bulldozer is a track-type tractor attached with blade in the front and a rope-winch behind. Bulldozers are very powerful tractors and have excellent ground-hold, as their main tasks are to push or drag things.<br /><br />Bulldozers have been further modified over time to evolve into new machines which are capable of working in ways that the original bulldozer can not. One example is that loader tractors were created by removing the blade and substituting a large volume bucket and hydraulic arms which can raise and lower the bucket, thus making it useful for scooping up earth, rock and similar loose material to load it into trucks.<br /><br />A front-loader or loader is a tractor with an engineering tool which consists of two hydraulic powered arms on either side of the front engine compartment and a tilting implement. This is usually a wide open box called a bucket but other common attachments are a pallet fork and a bale grappler.<br /><br />Other modifications to the original bulldozer include making the machine smaller to let it operate in small work areas where movement is limited. There are also tiny wheeled loaders, officially called Skid-steer loaders but nicknamed "Bobcat" after the original manufacturer, which are particularly suited for small excavation projects in confined areas.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Compact Utility Tractor<br /><br />A Compact Utility Tractor, also called a CUT is a smaller version of an agricultural tractor but designed primarily for landscaping and estate management type tasks rather than for planting and harvesting on a commercial scale. Typical CUTs range in from 20 to 50 horsepower (15-37 kW) with available power take off (PTO) horsepower ranging from 15 to 45 hp (11-34 kW). CUTs are often equipped with both a mid-mounted PTO and a standard rear PTO, especially those below 40 horsepower (30 kW). The mid-mount PTO shaft typically rotates at/near 2000 rpms and is typically used to power such implements as mid-mount finish mower, a front mounted snow blower or front mounted rotary broom. The rear PTO is standardized at 540 rpms for the North American markets, but in some parts of the world a dual 540/1000 rpm PTO is standard and implements are available for either standard in those markets.<br /><br />One of the most common attachment for a Compact Utility Tractor is the front end loader or FEL. Like the larger agricultural tractors, a CUT will have an adjustable three-point hitch that is hydraulically controlled. Typically a CUT will have four wheel drive, or more correctly 4 wheel assist. Modern Compact Utility Tractors often feature a Hydrostatic transmission, but many variants of gear drive transmissions are also offered from low priced simple gear transmissions to synchronized transmissions to advanced glide-shift transmissions. All modern CUTs feature a government mandated roll over protection structure (ROPS) just like agricultural tractors. The most well known brands in North America include Kubota, John Deere Tractor, New Holland Ag, Case-Farmall and Massey-Ferguson. Although less common, compact backhoes are often attached to compact utility tractors.<br /><br />Compact Utility Tractors require special smaller implements than full size agricultural tractors. Very common implements include the box blade, the grader blade, the landscape rake, the post hole digger (or post hole auger), the rotary cutter (also called a slasher or a brush hog), a mid or rear mount finish mower, broadcast seeder, subsoiler and the rototiller (also rotary tiller). In northern climates, a rear mounted snow blower is very common, on smaller CUTs some models are available with front mounted snow blowers that are powered by a mid-PTO shaft. There are many more implement brands than there are tractor brands offering CUT owners a wide selection of choice.<br /><br />For small scale farming or large scale gardening, there are some planting and harvesting implements sized for CUTs. One and two row planting units are commonly available as are cultivators, sprayers and different types of seeders (slit, rotary and drop).<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Garden Tractors<br />Garden Tractors (also called Mini Tractors) are small, light and simple tractors designed for use in domestic gardens. Garden Tractors are usually designed primarily for cutting grass, being fitted with horizontal rotary cutting decks. The distinction between a garden tractor and a ride-on lawnmower is often hard to make- generally Garden Tractors are more sturdily built, with stronger frames, axles and transmissions. Garden Tractors are generally capable of mounting other implements such as harrows, cultivators/rotavators, sweepers, rollers and dozer-blades. Like ride-on mowers, Garden Tractors generally have a horizontally-mounted engine with a belt-drive to a transaxle-type transmission (usually of 4- or 5-speeds, although some my also have two-speed reduction gearboxes or hydraulic gearboxes). However, Wheel Horse (now part of Toro) garden tractors have vertically-mounted engines with belt-drive, whilst Allen/Gutbrod tractors had an automotive-type clutch and gearbox. The engines are generally 1- or 2-cylinder petrol (gasoline) engine, although diesel engine models are also available, especially in Europe.<br /><br />In the U.S., the term riding lawn mower today refers to mid or rear engined machines. Front-engined tractor layout machines designed primarily for cutting grass and light towing are called lawn tractors, and heavy duty lawn tractors, often shaft driven, are garden tractors. The primary difference between a lawn tractor and a garden tractor are the frame weight, the rear wheels (garden tractors almost always have multiple mounting bolts, while most lawn tractors have a single bolt or clip on the hub.), and the ability to use ground engaging equipment such as plows or disk-harrows. Craftsman, MTD,Snapper and other major mowing equipment manufacturers use these terms.<br /><br />As well as dedicated manufacturers, many makers of agricultural tractors have made (or continue to make) ranges of garden tractors, such as Case, Massey-Ferguson, International Harvester and John Deere.<br /><br /><br /><br />EPA tractor<br /><br />During World War II there was a shortage of tractors in Sweden and this led to the invention of a new type of tractor called the EPA tractor (EPA was a chain of discount stores and it was often used to signify something lacking in quality). An EPA tractor was simply an automobile, truck or lorry, with the passenger space cut off behind the front seats, equipped with two gearboxes in a row. When done to an older car with a ladder frame, the result was not dissimilar to a tractor and could be used as one.<br /><br />After the war it remained popular, now not as a farm vehicle, but as a way for young people without a driver's license to own something similar to a car. Since it was legally seen as a tractor it could be driven from 16 years of age and only required a tractor license. Eventually the legal loophole was closed and no new EPA tractors were allowed to be made, but the remaining were still legal, something that led to inflated prices and many protests from people that preferred EPA tractors to ordinary cars.<br /><br />In March 31, 1975 a similar type of vehicle was introduced, the A tractor [from arbetstraktor (work tractor)]. The main difference is that an A tractor has a top speed of 30 km/h. This is usually done by fitting two gearboxes in a row and not using one of them. Volvo Duett was for a long time the primary choice for conversion to an EPA or A tractor, but, since supplies have dried up, other cars have been used, in most cases a Volvo.<br /><br /><br /><br />The term tractor (US & Canada) or tractor unit (UK) is also applied to:<br /><br />Road tractors, tractor units or traction heads, familiar as the front end of an articulated lorry / semi-trailer truck. They are heavy-duty vehicles with large engines and several axles. <br />The majority of these tractors are designed to pull long semi-trailers, most often to transport freight of some kind over a significant distance, and is connected to the trailer with a fifth wheel coupling. In England this type of "tractor" is often called an "artic cab". <br />A minority is the ballast tractor, whose load is hauled from a drawbar. <br />Locomotive tractors (engines) or Rail car movers <br />The amalgamation of machines, electrical generators, controls and devices that comprise the traction component of railway vehicles <br />Artillery tractors <br />Vehicles used to tow artillery pieces of varying weights. <br />NASA and other space agencies use very large tractors to ferry launch vehicles such as booster rockets and space shuttles from their hangars to (and, in rare cases, from) the launchpad.ricky kurniadihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11453774853927972848noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-565018554135012293.post-15064218498677423112008-08-05T07:25:00.000-07:002008-08-05T07:27:50.917-07:00Combine harvesterThe combine harvester, or simply combine, also known as a thresher is a machine that combines the tasks of harvesting, threshing, and cleaning grain crops. The objective is the harvest of the crop; corn (maize), soybeans, flax (linseed), oats, wheat, or rye among others). The waste straw left behind on the field is the remaining dried stems and leaves of the crop with limited nutrients which is either chopped and spread on the field or baled for feed and bedding for livestock.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />History<br />The first combine was invented by Hiram Moore in 1838. It took many decades for the combine to become popular. Early combines often took more than 16 horses to drive them. Later combines were pulled by steam engines. George Stockton Berry joined the combine into a single machine using straw to heat the boiler. The header was over forty feet long, cutting over one hundred acres per day.Early combines, some of them quite large, were drawn by horse or mule teams and used a bull wheel to provide power. In 1902, a combine could harvest enough grain in one hour to make 10 loaves of bread[citation needed]. Tractor-drawn, PTO-powered combines were used for a time. These combines used a shaker to separate the grain from the chaff and straw-walkers (grates with small teeth on an eccentric shaft) to eject the straw while retaining the grain. Tractor drawn combines evolved to have separate gas or diesel engines to power the grain separation. Newer kinds of combines are self-propelled and use diesel engines for power. A significant advance in the design of combines was the rotary design. Straw and grain were separated by use of a powerful fan. "Axial-Flow" rotary combines were introduced by International Harvester "IH" in 1977. In about the 1980's on-board electronics were introduced to measure threshing efficiency. This new instrumentation allowed operators to get better grain yields by optimizing ground speed and other operating parameters.<br /><br /><br /><br />Combine Heads<br />Combines are equipped with removable heads (called headers) that are designed for particular crops. The standard header, sometimes called a grain platform (or platform header), is equipped with a reciprocating knife cutter bar, and features a revolving reel with metal or plastic teeth to cause the cut crop to fall into the head. A cross auger then pulls the crop into the throat. The grain header is used for many crops including grains and legumes.<br /><br />Wheat headers are similar except that the reel is not equipped with teeth. Some wheat headers, called "draper" headers, use a fabric or rubber apron instead of a cross auger. Draper headers allow faster feeding than cross augers, leading to higher throughputs. In high yielding European crops, such headers have no advantage, as the limiting factor becomes grain separation. On many farms, platform headers are used to cut wheat, instead of separate wheat headers, so as to reduce overall costs.<br /><br />Dummy heads or pick-up headers feature spring-tined pickups, usually attached to a heavy rubber belt. They are used for crops that have already been cut and placed in windrows or swaths. This is particularly useful in northern climates such as western Canada where swathing kills weeds resulting in a faster dry down.<br /><br />While a grain platform can be used for corn, a specialized corn head is ordinarily used instead. The corn head is equipped with snap rolls that strip the stalk and leaf away from the ear, so that only the ear (and husk) enter the throat. This improves efficiency dramatically since so much less material must go through the cylinder. The corn head can be recognized by the presence of points between each row.<br /><br />Occasionally rowcrop heads are seen that function like a grain platform, but have points between rows like a corn head. These are used to reduce the amount of weed seed picked up when harvesting small grains.<br /><br />Self propelled Gleaner combines could be fitted with special tracks instead of tires or tires with tread measuring almost 10in deep to assist in harvesting rice. Some combines, particularly pull type, have tires with a diamond tread which prevents sinking in mud.These tracks can fit other combines by having adapter plates made, they will fit a JD6620 2WD only having to remove one shield.<br /><br /><br /><br />Conventional combine<br />The cut crop is carried up the feeder throat by a chain and flight elevator, then fed into the threshing mechanism of the combine, consisting of a rotating threshing drum, to which grooved steel bars are bolted. These bars thresh or separate the grains and chaff from the straw through the action of the drum against the concave, a shaped "half drum", also fitted with steel bars and a meshed grill, through which grain, chaff and smaller debris may fall, whereas the straw, being too long, is carried through onto the straw walkers. The drum speed is variably adjustable, whilst the distance between the drum and concave is finely adjustable fore, aft and together, to achieve optimum separation and output. Manually engaged disawning plates are usually fitted to the concave. These provide extra friction to remove the awns from barley crops.<br /><br /><br /><br />Sidehill levelling<br />An interesting technology is in use in the Palouse region of the Pacific Northwest of the United States in which the combine is retrofitted with a hydraulic sidehill levelling system. This allows the combine to harvest the incredibly steep but fertile soil in the region. Hillsides can be as steep as a 50% slope. Gleaner, IH and Case IH, John Deere, and others all have made combines with this sidehill levelling system, and local machine shops have fabricated them as an aftermarket add-on. Linked pictures below show the technology.<br /><br />The first levelling technology was developed by Holt Co., a California firm, in 1891.[1] Modern levelling came into being with the invention and patent of a level sensitive mercury switch system invented by Raymond Alvah Hanson in 1946.[2] Raymond's son, Raymond, Jr., produced leveling systems exclusively for John Deere combines until 1995 as R. A. Hanson Company, Inc. In 1995, his son, Richard, purchased the company from his father and renamed it RAHCO International, Inc. In April, 2007, the company was renamed The Factory Company International, Inc.[3] Production continues to this day.<br /><br />Sidehill levelling has several advantages. Primary among them is an increased threshing efficiency on sidehills. Without levelling, grain and chaff slide to one side of separator and come through the machine in a large ball rather than being separated, dumping large amounts of grain on the ground. By keeping the machinery level, the straw-walker is able to operate more efficiently, making for more efficient threshing. IH produced the 453 combine which leveled both side-to-side and front-to-back, enabling efficient threshing whether on a sidehill or climbing a hill head on.<br /><br />Secondarily, levelling changes a combine's center of gravity relative to the hill and allows the combine to harvest along the contour of a hill without tipping, a very real danger on the steeper slopes of the region; it is not uncommon for combines to roll on extremely steep hills.<br /><br />Currently sidehill levelling is on the decline with the advent of huge modern machines which are more stable due to their width. These modern combines use the rotary grain separator which makes leveling less critical. Most combines on the Palouse have dual drive wheels on each side to stabilize them.<br /><br />Sidehill levelling system in Europe was developed by Italian combines' manifacturer Laverda that still today produces those systems as a leader.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Maintaining threshing speed<br />Another technology that is sometimes used on combines is a continuously variable transmission. This allows the ground speed of the machine to be varied while maintaining a constant engine and threshing speed. It is desirable to keep the threshing speed since the machine will typically have been adjusted to operate best at a certain speed.<br /><br />Self-propelled combines started with standard manual transmissions that provided one speed based on input rpm. Deficiencies were noted and in the early 1950s combines were equipped with what John Deere called the "Variable Speed Drive". This was simply a variable width sheave controlled by spring and hydraulic pressures. This sheave was attached to the input shaft of the transmission. A standard 4 speed manual transmission was still used in this drive system. The operator would select a gear, typically 3rd. An extra control was provided to the operator to allow him to speed up and slow down the machine within the limits provided by the variable speed drive system. By decreasing the width of the sheave on the input shaft of the transmission, the belt would ride higher in the groove. This slowed the rotating speed on the input shaft of the transmission, thus slowing the ground speed for that gear. A clutch was still provided to allow the operator to stop the machine and change transmission gears.<br />Later, as hydraulic technology improved, hydrostatic transmissions were introduced by Versatile Mfg for use on swathers but later this technology was applied to combines as well. This drive retained the 4 speed manual transmission as before, but this time used a system of hydraulic pumps and motors to drive the input shaft of the transmission. This system is called a Hydrostatic drive system. The engine turns the hydraulic pump capable of high flow rates at up to 4000 psi. This pressure is then directed to the hydraulic motor that is connected to the input shaft of the transmission. The operator is provided with a lever in the cab that allows for the control of the hydraulic motor's ability to use the energy provided by the pump. By adjusting the swash plate in the motor, the stroke of its pistons are changed. If the swash plate is set to neutral, the pistons do not move in their bores and no rotation is allowed, thus the machine does not move. By moving the lever, the swash plate moves its attached pistons forward, thus allowing them to move within the bore and causing the motor to turn. This provides an infinitely variable speed control from 0 ground speed to what ever the maximum speed is allowed by the gear selection of the transmission. The standard clutch was removed from this drive system as it was no longer needed.<br /><br />Most if not all modern combines are equipped with hydrostatic drives. These are larger versions of the same system used in consumer and commercial lawn mowers that most are familiar with today. In fact, it was the downsizing of the combine drive system that placed these drive systems into mowers and other machines.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />The threshing process<br />Despite great advances mechanically and in computer control, the basic operation of the combine harvester has remained unchanged almost since it was invented.<br /><br />First of all the header, described above, cuts the crop and feeds it into the threshing cylinder. This consists of a series of horizontal rasp bars fixed across the path of the crop and in the shape of a quarter cylinder, guiding the crop upwards through a 90 degree turn. Moving rasp bars or rub bars pull the crop through concaved grates that separate the grain and chaff from the straw. The grain heads fall through the fixed concaves onto the sieves. The straw exits the top of the concave onto the straw walkers.<br /><br />Since the New Holland TR70 Twin-Rotor Combine came out in 1975, combines have rotors in place of conventional cylinders. A rotor is a long, longitudily mounted rotating cylinder with plates similar to rub bars.<br /><br />There are usually two sieves, one above the other. Each is a flat metal plate with holes set according to the size of the grain mounted at an angle which shakes. The holes in the top sieve are set larger than the holes in the bottom sieve. While straw is carried to the rear, crop and weed seeds, as well as chaff, fall onto the second sieves, where chaff and crop fall though and are blown out by a fan. The crop is carried to the elevator which carries it into the hopper. Setting the concave clearance, fan speed, and sieve size is critical to ensure that the crop is threshed properly, the grain is clean of debris, and that all of the grain entering the machine reaches the grain tank. ( Observe, for example, that when travelling uphill the fan speed must be reduced to account for the shallower gradient of the sieves.)<br /><br />Heavy material, e.g., unthreshed heads, fall off the front of the sieves and are returned to the concave for re-threshing.<br /><br />The straw walkers are located above the sieves, and also have holes in them. Any grain remaining attached to the straw is shaken off and falls onto the top sieve.<br /><br />When the straw reaches the end of the walkers it falls out the rear of the combine. It can then be baled for cattle bedding or spread by two rotating straw spreaders with rubber arms. Most modern combines are equipped with a straw spreader.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Rotary vs. Conventional Design<br />For a considerable time, combine harvesters used the conventional design, which used a rotating cylinder at the front-end which knocked the seeds out of the heads, and then used the rest of the machine to separate the straw from the chaff, and the chaff from the grain.<br />In the decades before the widespread adoption of the rotary combine in the late seventies, several inventors had pioneered designs which relied more on centrifugal force for grain separation and less on gravity alone. By the early eighties, most major manufacturers had settled on a "walkerless" design with much larger threshing cylinders to do most of the work. Advantages were faster grain harvesting and gentler treatment of fragile seeds, which were often cracked by the faster rotational speeds of conventional combine threshing cylinders.<br /><br />It was the disadvantages of the rotary combine (increased power requirements and over-pulverization of the straw by-product) which prompted a resurgence of conventional combines in the late nineties. Perhaps overlooked but nonetheless true, when the large engines that powered the rotary machines were employed in conventional machines, the two types of machines delivered similar production capacities. Also, research was beginning to show that incorporating above-ground crop residue (straw) into the soil is less useful for rebuilding soil fertility than previously believed. This meant that working pulverized straw into the soil became more of a hindrance than a benefit. An increase in feedlot beef production also created a higher demand for straw as fodder. Conventional combines, which use straw walkers, preserve the quality of straw and allow it to be baled and removed from the field.ricky kurniadihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11453774853927972848noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-565018554135012293.post-1730275711810145562008-08-05T07:21:00.000-07:002008-08-05T07:25:30.522-07:00BalerFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<br /><br />A baler is a piece of farm machinery that is used to compress a cut and raked crop (such as hay or straw) into bales and bind the bales with twine. There are several different types of balers that are commonly used. Balers are also used in the material recycling facilities, primarily for baling plastic, paper or cardboard for transport to a recycling facility.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Round baler<br />The most frequently used type of baler is a round baler. It produces cylindrically shaped "round" or "rolled" bales. The hay is simply rolled up inside the baler using rubberized belts, fixed rollers, or a combination of rollers and belts. When the bale reaches a determined size, the twine or mesh wrap that binds the bale is wrapped around the outside but not knotted. The back of the baler is opened up and the bale is discharged. Straw or fully-dried hay bales are complete at this stage, but if the bale is to be silage, it will also be wrapped in airtight plastic sheeting by another machine. Variable-chamber balers typically produce bales from 48 to 72 inches in diameter (about 120 to 180 cm) and up to 60 inches in width (150 cm). The bales weigh from 1100 lb (500 kg) to 2200 lb (1000 kg), depending upon size, material and dampness.<br /><br />Early round balers were sold by Allis Chalmers as the Roto Baler. These bales were roughly 16 inches (410 mm) in diameter and 48 inches (1,200 mm) wide. The concept was first pioneered by Ummo Luebbens as early as 1910. Introduced in 1947 and discontinued in 1960, Allis Chalmers was a pioneer in supplying machinery that would form cylindrical bales during a period where rectangular bales were most common.<br /><br />The modern round baler was designed in 1972 by the Vermeer Company, which as of 2007 continues to produce them.[1][2]<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Round bale handling and transport<br />Round bales can weigh a ton or more, and are well-suited for modern large scale farming operations such as a dairy with 200 or more cows. However, due to the ability for a round bale to roll away on a slope, they require special transport and moving equipment.<br /><br />The most important tool for round bale handling is the bale spear or spike, which is usually mounted on the back of a tractor or the front of a skid-steer. It is inserted into the approximate center of the round bale, then lifted up and the bale is hauled away. Once at the destination, the round bale is set down, and the spear pulled out. Careful placement of the spear in the center is needed or the round bale can spin around and touch the ground while in transport, causing a loss of control.<br /><br />Alternatively, a grapple fork may be used to lift and transport round bales. The grapple fork is a hydraulically driven implement attached to the end of a tractor's bucket loader. When the hydraulic cylinder is extended the fork clamps downwards towards the bucket, much like a closing hand. To move a round bale the tractor approaches the bale from the side and places the bucket underneath the bale. The fork is then clamped down across the top of the bale, and the bucket lifted with the bale in tow.<br /><br />It is difficult to flip a round bale so that the flat surface is facing down and later flip it back up on edge, so transporting many round bales a long distance is a challenge. Flat-bed transport is difficult since the bales could roll off the truck bed going around curves and up hills. To prevent this, the flat-bed trailer is equipped with rounded guard-rails at either end, which prevent bales from rolling either forward or backward. Another solution for this is the saddle wagon, which has closely-spaced rounded saddles or support posts for round bales to sit in. The tall sides of each saddle, or the bale settling down in between posts, prevent the bales from rolling around while on the wagon.<br /><br />Round bales can be directly used for feeding animals by placing it in a feeding area, tipping it over, removing the bale wrap, and placing a protective ring around the outside so that animals don't walk on hay that has been peeled off the outer perimeter of the bale. The baler's forming and compaction process can assist in unrolling a round bale, as it is often possible to unroll a round bale in a continuous flat strip.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Silage / Haylage large bales<br />A recent innovation in hay storage has been the development of the silage or haylage bale, which is a high-moisture wrapped round bale. These are baled much wetter than normal round bales, and are usually smaller than regular round hay bales because the greater moisture content makes them heavier and harder to handle. These bales begin to ferment almost immediately, and the metal bale spear stabbed into the core becomes very warm to the touch from the fermentation process.<br /><br />They are placed on a special rotating bale spear mounted on a tractor. As the bale spins, a layer of plastic cling film is applied to the exterior of the bale. This roll of plastic is mounted in a sliding shuttle on a steel arm and can move parallel to the bale axis, so that the operator does not need to hold up the heavy roll of plastic themselves. The plastic layer extends over the ends of the bale to form a ring of plastic approximately 12 inches (0.3 meters) wide on the ends with hay exposed in the center.<br /><br />In order to stretch the cling-wrap plastic tightly over the bale, the tension is actively adjusted with a knob on the end of the roll which squeezes the ends of the roll in the shuttle. In this example wrapping video, the operator is attempting to use high tension to get a flat, smooth seal on the right end. However the tension increases too much and the plastic tears off. The operator recovers by quickly loosening the tension and allows the plastic to feed out halfway around the bale before reapplying the tension to the sheeting.<br /><br />These bales are placed in a long continuous row, with each wrapped bale pressed firmly up against all the other bales in the row before being set down onto the ground. The plastic wrap on the ends of each bale sticks together to seal out air and moisture, protecting the hay from the elements. The end-bales are hand-sealed with strips of cling plastic across the hay opening.<br /><br />The airtight seal between each bale permits the row of round bales to ferment as if they were in a silo bag but are easier to handle than a silo bag since the bale can just be picked up and hauled away as a discrete package, as opposed to a large open bag which is full of loose material that must be scooped up, and which is fragile and easily damaged by the silage loader. However, the plastic usage is high and there is no way to reuse or recycle the hay-contaminated plastic sheeting, other than as a fuel source via incineration. The wrapping cost is approximately US$5 per bale.<br /><br />An alternative form of the same type of bale is placed on a pair of rollers on a turntable mounted on the three-point linkage of a tractor, and spun about two axes while being wrapped in several layers of cling-wrap plastic film. This covers both the ends and sides of the bale in one operation, and which is thus sealed separately from other bales. The bales are then moved or stacked using a special pincer attachment on the front loader of a tractor which does not damage the film seal. They can also be moved using a standard bale spike, but this punctures the airtight seal. The hole in the film is repaired after moving.<br /><br />For either type of wrapping, the bale must be unwrapped before being fed to livestock to prevent accidental ingestion of the plastic, and are usually fed to the animals using a ring feeder.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Large rectangular baler<br />Another type of baler in common use produces large rectangular bales, each bound with a half dozen or so strings of twine which are then knotted. Such bales are highly compacted and generally weigh somewhat more than round bales.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Rectangular bale handling and transport<br />Rectangular bales are easier to transport than round bales since there is little risk of the bale rolling off the back of a flatbed trailer. The rectangular shape also saves space and allows a complete solid slab of hay to be stacked up for transport and storage.<br /><br />They are well-suited for large scale livestock feedlot operations where many tons of feed are rationed every hour.<br /><br />Due to the huge rectangular shape, large spear forks, or squeeze grips are mounted to heavy lifting machinery, such as: large fork lifts, tractors equipped with front end loaders, telehandlers, hay squeezes or wheel loaders to lift these bales.<br /><br /><br /><br />Small square baler<br />A type of baler which is less common today in some places but which is still prevalent in many countries such as New Zealand and Australia to the exclusion of large bales produces small rectangular (often called "square") bales. Each bale is about 15 in x 18 in x 38 in (38 x 46 x 96 cm). The bales are wrapped with two, three, or sometimes four strands of twine and knotted. The bales are light enough for one person to handle, about 45 lb (20 kg) to 60 lb (25 kg).<br /><br />To form the bale, the hay in the windrow is lifted by tines in the baler's pickup. The hay is then dragged or augered into a chamber that runs the length of one side of the baler. A combination plunger and knife moves back and forth in the front end of this chamber. The knife, positioned just ahead of the plunger, cuts off the hay at the spot where it enters the chamber from the pickup. The plunger rams the hay rearwards, compressing it into the bales. A measuring device measures the amount of hay that is being compressed and, at the appropriate length it triggers the mechanism (the knotter) that wraps the twine around the bale and ties it off. As the next bale is formed the tied one is driven out of the rear of the baling chamber onto the ground or onto a special wagon hooked to the end of the baler. This process continues as long as there is material to be baled.<br /><br />This form of bale is no longer much used in large-scale commercial agriculture because of the costs involved in handling many small bales. However, it enjoys some popularity in small-scale, low-mechanization agriculture and horse-keeping. Besides using simpler machinery and being easy to handle, these small bales can also be used for insulation and building materials in straw-bale construction. Square bales will also generally weather better than round bales because a more much dense stack can be put up. Convenience is also a major factor in farmers deciding to continue putting up square bales, as they make feeding in confined areas (stables, barns, etc.) much easier.<br /><br />Many of these older balers are still to be found on farms today, particularly in dry areas where bales can be left outside for long periods.<br /><br />The automatic-baler for small square bales took on most of its present form in 1940. It was first manufactured by the New Holland Ag and it used a small petrol engine to provide operating power. It is based on a 1937 invention for a twine-tie baler with automatic pickup.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Wire balers<br />Bales prior to 1937 were manually wire-tied with two baling wires. Even earlier, the baler was a stationary implement, driven by power take-off (PTO) and belt, with the hay being brought to the baler and fed in by hand. The biggest change to this type of baler since 1940 is being powered by the tractor through its PTO, instead of by a built-in internal combustion engine.<br /><br />In present day production, small square balers can be ordered with twine knotters or wire tie knotters.<br /><br /><br /><br />Square/wire bale history<br /><br />Pickup and handling methods<br />In the 1940s most farmers would bale hay in the field with a small tractor with 20 or less horsepower, and the tied bales would be dropped onto the ground as the baler moved through the field. Another team of workers with horses and a flatbed wagon with would come by and use a sharp metal hook to grab the bale and throw it up onto the wagon while an assistant stacks the bale, for transport to the barn.<br /><br />A later time-saving innovation was to tow the flatbed wagon directly behind the baler, and the bale would be pushed up a ramp to a waiting attendant on the wagon. The attendant hooks the bale off the ramp and stacks it on the wagon, while waiting for the next bale to be produced.<br /><br />Eventually as tractor horsepower increased, the thrower-baler became possible, which eliminates the need for someone to stand on the wagon and pick up the finished bales. The first thrower mechanism used two fast-moving friction belts to grab finished bales and throws them at an angle up in the air onto the bale wagon. The bale wagon was modified from a flatbed into a 3-sided skeleton frame open at the front, to act as a catcher's net for the thrown bales.<br /><br />The next innovation of the thrower-baler as tractor horsepower further increased was the hydraulic tossing baler. This employs a flat pan behind the bale knotter. As bales advance out the back of the baler, they are pushed onto the pan one at a time. When the bale has moved fully onto the pan, the pan suddenly pops up, pushed by a large hydraulic cylinder, and tosses the bale up into the wagon like a catapult.<br /><br />The pan-thrower method puts much less stress on the bales compared to the belt-thrower. The friction belts of the belt-thrower stress the twine and knots as they grip the bale, and would occasionally cause bales to break apart in the thrower or when the bales landed in the wagon.<br /><br />New Holland has invented a machine named the "Stackcruiser", or a stacker. Small "square" bales are dropped by the baler with the strings facing outward, the stacker will drive up to the bales and it will pick it up and set it on a three-bale-wide table (the strings are now facing upwards). once three bales are on the table, the table lifts up and back causing the three bales to face strings to the side again, this happens 3 more times until there are 16 bales on the main table. this table will lift like the smaller one and the bales will be up against a vertical table. The machine will hold 160 bales (ten tiers), usually there will be cross-tiers near the center to keep the stack from swaying or colasping if any weight is applied to the top of the stack. The full load will be transported to a barn, the whole rear of the stacker will tilt upwards until it is vertical. there will be two pushers that will extend through the machine and hold the bottom of the stack from being pulled out from the stacker while it is driven out of the barn<br /><br />In Britain (if small square bales are still to be used) they are usually collected as they fall out of the baler in a bale sledge dragged behind the baler. This has various channels, controlled by automatic balances, catches and springs, which sort each bale into its place in a square eight. When the sledge is full, a catch is tripped automatically, and a door at the rear opens to leave the eight lying neatly together on the ground. These may be picked up individually and loaded by hand, or they may be picked up all eight together by a bale grab on a tractor, a special front loader consisting of many hydraulically-powered downward-pointing curved spikes. The square eight will then be stacked, either on a trailer for transport, or in a roughly cubic field stack eight or ten layers high. This cube may then be transported by a large machine attached to the three-point hitch behind a tractor, which clamps the sides of the cube and lifts it bodily.<br /><br />A simple method of handling large and small round bales can be seen in the article Hay Delivery. This is a simple do-it-yourself modification to the tractor bucket. Two hooks are welded to the outside top of a tractor front loader bucket and a 14-foot (4.3 m) logging chain which allows the user to stay on the tractor, grab bales, transport them, stack them and place them out for animals to eat. The advantage of this simple system is that it uses no fancy expensive equipment which must be swapped back and forth on the tractor. This allows a small farmer to avoid the costs of extra equipment and not have a separate tractor just for that one function. With a little practice one can be as quick as the specialized hydraulic bale grabs. This method developed by Walter Jeffries of Sugar Mountain Farm also has less maintenance involved and is safer than bale spears and clamps.<br /><br /><br /><br />Storage methods<br />Before electrification occurred in rural parts of the United States in the 1940s, some small dairy farms would have tractors but not electric power. Often just one neighbor who could afford a tractor would do all the baling for surrounding farmers still using horses.<br /><br />To get the bales up into the hayloft, a pulley system ran on a track along the peak of the barn's hayloft. This track also stuck a few feet out the end of the loft, with a large access door under the track. On the bottom of the pulley system was a bale spear, which is pointed on the end and has retractable retention spikes.<br /><br />A flatbed wagon would pull up next to the barn underneath the end of the track, the spear lowered down to the wagon, and speared into a single bale. The pulley rope would be used to manually lift the bale high up into the air until it could enter the mow through the door, then moved along the track into the barn and finally released for manual stacking in tight rows across the floor of the loft. As the stack filled the loft, the bales would be lifted higher and higher with the pulleys until the hay was stacked all the way up to the peak.<br /><br />When electricity finally arrived, the bale spear, pulley and track system disappeared, replaced by long motorized bale conveyors known as hay elevators. A typical elevator is an open skeletal frame, with a chain that has dull 3-inch (76 mm) spikes every few feet along the chain to grab bales and drag them along. One elevator replaced the spear track and ran the entire length of the peak of the barn. A second elevator was either installed at a 30-degree slope on the side of the barn to lift bales up to the peak elevator, or used dual front-back chains surrounding the bale to lift bales straight up the side of the barn to the peak elevator.<br /><br />A bale wagon pulls up next to the lifting elevator, and a farm worker places bales one at a time onto the angled track. Once bales arrive at the peak elevator, there are adjustable tipping gates along the length of the peak elevator. By pulling a cable from the floor of the hayloft, tipping gates can be opened and closed, so that bales will tip off the elevator and drop down to the floor in different areas of the loft. This permits a single elevator to transport hay to one part of a loft and straw to another part.<br /><br />This complete hay elevator lifting, transport, and dropping system reduced bale storage down to a single person, who simply pulls up with a wagon, turns on the elevators and starts placing bales on it, occasionally checking to make sure that bales are falling in the right locations in the loft.<br /><br />The neat stacking of bales in the loft is often sacrificed for the speed of just letting them fall and roll down the growing pile in the loft, and changing the elevator gates to fill in open areas around the loose pile. But if desired, the loose bale pile dropped by the elevator could be rearranged into orderly rows between wagon loads.<br /><br /><br /><br />Usage once in the barn<br />The process of retrieving bales from a hayloft has stayed relatively unchanged from the beginning of baling. Typically workers were sent up into the loft, to climb up onto the bale stack, pull bales off the stack, and throw or roll them down the stack to the open floor of the loft. Once the bale is down on the floor, workers climb down the stack, open a cover over a bale chute in the floor of the loft, and push the bales down the chute to the livestock area of the barn.<br /><br />Most barns were equipped with several chutes along the sides and in the center of the loft floor. This permitted bales to be dropped into the area where they were to be used. Hay bales would be dropped through side chutes, to be broken up and fed to the cattle. Straw bales would be dropped down the center chute, to be distributed as bedding in the livestock standing/resting areas.<br /><br />Traditionally multiple bales were dropped down to the livestock floor and the twine removed by hand. After drying and being stored under tons of pressure in the haystack, most bales are tightly compacted and need to be torn apart and fluffed up for use.<br /><br />One recent method of speeding up all this manual bale handling is the bale shredder, which is a large vertical drum with rotary cutting/ripping teeth at the base of the drum. The shredder is placed under the chute and several bales dropped in. A worker then pushes the shredder along the barn aisle as it rips up a bale and spews it out in a continuous fluffy stream of material.<br /><br /><br /><br />Industrial balers<br />Industrial balers are typically used to compact similar types of waste, such as office paper, cardboard, plastic, foil and cans, for sale to recycling companies. These balers are made of steel with a hydraulic ram to compress the material loaded. Some balers are simple and labor-intensive, but are suitable for smaller volumes. Other balers are very complex and automated, and are used where large quantities of waste are handled.ricky kurniadihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11453774853927972848noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-565018554135012293.post-37624529624083198872008-08-05T07:20:00.001-07:002008-08-05T07:20:56.235-07:00Farm equipmentBaler <br />Combine harvester <br />Farm tractor <br />Mower <br />Pickup truck <br />Ploughricky kurniadihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11453774853927972848noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-565018554135012293.post-87331575320219205162008-08-05T07:19:00.000-07:002008-08-05T07:20:13.043-07:00Farm buildingsFarms require buildings to facilitate the action of farming the material at hand. Such buildings can include a farm house (for the farmers), a grain silo (for storing grain), and a barn (for the storing of certain animals.)ricky kurniadihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11453774853927972848noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-565018554135012293.post-23127636904582815682008-08-05T07:18:00.000-07:002008-08-05T07:19:46.746-07:00Farms around the worldBritish Isles and Europe<br /><br />In the UK, farm as an agricultural unit, always denotes the area of pasture and other fields together with its farmhouse and farmyard, barns, cowsheds, stables, etc. In England there is a vague point when a large farm ceases to be referred to as a farm and becomes an estate; although this term can refer to a collection of farms in the same ownership.<br /><br /><br />North America<br /><br />The land and buildings of a farm are called the "farmstead." Enterprises where livestock are raised on rangeland are called ranches. Where livestock are raised in confinement on feed produced elsewhere, the term feedlot is usually used<br /><br />In 1910 there were 6,406,000 farms and 10,174,000 family workers; In 2000 there were only 2,172,000 farms and 2,062,300 family workers. [3]<br />The land and buildings of a farm are called the "farmstead." Enterprises where livestock are raised on rangeland are called ranches. Where livestock are raised in confinement on feed produced elsewhere, the term feedlot is usually used<br /><br />In 1910 there were 6,406,000 farms and 10,174,000 family workers; In 2000 there were only 2,172,000 farms and 2,062,300 family workers. [3]<br />In the United States, eighty-one percent of all farmworkers are migrant workers, and seventy-one percent are foreign-born. Eighty percent of farmworkers are men, with the average age being 31. Additionally, farmworkers earn less than $75,000 per year, making an average hourly rate of less than $27.00. On average, farmworker families earn $10,000 per year, which is significantly below the 2005 U.S. poverty level of $19,874 for a family of four.[4]<br /><br />In 2007, corn acres are expected to increase by 15% because of the high demand for ethanol, both in and outside of the U.S. Producers are expecting to plant 90.5 million acres (366,000 km²) of corn, making it the largest corn crop since 1944.[5]<br /><br /><br /><br />Australia<br />Farming is a significant economic sector in Australia. A farm is an area of land used for primary production which will include buildings.<br /><br />Where most of the income is from some other employment, and the farm is really an expanded residence, the term hobby farm is common. This will allow sufficient size for recreational use but be very unlikely to produce sufficient income to be self-sustaining. Hobby farms are commonly around 5 acres (20,000 m²) but may be much larger depending upon land prices (which vary regionally).<br /><br />Often very small farms used for intensive primary production are referred to by the specialization they are being used for, such as a dairy rather than a dairy farm, a piggery, a market garden, etc. This also applies to feedlots, which are specifically developed to a single purpose and are often not able to be used for more general purpose (mixed) farming practices.<br /><br />In remote areas farms can become quite large. As with estates in England, there is no defined size or method of operation at which a large farm becomes a station.<br /><br />Regardless of size, the term station is only used for farms where the main activity is grazing. Some cotton farms in north-western New South Wales or south-western Queensland have been formed by combining previous sheep stations once sufficient water has become available to allow cotton to be grown .ricky kurniadihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11453774853927972848noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-565018554135012293.post-59055874789910235222008-08-05T07:16:00.000-07:002008-08-05T07:17:51.263-07:00OwnershipOwnership<br />Farm control and ownership has traditionally been a key indicator of status and power, especially in agrarian societies.[citation needed] The distribution of farm ownership has historically been closely linked to form of government. Medieval feudalism was essentially a system that centralized control of farmland, control of farm labor and political power, while the early American democracy, in which land ownership was a prerequisite for voting rights, was built on relatively easy paths to individual farm ownership. However, the gradual modernization and mechanization of farming, which greatly increases both the efficiency and capital requirements of farming, has led to increasingly large farms owned by individuals or corporations. This has usually been accompanied by the decoupling of political power from farm ownership.<br /><br /><br /><br />Forms of ownership<br />In some societies (especially socialist and communist), collective farming is the norm, with either government ownership of the land or common ownership by a local group. Especially in societies without widespread industrialized farming, tenant farming and sharecropping are common; farmers either pay landowners for the right to use farmland or give up a portion of the crops.ricky kurniadihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11453774853927972848noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-565018554135012293.post-50822473571886370792008-08-05T07:15:00.000-07:002008-08-05T07:16:48.061-07:00Specialized farmsDairy farms<br /><br />Dairy farming is a class of agriculture, where female cattle, goats, or other mammals are raised for their milk, which may be either processed on-site or transported to a dairy for processing and eventual retail sale.<br /><br />In most Western countries, a centralized dairy facility processes milk and dairy products, such as cream, butter, and cheese. In the United States, these dairies are usually local companies, while in the southern hemisphere facilities may be run by very large nationwide or trans-national corporations (such as Fonterra).<br /><br />Dairy farms generally sell the male calves borne by their mothers for veal meat, as dairy breeds are not normally satisfactory for commercial beef production. Many dairy farms also grow their own feed, typically including corn, alfalfa, and hay. This is fed directly to the cows, or stored as silage for use during the winter season. Additional dietary supplements are added to the feed to improve milk production.<br /><br /><br /><br />Poultry farms<br />Poultry farms are devoted to raising chickens, turkeys, ducks, and other fowl, generally for meat or eggs.ricky kurniadihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11453774853927972848noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-565018554135012293.post-86010306254185169022008-08-05T07:14:00.000-07:002008-08-05T07:15:21.073-07:00Swaledale (sheep)From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<br /><br />Swaledale is a breed of domestic sheep named after the Yorkshire valley of Swaledale. They are found all over the more mountainous areas of Great Britain, but particularly in County Durham, Yorkshire and the lower fells of Cumbria. [1]<br /><br />Swaledales are noted for their off-white wool, and curled horns. They are used for production of mutton and are related to Blackface and Rough Fell, two other local sheep. Together with the Rough Fell and Herdwick sheep, they are one of the three variations associated with the English Lake District.Swaledale sheep are also often used for Hill Sheep farming.ricky kurniadihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11453774853927972848noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-565018554135012293.post-15845904163104285482008-08-05T07:13:00.000-07:002008-08-05T07:14:25.012-07:00Herdwick (sheep)Herdwick (sheep)<br />From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<br /><br />The Herdwick is a traditional breed of domestic sheep native to the mountainous Lake District of Cumbria in North West England. The name "Herdwick" is derived from the Old Norse herdvyck, meaning sheep pasture.[1] Though low in lambing capacity and wool quality when compared to more common commercial breeds such as Merino sheep, Herdwicks are prized for their robust health, their ability to live solely on forage, and their tendency not to stray over the difficult upland terrain of the Lake District. An integral part of the cultural identity of the Lake District, the breed is for the most part found in the central and western dales of the region.<br /><br />Severely threatened by the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in England and Wales, the breed has survived due to the intent to preserve this unique animal as a crucial part of traditional Lakeland agriculture. Still far less in number than most commercial breeds, Herdwicks survive largely due to farming subsidies and the aid of the British National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />History<br />The root word of the breed's name, herdvyck, "sheep pasture", is recorded in documents dating back to the 12th century.[2] The origin of the breed itself is unknown, but the most common theory is that the ancestors of Herdwick sheep were introduced by early Norse settlers.[1] According to this, it was brought to the region somewhere between the 10th and 11th centuries during the Viking invasions of western England.[1] Alternatively, a piece of local folklore once suggested that it came from a wrecked Spanish Armada ship.[3][4]<br /><br />For centuries, the husbandry of Herdwick sheep has been a large factor in shaping the culture and terrain of the Lake District. Topographically, grazing by sheep continues to keep the hillsides of fells largely treeless, and the ubiquitous dry stone walls of the valleys were built to protect grazing land and to confine livestock. Linguistically, many words of Lakeland speech relate to sheep husbandry. The ancient Yan Tan Tethera counting system for sheep is a survival of Brittonic counting systems.[5]<br /><br />In the latter half of her life, the children's author Beatrix Potter was involved with keeping and breeding Herdwicks, even acting as president of the breed association for a time. Between 1930 and 1938 she won a number of prizes for Herdwick ewes at shows across Cumbria.[6] Upon her death in 1943, she bequeathed fifteen farms – approximately a total sum of 4,000 acres (16 km²) - to the National Trust, and per her instructions all continue to graze Herdwick flocks.[1]<br /><br />In the modern era, the main industry of the Lake District has shifted from agriculture to tourism. The subsequent influx of tourists to the District has at times conflicted with traditional life, including the raising of Herdwicks. One Lake District farmer summed the problem up as, "We get 100,000 visitors across our land every year...If just one in a thousand forgets to shut a gate or can't be bothered, that's a hundred times we have to go out and round up our sheep."[1]<br />In the late 20th century, the keeping of Herdwicks became economically unviable without outside support; open market prices for Herdwick fleeces sometimes drop as low as a penny a kilogram (which is about the weight of wool from a single sheep).[1] Without direct monetary guarantees for wool prices from the National Trust, it actually costs farmers a considerably larger amount of money to shear their Herdwicks than they would receive in compensation; the majority of farmers once burned their fleeces as waste products.[7] The Trust now acts as a wool merchant itself, thus being able to bargain for better prices directly with the British Wool Marketing Board and operate a Herdwick wool trademark.[7] Most farmers survive through the sale of lambs, as well as both National Trust and European Union farm subsidies. Lake District farmers in particular receive subsidies for operating in a designated Less Favored Area from the England Rural Development Programme. Those who agree to maintain their land in accordance with sustainable farming practices also receive additional subsidies.[1]<br /><br />The outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in 2001 led to the destruction of many flocks, and to fears for the survival both of the breed and of the typical Lakeland sheep farming industry.[8] Of the estimated 100,000 Herdwick sheep present before the outbreak, a full 25% were lost. They were not easily replaceable because long-standing herds are hefted so the introduction of new stock to the fells would have required extensive fencing. The call for vaccination rather than culling to preserve what is considered a part of the traditional identity of the fells and moors was led by parties – such as the Duke of Westminster, Earl Peel, Lord Barnard and Lord Lonsdale – who wished to save the hill sheep on their lands.[9] Many Lake District residents saw the breed as an indispensable icon of the region. Longtime resident and writer for The Guardian A. Harry Griffin expressed this feeling:<br /><br />There are other mountain sheep on the Lakeland fells, notably Swaledales and Rough-Fells, but the hardy Herdwick is the sheep most likely to be seen in and around the Duddon valley, the Coniston fells, the Buttermere fells and, through Borrowdale or Wasdale, up to the highest land in England, the Scafells. More than the old drystone walls that quarter the fells, the packhorse bridges or the whitewashed farmsteads, the little grey Herdwick sheep typify the Lakeland.<br /><br />If they and their shepherds go, that is the end of the Lakeland where I have climbed, walked, skied and skated for nearly 80 years; of the Lakeland I have written about nearly all my life.[10]<br /><br />The destruction of entire flocks meant that the shepherds were forced to undergo the process of again heafing (the local term for hefting) their new sheep to the hills. Normally, ewes teach this behaviour to their lambs, but with no more ewes left acquainted with a particular heaf the behavior had be taught all over again to new ewes, inevitably involving much rounding up of flocks that had strayed over the often inaccessible fells. Unheafed sheep might also cause overgrazing by wandering if they replaced the original Herdwicks.[1][11] The Cumbria Hill Sheep Initiative was set up to "reassess the position and circumstances" in the aftermath of the disease; tough government restrictions in order to prevent another outbreak are still in place.[12][13]<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Characteristics<br />Herdwicks are a dual-purpose breed, producing a strongly flavoured meat and a coarse, grey wool. This slowly maturing breed is one of the most hardy of all the British hill sheep breeds, withstanding the cold and relentless rain of the Lake District at heights upwards of 3,000 feet (about 1,000 metres).[4] Most Herdwicks spend winter on the fells, from approximately December to April. They are normally left to graze freely on the hillsides (without any additional feed), but each ewe tends to stay in her heaf (the local term for heft), the same small area of fell. Due to the rough conditions on fells, lambing losses can be as high as 25%.[14] This ability to thrive unassisted is part of the reason fell farmers so highly value Herdwicks over much higher-producing lowland breeds.[5] Their grey fleece is not easily dyed, and is coarse, and so is best suited to use as carpet wool. The wool is also an excellent natural insulator; it is possible to buy sheets of fireproofed wool to fit as loft insulation.[15] Herdwick lamb and mutton has a very distinct taste, and was even eaten at Queen Elizabeth II's 1953 coronation banquet.[14] Herdwick ewes also commonly produce desirable market lambs and mules by cross-breeding with Suffolk, Cheviot, Charollais and Texel sheep.[4]<br /><br />Herdwick lambs are born black, and after a year they lighten to a dark brown colour (the sheep are called hoggs or hoggets at this stage). After the first shearing, their fleece lightens further to grey. Rams are horned, and ewes polled.[16] For shows and auctions, Herdwicks traditionally have their wool ruddied up (the local term for raddled) with dye. Rams are also ruddied when put out with the ewes to show which have been mated, and the dye is also one method (called a smit) of marking sheep for ownership. Before chemical dyes became available, this dye was made from either iron ore or graphite mixed with grease. For many years the legal method of identifying a particular shepherd's sheep were notches cut out of a sheep's ear, called lug marks – now replaced by ear tags.[1]ricky kurniadihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11453774853927972848noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-565018554135012293.post-91363070044331965422008-08-05T07:12:00.000-07:002008-08-05T07:13:12.589-07:00Rough Fell (sheep)From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<br />Jump to: navigation, search<br />The Rough Fell is an upland breed of sheep, originating in the UK. It is common on its 'native' fell and moorland farms, its distribution embracing a large proportion of South Cumbria, parts of the West Riding of Yorkshire, North Lancashire and, more recently, upland parts of Devon. It is very hardy and, as its name suggests, has proved to be well-suited to endure the hardships of exposed and high moorland and mountains. It is one of the largest mountain breeds in Britain.<br /><br />The hardy constitution enables a ewe to mother and rear her lambs whilst feeding mainly on the poor upland grasses and heathers found on her native moorland. Because of the type of fleece, the breed requires no housing, even in the most inclement weather.<br /><br />Rough Fell rams are large, majestic-horned animals with black and white marked face and a deep body. They are mostly used by farmers on their native fell farms for pure breeding but many are used for crossing with other breeds, contributing their hardiness and adaptation to upland conditions.ricky kurniadihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11453774853927972848noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-565018554135012293.post-55796708034767996122008-08-05T07:10:00.000-07:002008-08-05T07:12:41.966-07:00Fell ponyFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<br /><br />The Fell Pony is a versatile, working breed of mountain and moorland pony which originates from the North of England around Cumbria. This large pony averages 13.2 hands (1.37 m), with the upper height limit at 14 hands (1.42 m). It was originally from the fells of north west England, and is a prized as a riding and driving pony. They are closely related to their geographic neighbour, the Dales Pony, but are generally smaller and more draft-like.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Breed characteristics<br />The Fell Pony has a free and easy stride. As a hack and general riding pony, the Fell's fast walk and easy paces make it a pleasant and comfortable ride, and its sure-footedness ensures a safe passage over the roughest country. It is possible to ride a Fell pony through places where other lighter bred ponies would come to grief. Fells seem to have a sixth sense which alerts them to possible danger; they also seem to know which is the soundest track through soft marshy ground, or the safest descent of a rocky hillside.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Jumping<br />Fell Ponies are creditable jumpers, particularly across country, being both agile and very clever on their feet, which is a valuable asset when jumping "blind" when out hunting. Although most lack the scope to make top class jumping ponies, their abilities are well up to local shows or Pony Club events where many prove their worth.<br /><br /><br /><br />Riding and trekking<br />Large numbers of Fell Ponies are used in riding and trekking stables throughout the country because of their steady temperaments and useful size. The Riding for the Disabled movement employs a number as mounts for disabled children and adults..<br /><br /><br /><br />Colour and Markings<br />Colour and Markings: Black, brown, bay and grey. Chestnuts, piebalds and skewbalds are debarred. A star and/or a little white on or below the hind fetlock is acceptable. An excess of white markings is discouraged.<br /><br /><br /><br />Constitution<br />The Fell Pony should be constitutionally as hard as iron and show good pony characteristics with the unmistakable appearance of hardiness peculiar to mountain ponies, and at the same time, have a lively and alert appearance and great bone. All these attributes make the Fell pony an all round versatile family pony.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Weight and size<br />Fell Ponies vary a good deal in weight and size, so that ponies may be found to carry almost any rider. Fells at the present time are being used for pleasure and competitive riding, showing, driving, hunting, trekking, shepherding and are very suitable for riding and driving for the disable. They were bred for the harsh environment of Northern England, therefore making them adaptable to almost any climate.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Breed history<br />The Fell Pony shares its origins with the now-extinct Galloway pony which was also the root of the Dales Pony. It is believed to have originated on the border between England & Scotland during Roman times from the crossing of imported war stallions with the local Celtic ponies. They were originally brown in colour, though over the last few decades black has become predominant, followed by brown, bay and grey.<br /><br />They are primarily a working breed of pony with activity, stamina, hardiness and intelligence that enables them to live and thrive in tough conditions out on the Fells in the Lake District.<br /><br /><br /><br />Use as packhorses<br />Records show that the progenitors of the Fell Pony were used as packhorses, carrying lead and coal. With their sturdy bodies, short legs and equable disposition, and being good, fast walkers, these 13 hand 2-inch ponies would travel up to 240 miles a week. However, many Fell Ponies were famed throughout the North as fast trotters. There are many tales of distances covered at great speeds by these ponies.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Modern use<br />Now in the 21st Century, we are looking for well-trained riding and driving ponies, and the Fell makes a delightful ride and drive, for his activity, strength and hardiness, born of generations of scrambling about the mountains, give him great balance. In fact, it has been said, "You cannot put a Fell Pony to the wrong job".<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Fell ponies today<br />Today, there is a demand for an all-round family pony capable of carrying all members of the family and versatile enough to fulfil a wide variety of jobs previously done by two or three more specialised animals. In this capacity the Fell pony is ideal being well up to the weight of a heavy adult. Their size still makes them suitable for experienced children. The rediscovery of Carriage Driving has given the Fell Pony the means of continuing in a job which it has traditionally done for centuries. They are well suited to this work, having great stamina and presence when in harness. A few Fell Ponies are still used in Scotland carrying the stags and grouse panniers down from the moors. Some of HM The Queen's ponies are sometimes used for this purpose at Balmoral while others are used for both riding and driving by the Royal Family. The Fell Pony is now becoming popular in the showing world, doing well in both in hand, under saddle, and Worker Hunter Pony classes. They also do well in Private Driving classes<br /><br /><br /><br />Fell Pony Society<br />In 1916, the Fell Pony Society [1] was formed "to keep pure the old breed of pony that has roamed the northern hills for years". The breed’s numbers became very low in 1945, and a breeding "stallion enclosure" program was started, which ended in 1970. The affluent 1950's saw the beginnings of the popularity of riding for pleasure, a pursuit that has gained momentum ever since and in its wake guaranteed the future of many native breeds. The number of ponies being registered with the Fell Pony Society has risen gradually ever since.<br /><br />All Fell Ponies are registered through the society, with an annual Stud book published each year. The Society's patron is H M Queen Elizabeth II.ricky kurniadihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11453774853927972848noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-565018554135012293.post-68002530642809037332008-08-05T07:09:00.000-07:002008-08-05T07:10:42.522-07:00Fell farmingFell farming is the farming of Fells, i.e. areas of uncultivated high ground used as common grazing. It is a term commonly used in Northern England, especially in the Lake District and the Pennine Dales. Elsewhere, the terms hill farming or pastoral farming are more commonly used.<br /><br /><br />Animals<br />Animals native to fells, or bred for fell farming, include:<br /><br />Fell pony <br />Rough Fell (sheep) <br />Herdwick (sheep) <br />Swaledale (sheep) <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Problems<br />As discussed in an article on the Carnegie UK Trust Rural Community Development Programme site: [1]<br /><br />"The Foot and Mouth outbreak in Cumbria in 2001 led to the culling of over a million sheep. It also showed that the hill (fell) farming communities were as vulnerable as the pastoral system they have created over many generations."<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Beatrix Potter<br />In the latter stages of Beatrix Potter's life, she purchased property in the Lake District (bequeathed to the National Trust and now comprising a portion of the Lake District National Park) for the purposes of conservation and historical preservation. Her efforts helped to ensure "the practice of fell farming remain unspoiled to this day."ricky kurniadihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11453774853927972848noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-565018554135012293.post-83197681384832629522008-08-05T07:08:00.000-07:002008-08-05T07:09:24.745-07:00Vertical farmingFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<br />Jump to: navigation, search<br />Vertical farming is a conceptual form of agriculture done in urban high-rises. In these high-rises (variously called "farmscrapers,"[1]) food such as fruit, vegetables, fish, and livestock can be raised by using greenhouse growing methods and recycled resources year-round, allowing cities of the future to become self-sufficient.<br /><br />Recent research into the concept has been primarily the brainchild of Dickson Despommier, a professor of environmental health sciences and microbiology at Columbia University in New York City, New York. Designs by Andrew Kranis, Columbia University; Gordon Graff [2][3][4], University of Waterloo; Chris Jacobs[5][6] (Creative Director of United Future) of Los Angeles, California; and SOA Architects in Paris, France (Augustine Rosenstiehl and Pierre Sartoux), have brought the Vertical Farm concepts into the world spotlight, starting with an article written by Lisa Chamberlin that featured the concept in New York Magazine. Since 2007, there have been numerous articles featuring the vertical farm in the popular press and in professional architectural journals, including US News and World Report, Popular Science and Maxim, as well as radio and television features.<br /><br /><br /><br />Advantages<br />The potential advantages of vertical farming are many. First, there would be no weather related crop failures. Second, continuous production of food (i.e., no seasons) would be the norm. Vertical farming could greatly reduce or even prevent further deforestation, desertification, and other consequences of encroachment for agricultural land use if employed on large scale. By producing food indoors within population centers, fossil fuel use would be greatly reduced (no plowing, planting, harvesting by farm machinery), and reduction of food miles means less pollution is generated transporting produce from the vertical farm to the market. The controlled environment of a multi-story greenhouse will obviate the need for pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. Employing a combination of hydroponic, aeroponic, and other related growing strategies will allow most crops to be produced in large quantities indoors. As currently envisioned, the vertical farm would also be designed to make use of energy generated from wind power, solar power, and incineration of raw sewage and the inedible portion of harvested crops. Instead of producing agricultural runoff (currently the world's most serious source of pollution), the vertical farm aspires to become truly self-sustaining. In that regard, the water of evapo-transpiration can also be harvested and re-used in crop production, or exported from the farm as a source of drinking water. Today, over 70% of the liquid fresh water on Earth is used for horizontal soil-based agriculture, and once used it is not usable for anything else due to the common use of agrochemicals and pesticides. Vertical farms will require significantly less water, and as mentioned, will have the option of re-cycling it.<br /><br /><br /><br />Plans<br />Professor Despommier argues that the technology to construct vertical farms currently exists. He also believes that the system can be profitable and effective, a claim evidenced by some preliminary research posted on the project's website. Developers and local governments in the following cities have expressed serious interest in establishing a vertical farm: Inchon (South Korea), Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates), and Dongtan (China),[7]ricky kurniadihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11453774853927972848noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-565018554135012293.post-8565774196042496362008-08-05T06:56:00.000-07:002008-08-05T07:07:11.551-07:00Organic farmingOrganic farming is a form of agriculture that relies on crop rotation, green manure, compost, biological pest control, and mechanical cultivation to maintain soil productivity and control pests, excluding or strictly limiting the use of synthetic fertilizers and synthetic pesticides, plant growth regulators, livestock feed additives, and genetically modified organisms.[citation needed]<br /><br />Since 1990 the market for organic products has grown at a rapid pace, averaging 20-25 percent per year to reach $33 billion in 2005. This demand has driven a similar increase in organically managed farmland. Approximately 306,000 square kilometres (30.6 million hectares) worldwide are now farmed organically, representing approximately 2% of total world farmland.[3] In addition, as of 2005 organic wild products are farmed on approximately 62 million hectares (IFOAM 2007:10).<br /><br />Organic agricultural methods are internationally regulated and legally enforced by many nations, based in large part on the standards set by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, an international umbrella organization for organic organizations established in 1972. The overarching goal of organic farming is defined as follows:<br /><br />"The role of organic agriculture, whether in farming, processing, distribution, or consumption, is to sustain and enhance the health of ecosystems and organisms from the smallest in the soil to human beings."<br /><br /><br /><br />Geography<br /><br />Distribution<br />The markets for organic products are strongest in North America and Europe, which as of 2001 are estimated to have $6 and $8 billion respectively of the $20 billion market (2003:6). However, as of 2007 organic farmland is distributed across the globe. Australasia has 39% of the total organic farmland with Australia's 11.8 million hectares, but 97 percent of this land is sprawling rangeland (2007:35), which results in total sales of approximately 5% of US sales (2003:7). Europe has 23 percent of total organic farmland (6.9 million hectares), followed by Latin America with 19 percent (5.8 million hectares). Asia has 9.5 percent while North America has 7.2 percent. Africa has a mere 3 percent.<br /><br />Besides Australia, the countries with the most organic area Argentina (3.1 million hectares), China (2.3 million hectares), and the United States (1.6 million hectares). Much of Argentina's organic farmland is pasture, like Australia (2007:42). Italy, Spain, Germany, Brazil, Uruguay, and the UK follow the United States by the amount of land managed organically (2007:26).<br /><br /><br /><br />Growth<br />As of 2001, the estimated total market value of certified organic products was estimated to be $20 billion. By 2002 this was $23 billion and by 2005 $33 billion, with Organic Monitor projecting sales of $40 billion in 2006 (IFOAM 2007:11). The change from 2001 to 2005 represents a compound growth of 10.6 percent.<br /><br />In recent years both Europe and North America have experienced strong growth in organic farmland. Each added half a million hectares from 2004 to 2007 -- for the US this is a 29 percent change (IFOAM 2007:11,27). However, this growth has occurred under different conditions. While the European Union has shifted agricultural subsidies to organic farmers in recognition of its environmental benefits, the United States has taken a free market approach[1]. As a result, as of 2001 3 percent of European farmland was organically managed compared to just .3 percent of United States farmland (Lotter 2003:7). By 2005 Europe's organic land was 3.9 percent while the United States' had risen to 0.6 percent (IFOAM 2007:14-15).<br /><br />IFOAM's The World of Organic Agriculture: Statistics and Emerging Trends 2007 lists the countries which added the most hectares and had the highest percentage growth in 2007 (IFOAM 2007:27-28). Among these, China is listed third in adding the most hectares behind the United States and Argentina. China jumped from approximately 300,000 hectares of organic land in 2005 to approximately 3.5 million hectares in 2006 -- an increase of over a thousand percent.[2] This rise can be attributed to the certification of China's Organic Food Development Center in 2002 by IFOAM. The end of 2005 marks the end of the three-year transition period begun in 2002.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />History<br />The organic movement began in the 1930s and 1940s as a reaction to agriculture's growing reliance on synthetic fertilizers. Artificial fertilizers had been created during the 18th century, initially with superphosphates and then ammonia derived fertilizers mass-produced using the Haber-Bosch process developed during World War I. These early fertilizers were cheap, powerful, and easy to transport in bulk. The 1940s has been referred to as the 'pesticide era'. Sir Albert Howard is widely considered to be the father of organic farming.[4] Rudolf Steiner , a German philosopher, made important strides in the earliest organic theory with his biodynamic agriculture. More work was done by J.I. Rodale in the United States, Lady Eve Balfour in the United Kingdom, and many others across the world.<br /><br />As a percentage of total agricultural output, organic farming has remained tiny since its beginning. As environmental awareness and concern increased, the originally supply-driven movement became demand-driven. Standardized certification brought premium prices, and in some cases government subsidies attracted many farmers into converting. In the developing world, many farmers farm according to traditional methods but are not certified. In other cases, farmers in the developing world have converted out of necessity. As a proportion of total global agricultural output, organic output remains small, but it has been growing rapidly in many countries, notably in Europe.<br /><br /><br /><br />Methods<br /><br />"An organic farm, properly speaking, is not one that uses certain methods and substances and avoids others; it is a farm whose structure is formed in imitation of the structure of a natural system that has the integrity, the independence and the benign dependence of an organism"<br /><br />—Wendell Berry, "The Gift of Good Land"<br />The term holistic is often used to describe organic farming [5], Enhancing soil health is the cornerstone of organic farming [6]. A variety of methods are employed, including crop rotation, green manure, cover cropping, application of compost, and mulching. Organic farmers also use certain processed fertilizers such as seed meal, and various mineral powders such as rock phosphate and greensand, a naturally occurring form of potash. These methods help to control erosion, promote biodiversity, and enhance the health of the soil.<br /><br />Pest control targets animal pests (including insects), fungi, weeds and disease. Organic pest control involves the cumulative effect of many techniques, including, allowing for an acceptable level of pest damage, encouraging or even introducing beneficial organisms, careful crop selection and crop rotation, and mechanical controls such as row covers and traps. These techniques generally provide benefits in addition to pest control—soil protection and improvement, fertilization, pollination, water conservation, season extension, etc.—and these benefits are both complementary and cumulative in overall effect on farm health . Effective organic pest control requires a thorough understanding of pest life cycles and interactions.<br /><br />Weeds are controlled mechanically, thermically and through the use of covercrops and mulches.<br /><br /><br /><br />Standards<br />Organic farming is distinguished by formal standards regulating production methods, and in some cases, final output. Standards may be voluntary or legislated. As early as the 1970s, private associations created standards, against which organic producers could voluntarily have themselves certified. In the 1980s, governments began to produce organic production guidelines. Beginning in the 1990s, a trend toward legislation of standards began, most notably the EU-Eco-regulation developed in the European Union. As of 2007 over 60 countries have regulations on organic farming (IFOAM 2007:11).<br /><br />Organic Agriculture also is the only government enforced humane laws, such as limited to de-beaking on chickens, guarantee to pasture time to cows, and more humane ways to deal with bees.<br /><br />In 1991, the European Commission formulated the first government system to regulate organic labeling. setting the rules for 12 countries.[3] Organic certification became mandatory and was also required for organic imports. The mandatory certification solidified consumer trust in organic products.<br /><br />The international framework for organic farming is provided by IFOAM. For IFOAM members, organic agriculture is based upon the Principles of Organic Agriculture and the IFOAM Norms.[4] The IFOAM Norms consist of the IFOAM Basic Standards and IFOAM Accreditation Criteria.<br /><br />The IFOAM Basic Standards are a set of "standards for standards." They are established through a democratic and international process and reflect the current state of the art for organic production and processing. They are best seen as a work in progress to lead the continued development of organic practices worldwide. They provide a framework for national and regional standard-setting and certification bodies to develop detailed certification standards that are responsive to local conditions.<br /><br />Legislated standards are established at the national level, and vary from country to country. In recent years, many countries have legislated organic production, including the EU nations (1990s), Japan (2001), and the US (2002). Non-governmental national and international associations also have their own production standards. In countries where production is regulated, these agencies must be accredited by the government.<br /><br />Since 1993 when EU Council Regulation 2092/91 became effective, organic food production has been strictly regulated in the UK.<br /><br />In India, standards for organic agriculture were announced in May 2001, and the National Programme on Organic Production (NPOP) is administered under the Ministry of Commerce.<br /><br />In 2002, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) established production standards, under the National Organic Program (NOP), which regulate the commercial use of the term organic.[5] Farmers and food processors must comply with the NOP in order to use the word.<br /><br /><br /><br />Composting<br />Under USDA organic standards, manure must be composted and allowed to reach a sterilizing temperature. If raw animal manure is used, 120 days must pass before the crop is harvested.[6]<br /><br /><br /><br />Economics<br /><br />The economics of organic farming, a subfield of agricultural economics, encompasses the entire process and effects of organic farming in terms of human society, including social costs, opportunity costs, unintended consequences, information asymmetries, and economies of scale. Although the scope of economics is broad, agricultural economics tends to focus on maximizing yields and efficiency at the farm level. Mainstream economics takes an anthropocentric approach to the value of the natural world: biodiversity, for example, is considered beneficial only to the extent that it is valued by people and increases profits. Some governments such as the European Union subsidize organic farming, in large part because these countries believe in the external benefits of reduced water use, reduced water contamination by pesticides and nutrients of organic farming, reduced soil erosion, reduced carbon emissions, increased biodiversity, and assorted other benefits.<br /><br />Organic farming is labor and knowledge-intensive whereas conventional farming is capital-intensive, requiring more energy and manufactured inputs. Organic farmers in California have cited marketing as their greatest obstacle.[7]<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Productivity and Profitability<br />A 2006 study suggests that converted organic farms have lower pre-harvest yields than their conventional counterparts in developed countries (92%) and that organic farms have higher pre-harvest yields than their low-intensity counterparts in developing countries (132%). The researcher attributes this to a relative lack of expensive fertilizers and pesticides in the developing world compared to the intensive, subsidy-driven farming of the developed world. Nonetheless, the researcher purposely avoids making the claim that organic methods routinely outperform green-revolution (conventional) methods.[8] This study incorporated a 1990 review of 205 crop comparisons which found that organic crops had 91% of conventional yields.[9] A major US survey published in 2001, analyzed results from 150 growing seasons for various crops and concluded that organic yields were 95-100% of conventional yields.[10]<br /><br />Lotter (2003:10) reports that repeated studies have found that organic farms withstand severe weather conditions better than conventional farms, sometimes yielding 70-90% more than conventional farms during droughts. A 22-year farm trial study by Cornell University published in 2005 concluded that organic farming produces the same corn and soybean yields as conventional methods over the long-term averages, but consumed less energy and used zero pesticides. The results were attributed to lower yields in general but higher yields during drought years.[11] A study of 1,804 organic farms in Central American hit by Hurricane Mitch in 1998 found that the organic farms sustained the damage much better, retaining 20 to 40% more topsoil and smaller economic losses at highly significant levels than their neighbors.[12]<br /><br />On the other hand, a prominent 21-year Swiss study found an average of 20% lower organic yields over conventional, along with 50% lower expenditure on fertilizer and energy, and 97% less pesticides.[13] A long-term study by U.S Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists concluded that, contrary to widespread belief, organic farming can build up soil organic matter better than conventional no-till farming, which suggests long-term yield benefits from organic farming. [14]<br /><br />While organic farms have lower yields, organic methods require no synthetic fertilizer and pesticides. The decreased cost on those inputs, along with the premiums which consumers pay for organic produce, create higher profits for organic farmers. Organic farms have been consistently found to be as or more profitable than conventional farms with premiums included, but without premiums profitability is mixed (Lotter 2003:11). Welsh (1999) reports that organic farmers are more profitable in the drier states of the United States, likely due to their superior drought performance.[15]<br /><br /><br /><br />Macroeconomic Impact<br />Organic methods often require more labor,[16] providing rural jobs but increasing costs to urban consumers.<br /><br /><br />Externalities<br />Agriculture in general imposes external costs upon society through pesticides, nutrient runoff, excessive water usage, and assorted other problems. As organic methods minimize some of these factors, organic farming is believed to impose fewer external costs upon society.<br /><br /><br />Pesticides<br />Due to the increased concern for the risk to human health, as well as the recent and ongoing development of pesticide resistance, need to reduce use of pesticides is well recognised but implementation for reduction and elimination of pesticide is technologically very difficult. [7] Most organic farm products use reduced pesticide claim but very few manage to eliminate the use of pesticide entirely.<br /><br />While organic farming can, with extra cost, easily substitute chemical fertilizer with organic one, finding an alternative method for eliminating weeds as well as insects which feast on crops is difficult. Pest resistant GM crops are an alternative to pesticide use, but one which is unacceptable to the organic farming movement. [8]<br /><br />One natural method to control pests is to introduce a natural predator in place of the pesticide, though this approach has various control issues. Another method is crop rotation, which restricts expansion of the insect population. For weed elimination, the traditional method is to remove weeds by hand, which is still practiced in developing countries by small scale farmers. However, this has proven too costly in developed countries where labor is more expensive. One recent innovation in rice farming is to introduce ducks and fish to wet paddy fields, which eat both weeds and insects.[9]<br /><br /><br /><br />Health Risks<br />Organic farms use few pesticides, although they are allowed to use some natural ones. The main three are Bt, pyrethrum and rotenone. However, surveys have found that fewer than 10% of organic farmers use these pesticides regularly; one survey found that only 5.3% of vegetable growers in California use rotenone while 1.7% use pyrethrum (Lotter 2003:26). Nevertheless, rotenone has been linked to Parkinson's in rats and can be considered toxic to humans (Lotter 2003:26).<br /><br />On the other hand, conventional farming uses large quantities of pesticides through techniques such as crop dusting. Studies have shown that people who work with pesticides have an increased risk of developing Parkinson's disease.[17][18] The pesticides examined in these two long-term studies, paraquat and dieldrin, are not allowed on organic farms. The herbicide paraquat and fungicide maneb together, but not alone, have been shown to cause brain damage in mice.[19]<br /><br />Around 31,000 tonnes of pesticides are used in the UK every year, and 40% of fruit, vegetables, and bread sampled in the UK were found to have pesticide residues in 2004.[20]<br /><br /><br /><br />Children's health<br />Some parents are concerned about the potential neurological health risks posed to children by trace pesticide residues in food. A 2001 study demonstrated that children fed organic diets experienced significantly lower organophosphorus pesticide exposure than children fed conventional diets.[21] A similar study in 2006 measured the levels of organophosphorus pesticide exposure in 23 preschool children before and after replacing their diet with organic food: levels of organophosphorus pesticide exposure dropped dramatically and immediately when the children switched to an organic diet.[22] Although the researchers did not collect health outcome data in this study, they concluded "it is intuitive to assume that children whose diets consist of organic food items would have a lower probability of neurologic health risks."<br /><br /><br /><br />Runoff<br />Pesticide runoff is one of the most significant effects of pesticide use. The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service tracks the environmental risk posed by pesticide water contamination from farms, and its conclusion has been that "the Nation's pesticide policies during the last twenty six years have succeeded in reducing overall environmental risk, in spite of slight increases in area planted and weight of pesticides applied. Nevertheless, there are still areas of the country where there is no evidence of progress, and areas where risk levels for protection of drinking water, fish, algae and crustaceans remain high".[23]<br /><br /><br /><br />Genetically modified organisms<br />A key characteristic of organic farming is rejection of genetically engineered products, including plants and animals. On October 19, 1998, participants at IFOAM's 12th Scientific Conference of IFOAM) issued the Mar del Plata Declaration, where more than 600 delegates from over 60 countries voted unanimously to exclude the use of genetically modified organisms in food production and agriculture. From this point, it became widely recognized that GMOs are categorically excluded from organic farming.<br /><br />Despite this vehement opposition to use of any transgenic technologies in organic farming, agricultural researchers such as Luis Herrera-Estrella & Ariel Alvarez-Morales continue to advocate integration of transgenic technologies into organic farming as the optimal means to sustainable agriculture, particularly in the developing world.[24] Similarly, some organic farmers question the rationale behind the ban on the use of genetically engineered seed because they see it a biological technology consistent with organic principles [25]<br /><br />Although GMOs are excluded from use in organic farming, there is concern that the pollen from genetically modified crops is increasingly contaminating organic and heirloom genetics making it difficult, if not impossible, to keep these genetics from entering the organic food supply. International trade restrictions limit the availability GMOs to certain countries.<br /><br />The actual dangers that genetic modification could pose to the environment or, supposedly, individual health, are hotly contended. See GM food controversy.<br /><br /><br /><br />Food quality<br />Healthy soils equals healthy food equals healthy people is a basic tenet of many organic farming systems.<br /><br />There is extensive scientific research being carried out in Switzerland at over 200 farms to determine differences in the quality of organic food products compared to conventional in addition to other tests. The FiBL scientific research institute states that "organic products stand out as having higher levels of secondary plant compounds and vitamin C. In the case of milk and meat, the fatty acid profile is often better from a nutritional point of view. As far as carbohydrates and minerals, organic products are no different from conventional products. However, in regard to undesirables such as nitrate and pesticide residues, organic products have a clear advantage.[26] A recent study found that organically grown produce has double the flavonoids, an important antioxidant.[27]. A 2007 study found that organically grown kiwi fruits had more antioxidants than conventional kiwi.[28]<br /><br />A study which isolated clear health benefits from eating organic foods was published in 2007.[29]<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Soil conservation<br />In Dirt: The Erosion of Civilizations, geomorphologist David Montgomery outlines a coming crisis from soil erosion. Agriculture relies on roughly one meter of topsoil, and that is being depleted ten times faster than it is being replaced.[30] No-till farming, which some claim depends upon pesticides, is regarded as one way to minimize erosion. However, a recent study by the USDA's Agricultural Research Service has found that organic farming is even better at building up the soil than no-till.[31]<br /><br /><br />Nutrient Leaching<br />Excess nutrients in lakes, rivers, and groundwater can cause algal blooms, eutrophication, and subsequent dead zones. In addition, nitrates are harmful to aquatic organisms by themselves. The main contributor to this pollution is nitrate fertilizers whose use is expected to "double or almost triple by 2050".[32] Researchers at the United States National Academy of Sciences found that that organically fertilizing fields "significantly [reduces] harmful nitrate leaching" over conventionally fertilized fields: "annual nitrate leaching was 4.4-5.6 times higher in conventional plots than organic plots".[33]<br /><br />Scientists believe that the large dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is caused in large part by agricultural pollution: a combination of fertilizer runoff and livestock manure runoff. A study by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) found that over half of the nitrogen released into the Gulf comes from agriculture. The economic cost of this for fishermen may be large, as they must travel far from the coast to find fish.[34]<br /><br />At the 2000 IFOAM Conference, researchers presented a study of nitrogen leaching into the Danube River. They found that nitrogen runoff was substantially lower among organic farms and suggested that the external cost could be internalized by charging 1 euro per kg of nitrogen released.[35]<br /><br />A 2005 study published in Nature found a strong link between agricultural runoff and algae blooms in California.[36]<br /><br /><br /><br />Sales and Marketing<br />Organic farmers report that marketing and distribution are difficult obstacles. Most of organic sales are concentrated in developed nations. These products are what economists call credence goods in that they rely on uncertain certification. As food prices rise, organic products may experience falling demand. A 2008 survey by WSL Strategic Retail found that interest in organic products had dropped since 2006, and that 42% of Americans polled don't trust organic produce. and The Hartman Group reports that 69% of Americans claim to occasionally organic products, down from 73% in 2005. The Hartman Group says that people may be substituting local produce for organic produce.[37]<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Distributors<br />In the United States, 75% of organic farms are smaller than 2.5 hectares and in California 2% of the farms account for over half of the sales (Lotter 2003:4). Groups of small farms join together in cooperatives such as Organic Valley, Inc. to market their goods more effectively.<br /><br />Over the past twenty years, however, most of these cooperative distributors have merged or been bought out. Rural sociologist Philip H. Howard has researched the structure and transformation of the organic industry in the United States. He claims that in 1982 there were 28 consumer cooperative distributors but as of 2007 there are only 3, and he has created a graphic displaying the consolidation.[38] His research shows that most of these small cooperatives have been absorbed into large multinational corporations such as General Mills, Heinz, ConAgra, Kellog, and assorted other brands. This consolidation has raised concerns among consumers and journalists of potential fraud and degradation in standards. Most of these large corporations sell their organic products through subsidiaries, allowing them to keep their names off the labels.[39]<br /><br /><br /><br />Farmers' Markets<br />Price premiums are important for the profitability of small organic farmers, and so many sell directly to consumers in farmers' markets. In the United States the number of farmers' markets has grown from 1,755 in 1994 to 4,385 in 2006.[40]<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Organic livestock farming<br />Organic farming practices may also be applied to livestock farms. Conventional livestock farms inject their animals with hormones and antibiotics,[citation needed] and keep many animals confined in small spaces,[citation needed] which may lead to the spread of disease such as Mad Cow Disease or the Avian Flu. These closely confined animals create huge amounts of waste, which can, in some cases, overflow and seep into the surrounding environment. Organic livestock farms, on the other hand, allow animals to roam freely in wide fields,[citation needed] and their grazing is rotated between fields to prevent soil erosion.[citation needed]<br /><br />While organic livestock farming often requires more space and is used on a smaller scale than conventional livestock farming, many organic farmers save on feed and veterinary bills because their animals can graze naturally and do not suffer from antibiotic resistance. Research indicates that antibiotic-rich products from conventional livestock farms may be a major cause of antibiotic resistance in humans,[citation needed] an issue that has gradually become a major public health issue.[citation needed] The living standards for animals on organic farms drastically decrease the need for antibiotic use on livestock.[41][42]<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Capacity building<br />Organic agriculture can contribute to meaningful socio-economic and ecologically sustainable development, especially in poorer countries [43]. On one hand, this is due to the application of organic principles, which means efficient management of local resources (e.g. local seed varieties, manure, etc.) and therefore cost-effectiveness. On the other hand, the market for organic products – at local and international level – has tremendous growth prospects and offers creative producers and exporters in the South excellent opportunities to improve their income and living conditions.<br /><br />Organic Agriculture is a very knowledge intensive production system [44]. Therefore capacity building efforts play a central role in this regard. There are many efforts all around the world regarding the development of training material and the organization of training courses related to Organic Agriculture. Big parts of existing knowledge is still scattered and not easy accessible. Especially in Developing Countries this situation remains an important constraint for the growth of the organic sector.<br /><br />For that reason, the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements created an Internet Training Platform [10] whose objective is to become the global reference point for Organic Agriculture training through free access to high quality training materials and training programs on Organic Agriculture. In November 2007, the Training Platform hosted more than 170 free manuals and 75 training opportunities.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Organic farming and associated biodiversity<br />Organic farming vs. conventional practices<br />In ancient farming practices, farmers did not possess the technology or manpower to have a significant impact on the destruction of biodiversity even as mass-production agriculture was rising. Nowadays, common farming methods generally rely on pesticides to maintain high yields. With such, most agricultural landscapes favor mono-culture crops with very little flora or fauna co-existence (van Elsen 2000). Modern organic farm practices such as the removal of pesticides and the inclusion of animal manure, crop rotation, and multi-cultural crops provides the chance for biodiversity to thrive.[45]<br /><br /><br />Benefits to biodiversity<br />Nearly all non-crop, naturally-occurring species observed in comparative farm land practice studies show a preference in organic farming both by population and richness.[46][47] Spanning all associated species, there is an average of 30% more on organic farms versus conventional farming methods.[48] Birds, butterflies, soil microbes, beetles, earthworms, spiders, vegetation, and mammals are particularly effected. Organic crops use little or no herbicides and pesticides and thus biodiversity fitness and population density benefit.[49] Many weed species attract beneficial insects that improve soil qualities and forage on weed pests.[50] Soil-bound organisms often benefit because of increased bacteria populations due to natural fertilizer spread such as manure, while experiencing reduced intake of herbicides and pesticides commonly associated with conventional farming methods.[51] Increased biodiversity, especially from soil microbes such as mycorhizzae, have been proposed as an explanation for the high yields experienced by some organic plots, especially in light of the differences seen in a 21-year comparison of organic and control fields.[52]<br /><br /><br /><br />Detriments to biodiversity through organic farming<br />Organic farming practices still require active participation from the farmer to effectively boost biodiversity. Making a switch to organic farming methods does not automatically or guarantee improved biodiversity. Pro-conservation ethics are required to create arable farm land that generates biodiversity. Conservationist ideals are commonly overlooked because they require additional physical and economical efforts from the producer.[53] Common weed-removal processes like undercutting and controlled burning provides little opportunity for species survival, and often leads to comparable populations and richness to conventionally-managed landscapes when performed in excess. Another common process is the addition of biotopes in the form of hedgerows and ponds to further improve species richness. Farmers commonly make the mistake of over-using these resources for more intense crop production because organic yields are typically lower. Another error comes from the over-stratification of biotopes. A series of small clusters does not provide adequate land area for high biodiversity potential.[54]<br /><br /><br /><br />Impact of increased biodiversity<br />The level of biodiversity that can be yielded from organic farming provides a natural capital to humans. Species found in most organic farms provides a means of agricultural sustainability by reducing amount of human input (e.g. fertilizers, pesticides) [55] . Farmers that produce with organic methods reduce risk of poor yields by promoting biodiversity. Common game birds such as the ring-necked pheasant and the northern bobwhite often reside in agriculture landscapes, and are a natural capital yielded from high demands of recreational hunting. Because bird species richness and population are typically higher on organic farm systems, promoting biodiversity can be seen as logical and economical.<br /><br /><br /><br />Farmers’ Benefits from Increased Biodiversity<br />Biological research on soil and soil organisms has proven beneficial to the system of organic farming. Varieties of bacteria and fungi break down chemicals, plant matter and animal waste into productive soil nutrients. In turn, the producer benefits by healthier yields and more arable soil for future crops.[56] Furthermore, a 21-year study was conducted testing the effects of organic soil matter and its relationship to soil quality and yield. Controls included actively managed soil with varying levels of manure, compared to a plot with no manure input. After the study commenced, there was significantly lower yields on the on the control plot when compared to the fields with manure. The concluded reason was an increased soil microbe community in the manure fields, providing a healthier, more arable soil system.[57]<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Controversy<br />There are contentions that organic farming is unsustainable. One study from the Danish Environmental Protection Agency found that, area-for-area, organic farms of potatoes, sugar beet and seed grass produce as little as half the output of conventional farming.[58] Findings like these, and the dependence of organic food on manure from low-yield cattle, has prompted criticism from many scientists that organic farming is environmentally unsound and incapable of feeding the world population.[59] Among these critics are Norman Borlaug, father of the "green revolution," and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, who asserts that organic farming practices can at most feed 4 billion people, after expanding cropland dramatically and destroying ecosystems in the process. [60] Yet, organic agriculture can reduce the level of negative externalities from (conventional) agriculture. Whether this is seen as private or public benefits depends upon the initial specification of property rights.[61]<br /><br />One study published in Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems argues that organic farming could produce enough food per capita to sustain the current human population; the difference in yields between organic and non-organic methods were small, with non-organic methods resulting in slightly higher yields in developed areas and organic methods resulting in slightly higher yields in developing areas.[8]<br /><br />In 1998, Dennis Avery of the Hudson Institute claimed the risk of E. coli infection was eight times higher when eating organic food rather than non-organic food, using the Center for Disease Control (CDC) as a source. When the CDC was contacted, it stated that there was no evidence for the claim.[62][63] The New York Times commented on Avery's attacks: "The attack on organic food by a well-financed research organization suggests that, though organic food accounts for only 1 percent of food sales in the United States, the conventional food industry is worried."[64]<br /><br />In the UK, some of the debate has been summarized in an exchange between Prof A. Trewavas and Lord P. Melchett, and published by a major supermarket, concerned about examining the issues. Amongst many others, Trewavas[65] contests the notion that organic agricultural systems are more friendly to the environment and more sustainable than high-yielding farming systems.ricky kurniadihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11453774853927972848noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-565018554135012293.post-63733954624450826732008-08-05T06:54:00.000-07:002008-08-05T06:56:11.083-07:00Food safetyFood safety is a scientific discipline describing the handling, preparation, and storage of food in ways that prevent foodborne illness. This includes a number of routines that should be followed to avoid potentially severe health hazards. Food can transmit disease from person to person as well as serve as a growth medium for bacteria that can cause food poisoning. Debates on genetic food safety include such issues as impact of genetically modified food on health of further generations and genetic pollution of environment, which can destroy natural biological diversity. In developed countries there are intricate standards for food preparation, whereas in lesser developed countries the main issue is simply the availability of adequate safe water, which is usually a critical item.[1]<br /><br /><br /><br />Regulatory agencies<br />UK regulation<br />HACCP guidelines<br />The UK Food Standards Agency[2] publishes recommendations as part of its Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) programme. The relevant guidelines at http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/csctcooking.pdf state that:<br /><br />"Cooking food until the CORE TEMPERATURE is 75 °C or above will ensure that harmful bacteria are destroyed.<br />However, lower cooking temperatures are acceptable provided that the CORE TEMPERATURE is maintained for a specified period of time as follows :<br /><br /><br />60 °C for a minimum of 45 minutes <br />65 °C for a minimum of 10 minutes <br />70 °C for a minimum of 2 minutes" <br /><br /><br /><br />UK Department Of Health<br />Previous guidance from a leaflet produced by the UK Department Of Health “Handling Cooked Meats Safely A Ten Point Plan” also allowed for:<br /><br />"75 °C for a minimum of 30 seconds <br />80 °C for a minimum of 6 seconds" <br />as well as the above. Secondary references for the above may be found at:<br /><br />http://www.rushcliffe.gov.uk/doc.asp?cat=8455 <br />http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/fs1694b.pdf <br />http://www.wiganmbc.gov.uk/pub/ehcp/eh/commlflt/cookmeat.pdf This document states that: "This publication may be freely reproduced, except for advertising, endorsement or likely that, in the interests of good customer relations they will be commercial purposes. Please acknowledge the source as Wigan Council Community Protection Department." <br />http://www.wollongong.nsw.gov.au/Downloads/Documents/Safer_Cooked_Meat_Production.pdf <br />http://www.west-norfolk.gov.uk/pdf/Food%20Safety%20-%20Ten%20Point%20Plan%20for%20Safer%20Cooked%20Meat.pdf <br />Note that recommended cooking conditions are only appropriate if initial bacterial numbers in the uncooked food are small. Cooking does not overcome poor hygiene.<br /><br /><br /><br />Australia<br />Food safety Training is good for everyone www.cft.com.au Australian Food Authority is working toward ensuring that all food businesses implement food safety systems to ensure food is safe to consume in a bid to halt the increasing incidence of food poisoning, this includes basic food safety training for at least one person in each business. Smart business operators know that basic food safety training improves the bottom line, staff take more pride in their work; there is less waste; and customers can have more confidence in the food they consume. Food Safety training in units of competence from a relevant training package, must be delivered by a Registered Training Organization (RTO) to enable staff to be issued with a nationally-recognised unit of competency code on their certificate. Generally this training can be completed in less than one day. Training options are available to suit the needs of everyone. Training may be carried out in-house for a group, in a public class, via correspondence or online. (To find Food Safety Training available search Google or contact the local Health Department ) Basic Food Safety Training includes: • Understanding the hazards associated with the main types of food and the conditions to prevent the growth of bacteria which can cause food poisoning • The problems associated with product packaging such as leaks in vacuum packs, damage to packaging or pest infestation, as well as problems and diseases spread by pests. • Safe Food handling. This includes safe procedures for each process such as receiving, re-packing, food storage, preparation and cooking, cooling and re-heating, displaying products, handling products when serving customers, packaging, cleaning and sanitizing, pest control, transport and delivery. Also the causes of cross contamination. • Catering for customers who are particularly at risk of food-borne illness, including allergies and intolerance. • Correct cleaning and sanitizing procedures, cleaning products and their correct use, and the storage of cleaning items such as brushes, mops and cloths. • Personal hygiene, hand washing, illness, and protective clothing.<br /><br />People responsible for serving unsafe food can be liable for heavy fines under this new leglislation, consumers are pleased that industry will be forced to take food safety seriously.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />US regulation<br /><br /><br />Federal-level regulation<br />In the United States, federal regulations governing food safety are fragmented and complicated, according to a February 2007 report from the Government Accountability Office.[3] There are 15 agencies sharing oversight responsibilities in the food safety system, although the two primary agencies are the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which is responsible for the safety of meat, poultry, and processed egg products, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is responsible for virtually all other foods.<br /><br /><br /><br />State and local regulation<br />A number of states have their own meat inspection programs that substitute for USDA inspection for meats that are sold only in-state.[4] Certain state programs have been criticized for undue leniency to bad practices.[5]<br /><br />However, other state food safety programs supplement, rather than replace, Federal inspections, generally with the goal of increasing consumer confidence in the state's produce. For example, state health departments have a role in investigating outbreaks of food-borne disease bacteria, as in the case of the 2006 outbreak of E.coli O157:H7 from processed spinach.[6] Health departments also promote better food processing practices to eliminate these threats.[7]<br /><br />In addition to the US Food and Drug Administration, several states that are major producers of fresh fruits and vegetables (including California, Arizona and Florida) have their own state programs to test produce for pesticide residues.[8]<br /><br />Restaurants and other retail food establishments fall under state law and are regulated by state or local health departments. Typically these regulations require official inspections of specific design features, best food-handling practices, and certification of food handlers.[9] In some places a letter grade or numerical score must be prominently posted following each inspection.[10] In some localities inspection deficiencies and remedial action are posted on the Internet.[11]<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Consumer labeling<br /><br />UK labels<br />Food stuffs in the UK have one of two labels to indicate the nature of the deterioration of the product and any subsequent health issues:<br /><br />Best before indicates a future date beyond which the food product may lose quality in terms of taste or texture amongst others, but does not imply any serious health problems if food is consumed beyond this date (within reasonable limits).<br /><br />Use by indicates a legal date beyond which it is not permissible to sell a food product (usually one that deteriorates fairly rapidly after production) due to the potential serious nature of consumption of pathogens. Leeway is provided by producers in stating use by dates so that products are not at their limit of safe consumption on the actual date stated. This allows for the variability in production, storage and display methods. www.city-and-guilds.org.uk/documents/ind_hospitality-catering/HC-33-7247.pdf<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />US labels<br />With the exception of infant formula and baby foods which must be withdrawn by their expiration date, Federal law does not require expiration dates. For all other foods, except dairy products in some states, freshness dating is strictly voluntary on the part of manufacturers. In response to consumer demand, perishable foods are typically labeled with a Sell by date.[12] It is up to the consumer to decide how long after the Sell by date a package is usable. Other common dating statements are Best if used by, Use-by date, Expiration date, Guaranteed fresh <date>, and Pack date.[13]<br /><br /><br /><br />Codex Alimentaurius<br />In 2003, the WHO and FAO published the Codex Alimentarius which serves as a guideline to food safety [14].ricky kurniadihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11453774853927972848noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-565018554135012293.post-30413609046147715042008-08-05T06:47:00.000-07:002008-08-05T06:53:33.872-07:00AgricultureAgriculture refers to the production of agricultural goods through the growing of plants and the raising of domesticated animals. The study of agriculture is known as agricultural science. The related practice of gardening is studied in horticulture.<br /><br />Agriculture encompasses a wide variety of specialties. Cultivation of crops on arable land and the pastoral herding of livestock on rangeland remain at the foundation of agriculture. In the past century a distinction has been made between sustainable agriculture and intensive farming. Modern agronomy, plant breeding, pesticides and fertilizers, and technological improvements have sharply increased yields from cultivation. Selective breeding and modern practices in animal husbandry such as intensive pig farming (similar practices applied to the chicken) have similarly increased the output of meat. The more exotic varieties of agriculture include aquaculture and tree farming.<br /><br />The major agricultural products can be broadly grouped into foods, fibers, fuels, raw materials, legal and illegal drugs, and an assortment of ornamental or otherwise exotic products. In recent years plants have been used to grow biofuels, biopharmaceuticals, and bioplastic.[1] as well as pharmaceuticals.[2] Specific foods include cereals, (vegetables, fruits, and meat. Fibers include (cotton, wool, hemp, silk and flax). Raw materials include lumber and bamboo. Drugs include tobacco, marijuana, opium, cocaine), and other useful materials such as resins. Biofuels include methane from biomass, ethanol, and biodiesel. Cut flowers, nursery plants, tropical fish and birds for the pet trade are some of the ornamental products.<br /><br />The history of agriculture has played a major role in human history, as agricultural progress has been a crucial factor in worldwide socio-economic change. Wealth-building and militaristic specializations rarely seen in hunter-gatherer cultures are commonplace in societies which practice agriculture. So, too, are arts such as epic literature and monumental architecture, as well as codified legal systems. When farmers became capable of producing food beyond the needs of their own families, others in their society were freed to devote themselves to projects other than food acquisition. Historians and anthropologists have long argued that the development of agriculture made civilization possible.<br /><br />In 2007, an estimated 35 percent of the world's workers were employed in agriculture (from 42% in 1996). However, the relative significance of farming has dropped steadily since the beginning of industrialization, and in 2003 – for the first time in history – the services sector overtook agriculture as the economic sector employing the most people worldwide.[3] Despite the fact that agriculture employs over one-third of the world's population, agricultural production accounts for less than five percent of the gross world product (an aggregate of all gross domestic products).[4]<br /><br /><br /><br />Overview<br />Agriculture has played a key role in the development of human civilization—it is widely believed that the domestication of plants and animals allowed humans to settle and give up their previous hunter-gatherer lifestyle during the Neolithic Revolution. Until the Industrial Revolution, the vast majority of the human population labored in agriculture. Development of agricultural techniques has steadily increased agricultural productivity, and the widespread diffusion of these techniques during a time period is often called an agricultural revolution. A remarkable shift in agricultural practices has occurred over the past century in response to new technologies. In particular, the Haber-Bosch method for synthesizing ammonium nitrate made the traditional practice of recycling nutrients with crop rotation and animal manure less necessary. Synthetic nitrogen, along with mined rock phosphate, pesticides and mechanization, have greatly increased crop yields in the early 20th century. Increased supply of grains has led to cheaper livestock as well. Further, global yield increases were experienced later in the 20th century when high-yield varieties of common staple grains such as rice, wheat, and corn were introduced as a part of the Green Revolution. The Green Revolution exported the technologies (including pesticides and synthetic nitrogen) of the developed world out to the developing world. Thomas Malthus famously predicted that the Earth would not be able to support its growing population, but technologies such as the Green Revolution have allowed the world to produce a surplus of food.[5]<br />Many governments have subsidized agriculture to ensure an adequate food supply. These agricultural subsidies are often linked to the production of certain commodities such as wheat, corn, rice, soybeans, and milk. These subsidies, especially when done by developed countries have been noted as protectionist, inefficient, and environmentally damaging.[6] In the past century agriculture has been characterized by enhanced productivity, the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, selective breeding, mechanization, water contamination, and farm subsidies. Proponents of organic farming such as Sir Albert Howard argued in the early 1900s that the overuse of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers damages the long-term fertility of the soil. While this feeling lay dormant for decades, as environmental awareness has increased recently there has been a movement towards sustainable agriculture by some farmers, consumers, and policymakers. In recent years there has been a backlash against perceived external environmental effects of mainstream agriculture, particularly regarding water pollution[7], resulting in the organic movement. One of the major forces behind this movement has been the European Union, which first certified organic food in 1991 and began reform of its Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in 2005 to phase out commodity-linked farm subsidies[8], also known as decoupling. The growth of organic farming has renewed research in alternative technologies such as integrated pest management and selective breeding. Recent mainstream technological developments include genetically modified food.<br /><br />As of late 2007, several factors have pushed up the price of grain used to feed poultry and dairy cows and other cattle, causing higher prices of wheat (up 58%), soybean (up 32%), and maize (up 11%) over the year.[9][10] Food riots have recently taken place in many countries across the world.[11][12][13] An epidemic of stem rust on wheat caused by race UG99 is currently spreading across Africa and into Asia and is causing major concern.[14][15][16] Approximately 40% of the world's agricultural land is seriously degraded.[17] In Africa, if current trends of soil degradation continue, the continent might be able to feed just 25% of its population by 2025, according to UNU's Ghana-based Institute for Natural Resources in Africa.[18]<br /><br /><br />Practices<br />Agricultural practices lie on a spectrum dependent upon the intensity and technology of the methods. At the one end lies the subsistence farmer who farms a small area with limited inputs and produces only enough food to meet the needs of his or her family. At the other end lies intensive agriculture which includes traditional labor intensive farming (e.g. South-East Asia rice paddies), and modern agriculture which includes industrial agriculture, organic farming and sustainable farming. Industrial agriculture involves large fields and/or numbers of animals, high resource inputs (pesticides, fertilizers, etc.), and a high level of mechanization. These operations achieve economies of scale and require large amounts of capital in the form of land and machinery.<br /><br />The twentieth century saw changes in agricultural practice, particularly in agricultural chemistry and in mechanization. Agricultural chemistry includes the application of chemical fertilizer, chemical insecticides (see pest control), and chemical fungicides, analysis of soil makeup and nutritional needs of farm animals.<br /><br />Mechanization has increased farm efficiency and productivity in most regions of the world, due especially to the tractor and various "gins" (short for "engine") such as the cotton gin, semi-automatic balers and threshers and, above all, the combine (see agricultural machinery). According to the National Academy of Engineering in the United States, agricultural mechanization is one of the 20 greatest engineering achievements of the 20th century. Early in the century, it took one American farmer to produce food for 2.5 people. By 1999, due to advances in agricultural technology, a single farmer could feed over 130 people.[19]<br /><br />Other recent changes in agriculture include hydroponics, plant breeding, hybridization, gene manipulation, better management of soil nutrients, and improved weed control. Genetic engineering has yielded crops which have capabilities beyond those of naturally occurring plants, such as higher yields and disease resistance. Modified seeds germinate faster, and thus can be grown on an accelerated schedule. Genetic engineering of plants has proven controversial, particularly in the case of herbicide-resistant plants.<br /><br />It has been suggested that genetic engineers may some day develop transgenic plants which would allow for irrigation, drainage, conservation, sanitary engineering, and maintaining or increasing yields while requiring fewer fossil fuel derived inputs than conventional crops.[20] Such developments would be particularly important in areas which are normally arid and rely upon constant irrigation, and on large scale farms. These possibilities are questioned by ecologists and economists concerned with unsustainable GMO practices such as terminator seeds,[21][22] and a January 2008 report shows that GMO practices have failed to address sustainability issues.[23] While there has been some research on sustainability using GMO crops, at least one hyped and promonant multi-year attempt by Monsanto has been unsuccessful, though during the same period traditional breeding techniques yielded a more sustainable variety of the same crop.[24] Additionally, a survey by the bio-tech industry of subsistence farmers in Africa to discover what GMO research would most benefit sustainable agriculture only identified non-transgenic issues as areas needing to be addressed.[25]<br /><br />The processing, packing and marketing of agricultural products are closely related activities also influenced by science. Methods of quick-freezing and dehydration have increased the markets for many farm products (see food preservation and meat packing industry).<br /><br />Animals, including horses, mules, oxen, camels, llamas, alpacas, and dogs, are often used to help cultivate fields, harvest crops, wrangle other animals, and transport farm products to buyers. Animal husbandry not only refers to the breeding and raising of animals for meat or to harvest animal products (like milk, eggs, or wool) on a continual basis, but also to the breeding and care of species for work and companionship.<br /><br />Airplanes, helicopters, trucks, tractors, and combines are used in Western (and, increasingly, Eastern) agriculture for seeding, spraying operations for insect and disease control, harvesting, aerial topdressing and transporting perishable products. Radio and television disseminate vital weather reports and other information such as market reports that concern farmers. Computers have become an essential tool for farm management.<br />In recent years, some aspects of intensive industrial agriculture have been the subject of increasing debate. The widening sphere of influence held by large seed and chemical companies, meat packers and food processors has been a source of concern both within the farming community and for the general public. Another issue is the type of feed given to some animals that can cause bovine spongiform encephalopathy in cattle. There has also been concern over the effect of intensive agriculture on the environment.<br />The patent protection given to companies that develop new types of seed using genetic engineering has allowed seed to be licensed to farmers in much the same way that computer software is licensed to users. This has changed the balance of power in favor of the seed companies, allowing them to dictate terms and conditions previously unheard of. The Indian activist and scientist Vandana Shiva argues that these companies are guilty of biopiracy.<br /><br />Soil conservation and nutrient management have been important concerns since the 1950s, with the most advanced farmers taking a stewardship role with the land they use. However, increasing contamination of waterways and wetlands by nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus are concerns that can only be addressed by "enlightenment" of farmers and/or far stricter law enforcement in many countries.<br /><br />Increasing consumer awareness of agricultural issues has led to the rise of community-supported agriculture, local food movement, "Slow Food", and commercial organic farming.<br /><br /><br />Etymology<br />The word agriculture is the English adaptation of Latin agricultūra, from ager, "a field",[26] and cultūra, "cultivation" in the strict sense of "tillage of the soil".[27] Thus, a literal reading of the word yields "tillage of a field / of fields".<br /><br /><br /><br />History<br />Agriculture was developed at least 10,000 years ago, and it has undergone significant developments since the time of the earliest cultivation. Evidence points to the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East as the site of the earliest planned sowing and harvesting of plants that had previously been gathered in the wild. Independent development of agriculture occurred in northern and southern China, Africa's Sahel, New Guinea and several regions of the Americas. Agricultural practices such as irrigation, crop rotation, fertilizers, and pesticides were developed long ago but have made great strides in the past century. The Haber-Bosch method for synthesizing ammonium nitrate represented a major breakthrough and allowed crop yields to overcome previous constraints. In the past century agriculture has been characterized by enhanced productivity, the substitution of labor for synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, selective breeding, mechanization, water pollution, and farm subsidies. In recent years there has been a backlash against the external environmental effects of conventional agriculture, resulting in the organic movement.<br /><br /><br />Ancient origins<br />Developed independently by geographically distant populations, systematic agriculture first appeared in Southwest Asia with the bulk of domesticated neolthic crops and livestock now being traced to Turkey via DNA studies. The first grains of domesticated Turkish emmer wheat are found at Abu Hurerya dated to 13,500 BP. The only exceptions to this are barley, domesticated in two sites; in Israel, and East of the Zagros mountains in Iran. The eight so-called founder crops of agriculture appear: first emmer and einkorn wheat, then hulled barley, peas, lentils, bitter vetch, chick peas and flax.Bitter vetch and lentils along with almonds and pistachios appear in Franchthi Cave Greece simultaneously, about 9,000 BC. Neither are native to Greece, and they appear 2,000 years prior to domesticated wheat in the same location. This suggests that the cultivation of legumes and nuts preceded that of grain.<br /><br />By 7000 BCE, small-scale agriculture reached Egypt. From at least 7000 BCE the Indian subcontinent saw farming of wheat and barley, as attested by archaeological excavation at Mehrgarh in Balochistan. By 6000 BCE, mid-scale farming was entrenched on the banks of the Nile. About this time, agriculture was developed independently in the Far East, with rice, rather than wheat, as the primary crop. Chinese and Indonesian farmers went on to domesticate mung, soy, azuki and taro. To complement these new sources of carbohydrates, highly organized net fishing of rivers, lakes and ocean shores in these areas brought in great volumes of essential protein. Collectively, these new methods of farming and fishing inaugurated a human population boom dwarfing all previous expansions, and is one that continues today.<br /><br />By 5000 BCE, the Sumerians had developed core agricultural techniques including large scale intensive cultivation of land, mono-cropping, organized irrigation, and use of a specialized labour force, particularly along the waterway now known as the Shatt al-Arab, from its Persian Gulf delta to the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates. Domestication of wild aurochs and mouflon into cattle and sheep, respectively, ushered in the large-scale use of animals for food/fiber and as beasts of burden. The shepherd joined the farmer as an essential provider for sedentary and semi-nomadic societies.<br /><br />Maize, manioc, and arrowroot were first domesticated in the Americas as far back as 5200 BCE. [28] The potato, tomato, pepper, squash, several varieties of bean, Canna, tobacco and several other plants were also developed in the New World, as was extensive terracing of steep hillsides in much of Andean South America.<br /><br />In later years, the Greeks and Romans built on techniques pioneered by the Sumerians but made few fundamentally new advances. Southern Greeks struggled with very poor soils, yet managed to become a dominant society for years. The Romans were noted for an emphasis on the cultivation of crops for trade.<br /><br /><br />Middle Ages<br />During the Middle Ages, Muslim farmers in North Africa and the Near East developed and disseminated agricultural technologies including irrigation systems based on hydraulic and hydrostatic principles, the use of machines such as norias, and the use of water raising machines, dams, and reservoirs. They also wrote location-specific farming manuals, and were instrumental in the wider adoption of crops including sugar cane, rice, citrus fruit, apricots, cotton, artichokes, aubergines, and saffron. Muslims also brought lemons, oranges, cotton, almonds, figs and sub-tropical crops such as bananas to Spain.<br /><br />The invention of a three field system of crop rotation during the Middle Ages, and the importation of the Chinese-invented moldboard plow, vastly improved agricultural efficiency.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Modern era<br />After 1492, a global exchange of previously local crops and livestock breeds occurred. Key crops involved in this exchange included the tomato, maize, potato, cocoa and tobacco going from the New World to the Old, and several varieties of wheat, spices, coffee, and sugar cane going from the Old World to the New. The most important animal exportations from the Old World to the New were those of the horse and dog (dogs were already present in the pre-Columbian Americas but not in the numbers and breeds suited to farm work). Although not usually food animals, the horse (including donkeys and ponies) and dog quickly filled essential production roles on western hemisphere farms.<br /><br />By the early 1800s, agricultural techniques, implements, seed stocks and cultivars had so improved that yield per land unit was many times that seen in the Middle Ages. With the rapid rise of mechanization in the late 19th and 20th centuries, particularly in the form of the tractor, farming tasks could be done with a speed and on a scale previously impossible. These advances have led to efficiencies enabling certain modern farms in the United States, Argentina, Israel, Germany, and a few other nations to output volumes of high quality produce per land unit at what may be the practical limit.<br /><br />In 2005, the agricultural output of China was the largest in the world, accounting for almost one-sixth world share followed by the EU, India and the USA, according to the International Monetary Fund. Economists measure the total factor productivity of agriculture and by this measure agriculture in the United States is roughly 2.6 times more productive than it was in 1948.[29]<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Crops<br /><br />Crop statistics<br />Specific crops are cultivated in distinct growing regions throughout the world. In millions of metric tons, based on FAO estimates.<br /><br />Top agricultural products, by crop types<br />(million metric tons) 2004 data <br />Cereals 2,263 <br />Vegetables and melons 866 <br />Roots and Tubers 715 <br />Milk 619 <br />Fruit 503 <br />Meat 259 <br />Oilcrops 133 <br />Fish (2001 estimate) 130 <br />Eggs 63 <br />Pulses 60 <br />Vegetable Fiber 30 <br /><br /><br />Crop alteration<br />Domestication of plants has, over the centuries increased yield, improved disease resistance and drought tolerance, eased harvest and improved the taste and nutritional value of crop plants. Careful selection and breeding have had enormous effects on the characteristics of crop plants. Plant breeders use greenhouses (known as glasshouses or hothouses in some areas) and other techniques to get as many as three generations of plants per year towards the continued effort of improvement. Plant selection and breeding in the 1920s and 1930s improved pasture (grasses and clover) in New Zealand. Extensive X-ray an ultraviolet induced mutagenesis efforts (i.e. primitive genetic engineering) during the 1950s produced the modern commercial varieties of grains such as wheat, corn and barley.[31][32]<br /><br />For example, average yields of corn (maize) in the USA have increased from around 2.5 tons per hectare (t/ha) (40 bushels per acre) in 1900 to about 9.4 t/ha (150 bushels per acre) in 2001. Similarly, worldwide average wheat yields have increased from less than 1 t/ha in 1900 to more than 2.5 t/ha in 1990. South American average wheat yields are around 2 t/ha, African under 1 t/ha, Egypt and Arabia up to 3.5 to 4 t/ha with irrigation. In contrast, the average wheat yield in countries such as France is over 8 t/ha. Variation in yields are due mainly to variation in climate, genetics, and the level of intensive farming techniques (use of fertilizers, chemical pest control, growth control to avoid lodging).[33][34][35]<br /><br />After mechanical tomato-harvesters were developed in the early 1960s, agricultural scientists bred tomatoes that were more resistant to mechanical handling. These varieties have been criticized as being harder and having poor texture[citation needed]. More recently, genetic engineering has begun to be employed in large parts of the world to speed up the selection and breeding process. One widely used modification is a herbicide resistance gene that allows plants to tolerate exposure to glyphosate, a non-systemic (i.e kills all plants) chemical used to control weeds in a crop such as oilseed rape. Normally, expensive systemic herbicides would have to be applied to kill the weeds without harming the crop. Relatively cheap and safe glyphosate may be applied to the modified crops, efficiently killing weeds without harming the resistant crop. Another modification causes the plant to produce a toxin to reduce damage from insects (c.f. Starlink). This, in contrast, requires fewer insecticides to be applied to the crop.<br /><br />Aquaculture, the farming of fish, shrimp, and algae, is closely associated with agriculture.<br /><br />Apiculture, the culture of bees, traditionally for honey—increasingly for crop pollination.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Livestock<br />The farming practices of livestock vary dramatically world-wide and between different types of animals. Livestock are generally kept in an enclosure, are fed by human-provided food and are intentionally bred, but some livestock are not enclosed, or are fed by access to natural foods, or are allowed to breed freely, or all three. Approximately 68% of all agricultural land is used in the production of livestock as permanent pastures.[36]<br /><br /><br /><br />Environmental impact<br />Agriculture may often cause environmental problems because it changes natural environments and produces harmful by-products. Some of the negative effects are:<br /><br />Loss of biodiversity <br />Surplus of nitrogen and phosphorus in rivers and lakes <br />Detrimental effects of herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, and other biocides <br />Conversion of natural ecosystems of all types into arable land <br />Consolidation of diverse biomass into a few species <br />Soil erosion <br />Deforestation <br />Depletion of minerals in the soil <br />Particulate matter, including ammonia and ammonium off-gassing from animal waste contributing to air pollution <br />Air pollution from farm equipment powered by fossil fuels <br />Weed science - feral plants and animals <br />Odor from agricultural waste <br />Soil salination <br />Water crisis <br />According to the United Nations, the livestock sector (primarily cows, chickens, and pigs) emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to our most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. Livestock production occupies 70% of all land used for agriculture, or 30% of the land surface of the planet.[37]It is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gases—responsible for 18% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalents. By comparison, all transportation emits 13.5% of the CO2. It produces 65% of human-related nitrous oxide (which has 296 times the global warming potential of CO2) and 37% of all human-induced methane (which is 23 times as warming as CO2). It also generates 64% of the ammonia, which contributes to acid rain and acidification of ecosystems.[38]<br /><br /><br /><br />Biodiversity<br />Genetic erosion in crops and livestock biodiversity is propelled by several major factors such as variety replacement, land clearing, overexploitation of species, population pressure, environmental degradation, overgrazing, policy and changing agricultural systems.[citation needed]<br /><br />The main factor, however, is the replacement of local varieties of domestic plants and animals by high yielding or exotic varieties or species. A large number of varieties can also often be dramatically reduced when commercial varieties (including GMOs) are introduced into traditional farming systems. Many researchers believe that the main problem related to agro-ecosystem management is the general tendency towards genetic and ecological uniformity imposed by the development of modern agriculture.[who?]<br /><br />In agriculture and animal husbandry, the green revolution popularized the use of conventional hybridization to increase yield many folds by creating "high-yielding varieties". Often the handful of breeds of plants and animals hybridized originated in developed countries and were further hybridized with local varieties in the rest of the developing world to create high yield strains resistant to local climate and diseases. Hybridization of local breeds to improve performance may lead to the loss of the local breed over time and consequently the loss of specific genetic material due to dilution. When viewed across the world as a whole, the consequent loss in genetic diversity and biodiversity could place agriculture in a situation unable to adapt to sudden changes in the future.<br /><br />A Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) is an organism whose genetic material has been altered using the genetic engineering techniques generally known as recombinant DNA technology. Genetic engineering has vastly expanded the repertoire of genes available to breeders to create the desired properties in future germlines. However, it is hypothesised that these new strains will replace the wild-type species beyond their original fields, and that these genes may be transferred to other plant species that were not intended.<br /><br /><br /><br />Policy<br />Agricultural policy focuses on the goals and methods of agricultural production. At the policy level, common goals of agriculture include:<br /><br />Food safety: Ensuring that the food supply is free of contamination. <br />Food security: Ensuring that the food supply meets the population's needs.[39][40] <br />Food quality: Ensuring that the food supply is of a consistent and known quality. <br />Poverty Reduction <br />Conservation <br />Environmental impact <br />Economic stability <br /><br /><br /><br />Agriculture and petroleum<br />Since the 1940s, agriculture has dramatically increased its productivity, due largely to the use of petrochemical derived pesticides, fertilizers, and increased mechanization. This has allowed world population to grow more than double over the last 50 years. Every energy unit delivered in food grown using modern techniques requires over ten energy units to produce and deliver.[citation needed] The vast majority of this energy input comes from fossil fuel sources. Because of modern agriculture's current heavy reliance on petrochemicals and mechanization, there are warnings that the ever decreasing supply of oil (the dramatic nature of which is known as peak oil[41][42][43][44][45]) will inflict major damage on the modern industrial agriculture system, and could cause large food shortages.[46]<br /><br />Oil shortages are one of several factors making organic agriculture and other sustainable farming methods necessary. This conversion is now occurring[citation needed], but the reconditioning of soil to restore nutrients lost during the use of monoculture agriculture techniques made possible by petroleum-based technology will take time. Some farmers using modern organic-farming methods have reported yields as high as those available from conventional farming (but without the use of fossil-fuel-intensive artificial fertilizers or pesticides).[47][48][49][50]<br /><br />Farmers have also begun raising crops such as corn for non-food use in an effort to help mitigate peak oil. This has contributed to a 60% rise in wheat prices recently, and has been indicated as a possible precursor to "serious social unrest in developing countries."[40] Such situations would be exacerbated in the event of future rises in food and fuel costs, factors which have already impacted the ability of charitable donors to send food aid to starving populations.[39]<br /><br />The state of financial markets following the subprime mortgage crisis increased interest in food commodities from private sectors such as pension funds, as more traditional investment opportunities came to be seen as less favourable. This in turn increased the cost of food worldwide.[51]<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Agriculture safety and health<br />United States<br /><br />Agriculture ranks among the most hazardous industries. [52] Farmers are at high risk for fatal and nonfatal injuries, work-related lung diseases, noise-induced hearing loss, skin diseases, and certain cancers associated with chemical use and prolonged sun exposure. Farming is one of the few industries in which the families (who often share the work and live on the premises) are also at risk for injuries, illness, and death.<br /><br />In an average year, 516 workers die doing farm work in the U.S. (1992-2005). Of these deaths, 101 are caused by tractor overturns. <br />Every day, about 243 agricultural workers suffer lost-work-time injuries, and about 5% of these result in permanent impairment.[53] <br />Young Workers<br /><br />Agriculture is the most dangerous industry for young workers, accounting for 42% of all work-related fatalities of young workers in the U.S. between 1992 and 2000. Unlike other industries, half the young victims in agriculture were under age 15. [54]<br /><br />For young agricultural workers aged 15–17, the risk of fatal injury is four times the risk for young workers in other workplaces [55] Agricultural work exposes young workers to safety hazards such as machinery, confined spaces, work at elevations, and work around livestock.<br /><br />An estimated 1.26 million children and adolescents under 20 years of age resided on farms in 2004, with about 699,000 of these youth performing work on the farms. In addition to the youth who live on farms, an additional 337,000 children and adolescents were hired to work on U.S. farms in 2004. <br />On average, 103 children are killed annually on farms (1990-1996). Approximately 40 percent of these deaths were work-related. <br />In 2004, an estimated 27,600 children and adolescents were injured on farms; 8,100 of these injuries were due to farm work.[53]ricky kurniadihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11453774853927972848noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-565018554135012293.post-4191759182733436472008-08-05T06:41:00.000-07:002008-08-05T06:47:16.545-07:00Intensive farmingFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<br /><br />Intensive farming or intensive agriculture is an agricultural production system characterized by the high inputs of capital, fertilizers, labour, or labour-saving technologies such as pesticides relative to land area.[1][2] This is in contrast to the concept of Extensive Agriculture which involves a low input of materials and labour with the crop yield depending largely on the naturally available soil fertility, water supply or other land qualities.[3]<br /><br /><br /><br />Modern day forms of intensive crop based agriculture involve the use of mechanical ploughing, chemical fertilizers, herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, plant growth regulators and/or pesticides. It is associated with the increasing use of agricultural mechanization, which have enabled a substantial increase in production.[1]<br /><br />Intensive animal farming practices can involve very large numbers of animals raised on limited land which require large amounts of food, water and medical inputs (required to keep the animals healthy in cramped conditions).[2]. Very large or confined indoor intensive livestock operations (particularly descriptive of common US farming practices) are often referred to as Factory farming[4][1][5] and are criticised by opponents for the low level of animal welfare standards[5][6] and associated pollution and health issues.[7][8]<br /><br /><br />Advantages<br />Intensive agriculture has a number of benefits[9]:<br /><br />Significantly increased yield per available space than extensive farming. <br />Often leads to cheaper priced products because of better general production rate for the cost of raw materials. <br />Not much space for the animal(s) to move therefore less energy used up; so less food supplied to the cattle, which leads to cheaper products. <br />Many people feel its necessary to use intensive farming for better profits and economy<br /><br /><br />Disadvantages<br />Intensive farming alters the environment in many ways.<br /><br />Limits the natural habitat of some wild creatures and can lead to soil erosion. <br />Use of fertilizers can alter the biology of rivers and lakes.[8] Some environmentalists attribute the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico as being encouraged by nitrogen fertilization of the algae bloom. <br />Pesticides can kill useful insects as well as those that destroy crops. <br />Generally not sustainable. <br />Often results in an inferior product.[citation needed] <br />Use of chemicals on fields creates run-off, excess runs off into rivers and lakes causing pollution. <br />Animal welfare is significantly decreased compared to organic, animals are kept in tight living conditions, over-fed and only have a small life span before being slaughtered <br /><br /><br />Pre modern intensive farming<br />Pre modern intensive farming techniques and structures include terracing, rice paddies, and various forms of aquaculture.<br /><br /><br /><br />Oysters<br />"Oysters were likely the first sea animal to be transported from one area to another and cultivated as food. The ancient world, while knowing little about the reproduction of oysters, knew much about the conditions necessary for their growth. Pliny the Elder, a noted Roman naturalist of the first century, has left an account of artificial oyster beds established in Lake Lucrinus near Naples by a Sergius Orata about 95 B.C. Orata's methods consisted of preparing the grounds by removing other forms of marine life, planting seed oysters, cultivating the oysters by keeping them separated in order to grow to a well-formed, mature size, and finally harvesting them when they were ready for market. Modern oyster farming, based on the knowledge of oyster biology, basically follows the Roman procedure.Fisheries and Oceans Canada] article American Oyster<br /><br /><br /><br />Terrace<br />In agriculture, a terrace is a leveled section of a hilly cultivated area, designed as a method of soil conservation to slow or prevent the rapid surface runoff of irrigation water. Often such land is formed into multiple terraces, giving a stepped appearance. The human landscapes of rice cultivation in terraces that follow the natural contours of the escarpments like contour ploughing is a classic feature of the island of Bali and the Banaue Rice Terraces in Benguet, Philippines. In Peru, the Inca made use of otherwise unusable slopes by drystone walling to create terraces.<br /><br /><br /><br />Rice paddy<br />A paddy field is a flooded parcel of arable land used for growing rice and other semiaquatic crops. Paddy fields are a typical feature of rice-growing countries of east and southeast Asia including Malaysia, China, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand, Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Taiwan, Indonesia, India, and the Philippines. They are also found in other rice-growing regions such as Piedmont (Italy), the Camargue (France) and the Artibonite Valley (Haiti). They can occur naturally along rivers or marshes, or can be constructed, even on hillsides, often with much labour and materials. They require large quantities of water for irrigation, which can be quite complex for a highly developed system of paddy fields. Flooding provides water essential to the growth of the crop. It also gives an environment favourable to the strain of rice being grown, and is hostile to many species of weeds. As the only draft animal species which is adapted for life in wetlands, the water buffalo is in widespread use in Asian rice paddies. There are significant adverse environmental impacts from rice paddy cultivation due to the generation of large quantities of methane gas. World methane production due to rice paddies has been estimated in the range of 50 to 100 million tonnes per annum;[10] this level of greenhouse gas generation is a large component of the global warming threat and derives simply from an expanding human population.<br /><br />Rice-farming and the use of paddies in Korea is ancient. Korean paddy-farming can provide cultural background on the use of paddies in East Asia. A pit-house at the Daecheon-ni site yielded carbonized rice grains and radiocarbon dates indicating that rice cultivation may have begun as early as the Middle Jeulmun Pottery Period (c. 3500-2000 B.C.) in the Korean Peninsula (Crawford and Lee 2003). The earliest rice cultivation in the Korean Peninsula may have used dry-fields instead of paddies.<br /><br />The earliest Mumun features were usually located in low-lying narrow gulleys that were naturally swampy and fed by the local stream system. Some Mumun paddies in flat areas were made of a series of squares and rectangles separated by bunds approximately 10 cm in height, while terraced paddies consisted of long irregularly shapes that followed natural contours of the land at various levels (Bale 2001; Kwak 2001).<br /><br />Mumun Period rice farmers used all of the elements that are present in today's paddies such terracing, bunds, canals, and small reservoirs. We can grasp some paddy-farming techniques of the Middle Mumun (c. 850-550 B.C.) from the well-preserved wooden tools excavated from archaeological rice paddies at the Majeon-ni Site. However, iron tools for paddy-farming were not introduced until sometime after 200 B.C. The spatial scale of individual paddies, and thus entire paddy-fields, increased with the regular use of iron tools in the Three Kingdoms of Korea Period (c. A.D. 300/400-668).<br /><br /><br /><br />Modern Intensive farming Types<br />Modern intensive farming refers to the industrialized production of animals (livestock, poultry and fish) and crops. The methods deployed are designed to produce the highest output at the lowest cost; usually using economies of scale, modern machinery, modern medicine, and global trade for financing, purchases and sales. The practice is widespread in developed nations, and most of the meat, dairy, eggs, and crops available in supermarkets are produced in this manner.<br /><br /><br /><br />Sustainable Intensive Farming<br />Biointensive agriculture focuses on maximizing efficiency: yield per unit area, yield per energy input, yield per water input, etc.<br /><br /><br />Intensive Aquaculture<br />Aquaculture is the cultivation of the natural produce of water (fish, shellfish, algae, seaweed and other aquatic organisms). Intensive Aquaculture can often involve tanks or other highly controlled systems which are designed to boost production for the available volume or area of water resource.[11][12]<br /><br /><br /><br />Intensive Livestock Farming<br />The modern examples of intensive farming are broadly referred to as Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) or often termed Factory farming. These include:<br /><br />Intensive pig farming or Intensive piggery farming <br />Large scale chicken farms <br />Cattle feed lots <br /><br /><br />Managed intensive grazing<br />This sustainable intensive livestock management system is increasingly used to optimize production within a sustainability framework and is generally not considered Factory farming.ricky kurniadihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11453774853927972848noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-565018554135012293.post-91570628873014573432008-08-05T06:38:00.000-07:002008-08-05T06:41:28.493-07:00Factory farmingFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<br /><br />Factory farming is the practice of raising farm animals in confinement at high stocking density, sometimes used more generally to describe operating a farm as a factory, as is typical in industrial farming by agribusiness.[1][2][3][4][5]<br /><br />Confinement 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 exacerbated by these crowded living conditions.[6] There are differences in the way factory farming techniques are practiced around the world.<br /><br />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 to feed the growing global human population; the environmental impact and the health risks.<br /><br />The UN and OIE estimate that in coming decades there will be billions of additional consumers in developing countries eating meat factory farmed in developing countries, but currently only about 40 out of the around 200 countries in the world have the capacity to adequately respond to a health crisis originating from animal disease (such as avian flu, West Nile virus, bluetongue, and foot and mouth disease). Widespread use of antibiotics increases the chance of a pandemic resistant to known measures, which is exacerbated by a globally distributed food system. Decreased genetic diversity increases the chance of a food crisis. [7]<br /><br /><br /><br />Terminology<br />Factory farming <br />The Oxford English Dictionary attributes the first recorded use of "factory farming" to an American journal of economics in 1890.[8] It is now used widely by mainstream news organizations, including the BBC, The Washington Post, and CNN. A 1998 documentary, A Cow at My Table, shows the term is also used within the agricultural industry, although it is regarded by sections of the industry as a term used by activists.[9] The Encyclopaedia Britannica writes that the term is "descriptive of standard farming practice in the U.S." and frequently used by animal rights activists.[10] Webster's New Millennium defines it as "a system of large-scale industrialized and intensive agriculture that is focused on profit with animals kept indoors and restricted in mobility."[11]<br /><br />Animal Feeding Operation (AFO) <br />"An animal feeding operation is defined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as a lot or facility where animals are kept 45 days of the year or more [and] structures or animal traffic prevents vegetative growth. Note that this is different from a EPA's definition of a confined animal feeding operation which is an animal feeding operation larger than a given size."[12]<br /><br />Confined Animal Feeding Operations <br />In the U.S., some factory farms are also known as Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs),[13] concentrated animal feeding operations,[14][15] or intensive livestock operations (ILOs).[16] "A confined animal feeding operation means a lot or facility, together with any associated treatment works, where both of the following conditions are met. One, animals have been, are, or will be stabled or confined and fed or maintained for a total of 45 days or more in any 12-month period. And two, crops, vegetation, forage growth, or post-harvest residues are not sustained over any portion of the operation lot or facility." The definition is used as part of waste management and environmental protection laws to deal with the concentrated pollution from large quantities of animal waste.[17][18].<br /><br /><br /><br />Confinement <br />CAFOs and factory farms can be mostly indoors or mostly outdoors operations. The "confinement at high stocking density" aspect refers to lack of natural vegetation that the animals can eat and that can naturally process the resulting animal waste. High stocking density destroys the vegetation and produces unacceptable pollution from the animal waste in run-off and ground water unless it is handled appropriately, so laws have been enacted to deal with that; thus the legal definition for the term CAFO. Caged for life in pens too small to be humane is a completely separate issue from what "confined" refers to when used to define "factory farms" and "CAFO"s.<br /><br /><br /><br />History<br />Agriculture adopted more intensive methods during the 18th century, with this growth in production best characterised by the Agricultural Revolution, where improvements in farming techniques allowed for significantly improved yields, and supported the urbanisation of the population during the Industrial Revolution.<br /><br />Innovations in agriculture beginning in the late 19th century paralleled developments in mass production in other industries. The identification of nitrogen and phosphorus as critical factors in plant growth led to the manufacture of synthetic fertilizers, making possible more intensive types of agriculture. The discovery of vitamins and their role in animal nutrition, in the first two decades of the 20th century, led to vitamin supplements, which in the 1920s allowed certain livestock to be raised indoors.[citation needed] The discovery of antibiotics and vaccines facilitated raising livestock in larger numbers by reducing disease. Chemicals developed for use in World War II gave rise to synthetic pesticides. Developments in shipping networks and technology have made long-distance distribution of agricultural produce feasible.<br /><br />According to the BBC, factory farming in Britain began in 1947 when a new Agriculture Act granted subsidies to farmers to encourage greater output by introducing new technology, in order to reduce Britain's reliance on imported meat. The United Nations writes that intensification of animal production was seen as a way of providing food security.[19] The agriculture correspondent of The Guardian wrote in 1964:<br /><br />Factory farming, whether we like it or not, has come to stay. The tide will not be held back, either by the humanitarian outcry of well meaning but sometimes misguided animal lovers, by the threat implicit to traditional farming methods, or by the sentimental approach to a rural way of life. In a year which has been as uneventful on the husbandry side as it has been significant in economic and political developments touching the future of food procurement, the more far-seeing would name the growth of intensive farming as the major development.[20]<br /><br /><br /><br />Nature of the practice<br /><br />Scale<br />Agricultural production across the world doubled four times between 1820 and 1975[21] to feed a global population of one billion human beings in 1800 and 6.5 billion in 2002.[22]<br /><br />During the same period, the number of people involved in farming dropped as the process became more automated. In the 1930s, 24 percent of the American population worked in agriculture compared to 1.5 percent in 2002; in 1940, each farm worker supplied 11 consumers, whereas in 2002, each worker supplied 90 consumers.[22]<br /><br />The number of farms has also decreased, and their ownership is more concentrated. In the U.S., four companies produce 81 percent of cows, 73 percent of sheep, 57 percent of pigs and 50 percent of chickens.[23] In 1967, there were one million pig farms in America; as of 2002, there were 114,000,[24] with 80 million pigs (out of 95 million) killed each year on factory farms as of 2002, according to the U.S. National Pork Producers Council.[22] According to the Worldwatch Institute, 74 percent of the world's poultry, 43 percent of beef, and 68 percent of eggs are produced this way.[14]<br /><br />Although Europe has become increasingly sceptical of factory farming, after a series of diseases such as BSE (mad cow) and foot and mouth disease affected its agricultural industries, globally there are indications that the industrialized production of farm animals is set to increase. According to Denis Avery of the Hudson Institute, Asia increased its consumption of pork by 18 million tons in the 1990s.[25] As of 1997, the world had a stock of 900 million pigs, which Avery predicts will rise to 2.5 billion pigs by 2050.[25] He told the College of Natural Resources at the University of California, Berkeley that three billion pigs will thereafter be needed annually to meet demand.[26]<br /><br /><br /><br />Distinctive characteristics<br />Factory 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 "product".[citation needed]<br /><br />The distinctive characteristic of factory farms is the intense concentration of livestock. At one farm (Farm 2105) run by Carrolls Foods of North Carolina, the second-largest pig producer in the U.S., twenty pigs are kept per pen and each confinement building or "hog parlor" holds 25 pens.[27] The company's chief executive officer, F.J. "Sonny" Faison, has said: "It's all a supply-and-demand price question … The meat business in this country is just about perfect, uncontrolled supply-and-demand free enterprise. And it continues to get more and more sophisticated, based on science. Only the least-cost producer survives in agriculture."[28] The animals are better off in total confinement, according to Faison:<br /><br />They're in state-of-the-art confinement facilities. The conditions that we keep these animals in are much more humane than when they were out in the field. Today they're in housing that is environmentally controlled in many respects. And the feed is right there for them all the time, and water, fresh water. They're looked after in some of the best conditions, because the healthier and [more] content that animal, the better it grows. So we're very interested in their well-being—up to an extent.[29]<br /><br /><br /><br />Key issues<br /><br />The environment<br />One of the most obvious environmental problems that arises out of high density farming is that animals produce significant amounts of waste that need to be disposed of, both within the housing and then also from the factory site. Whilst in low density outdoor farming this can be coped with by stock and crop rotation, intensive techniques, especially on the industrial scale of a factory farm, have the potential to create significant environmental hazards.<br /><br />The designation "confined animal feeding operation" in the U.S. resulted from that country's 1972 Federal Clean Water Act, which was enacted to protect and restore lakes and rivers to a "fishable, swimmable" quality. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified certain animal feeding operations, along with many other types of industry, as point source polluters of groundwater. These operations were designated as CAFOs and subject to special anti-pollution regulation.[30]<br /><br />In 24 states in the U.S., isolated cases of groundwater contamination have been linked to CAFOs.[citation needed] For example, the ten million hogs in North Carolina generate 19 million tons of waste per year.[citation needed] The U.S. federal government acknowledges the waste disposal issue and requires that animal waste be stored in lagoons. These lagoons can be as large as 7.5 acres (30,000 m²). Lagoons must be protected with an impermeable liner, but can nonetheless leak waste into groundwater under some conditions, and run-off from manure spread back onto fields as fertilizer can leak into surface water in the case of an unforeseen heavy rainfall. A lagoon that burst in 1995 released 25 million gallons of nitrous sludge in North Carolina's New River. The spill allegedly killed eight to ten million fish.[31]<br /><br />Dennis Avery of the Hudson Institute's agricultural think-tank, the Center for Global Food Issues, has called modern farming a "conservation triumph," because it involves getting higher yields of crops and livestock from land.[32] He predicts that, after 2050, three billion pigs will be needed annually to meet demand:[26] "For the sake of the environment," he writes, "we had better hope those hogs are raised in big, efficient confinement systems."[25]<br /><br />The use of controlled indoor environments means that animals unsuited to the local climate can be farmed. As an example, the UK has one of the few climates well suited to the outdoor farming of pigs.[33]<br /><br />A 2006 FAO report says that the livestock sector of the world's economy that provides "one-third of humanity's protein intake" is one of the top three contributor's to the world's most serious environmental problems and that major reductions in impact could be achieved at reasonable cost through decentralization and intensification regulatory measures that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve livestock diets, improve animal waste management, and decrease land degradation.[34]<br /><br /><br /><br />Ethics<br />The large concentration of animals, animal waste, and the potential for dead animals in a small space poses ethical issues. It is recognised that some techniques used to sustain intensive agriculture can be cruel to animals.[35] As awareness of the problems of intensive techniques has grown, there have been some efforts by governments and industry to remove inappropriate techniques.<br /><br />In the UK, the Farm Animal Welfare Council was set up by the government to act as an independent advisor on animal welfare in 1979.[36] and expresses its policy as five freedoms: from hunger & thirst; from discomfort; from pain, injury or disease; to express normal behaviour; from fear and distress.<br /><br />There are differences around the world as to which practices are accepted and there continue to be changes in regulations with animal welfare being a strong driver for increased regulation. For example, the EU is bringing in further regulation to set maximum stocking densities for meat chickens by 2010, where the UK Animal Welfare Minister commented, "The welfare of meat chickens is a major concern to people throughout the European Union. This agreement sends a strong message to the rest of the world that we care about animal welfare.”[37]<br /><br />However, given the assumption that intensive farming techniques are a necessity, it is recognized that some apparently cruel techniques are better than the alternative. For example, in the UK, de-beaking of chickens is deprecated, but it is recognized that it is a method of last resort, seen as better than allowing vicious fighting and ultimately cannibalism.[35] Between 60 and 70 percent[38] of six million breeding sows in the U.S. are confined during pregnancy, and for most of their adult lives, in 2 ft (0.61 m) by 7 ft (2.1 m) gestation crates.[39][3] According to pork producers and many veterinarians, sows will fight if housed in pens. The largest pork producer in the U.S. said in January 2007 that it will phase out gestation crates by 2017.[3] They are being phased out in the European Union, with a ban effective in 2013 after the fourth week of pregnancy.[40] With the evolution of factory farming, there has been a growing awareness of the issues amongst the wider public, not least due to the efforts of animal rights and welfare campaigners.[41] As a result gestation crates, one of the more contentious practices, are the subject of laws in the U.S.[42], Europe[43] and around the world to phase out their use as a result of pressure to adopt less confined practices.<br /><br /><br />Health problems and nuisance<br />According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), farms on which animals are intensively reared can cause adverse health reactions in farm workers. Workers may develop acute and chronic lung disease, musculoskeletal injuries, and may catch infections that transmit from animals to human beings.<br /><br />Pesticides are used to control organisms which are considered harmful[44] and they save farmers money by preventing product losses to pests.[45] In the US, about a quarter of pesticides used are used in houses, yards, parks, golf courses, and swimming pools[46] and about 70% are used in agriculture.[45] However, pesticides can make their way into consumers' bodies which can cause health problems. One source of this is bioaccumulation in animals raised on factory farms.[47][46][48]<br /><br />The CDC writes that chemical, bacterial, and viral compounds from animal waste may travel in the soil and water. Residents near such farms report nuisances such as unpleasant smell, flies and adverse health effects.[15]<br /><br />The CDC has identified a number of pollutants associated with the discharge of animal waste into rivers and lakes, and into the air. The use of antibiotics may create antibiotic-resistant pathogens; parasites, bacteria, and viruses may be spread; ammonia, nitrogen, and phosphorus can reduce oxygen in surface waters and contaminate drinking water; pesticides and hormones may cause hormone-related changes in fish; animal feed and feathers may stunt the growth of desirable plants in surface waters and provide nutrients to disease-causing micro-organisms; trace elements such as arsenic and copper, which are harmful to human health, may contaminate surface waters.[15]<br /><br />In the European Union, growth hormones are banned on the basis that there is no way of determining a safe level. The UK has stated that in the event of the EU raising the ban at some future date, to comply with a precautionary approach, it would only consider the introduction of specific hormones, proven on a case by case basis.[49] The various techniques of factory farming have been associated with a number of European incidents where public health has been threatened or large numbers of animals have had to be slaughtered to deal with disease. Where disease breaks out, it may spread more quickly, not only due to the concentrations of animals, but because modern approaches tend to distribute animals more widely.[citation needed]. The international trade in animal products increases the risk of global transmission of virulent diseases such as swine fever[50], BSE, foot and mouth and bird flu.<br /><br /><br />Aspects of factory farming<br />Low cost — Intensive agriculture tends to produce food that can be sold at lower cost to consumers. This is achieved by reducing land costs and management costs. <br />Quality — Factory farming methods permit increased standardization and control over product output. <br />Efficiency — Animals in confinement can be supervised more closely than free-ranging animals, and diseased animals can be treated faster. Further, more efficient production of meat, milk, or eggs results in a need for fewer animals to be raised, thereby limiting the impact of agriculture on the environment. <br />Economic contribution — The high input costs of agricultural operations result in a large influx and distribution of capital to a rural area from distant buyers rather than simply recirculating existing capital. A single dairy cow contributes over $1300 US to a local rural economy each year, each beef cow over $800, meat turkey $14, and so on. As Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture Dennis Wolff states, “Research estimates that the annual economic impact per cow is $13,737. In addition, each $1 million increase in PA milk sales creates 23 new jobs. This tells us that dairy farms are good for Pennsylvania's economy.” [51] <br />Food safety — Reducing number and diversity of agricultural production facilities results in easier management. Smaller facility numbers permit easier government oversight and regulation of food quality. Processing foodstuffs through centralized mediums leads to standardization, which protects general food safety, removing unsafe rogue elements. There is dispute over food safety. It is noted that E. coli grows naturally in most mammals, including humans, and that only a few strains of E. coli are potentially hazardous to humans. They also note that diseases naturally occur among chickens and other animals. Properly cooking food can effectively remove risk factors by killing bacteria. <br />Animal health — Larger farms have greater resources and abilities to maintain a high level of animal health. Larger farms employ more expert employees who devote all their working hours to farm work, rather than employing underskilled part-time workers as is common on smaller operations. Larger farms are more able to make use of expert veterinarians and the resources of state and federal agricultural extension services. Industrial agriculture generally provides more mechanisms for the use of antibiotics to prevent and treat diseases than non-industrial agriculture. <br />Diseases The use of intensive farming are thought to make it more likely to evolve harmful diseases. Many communicable diseases spread rapidly under such conditions. Animals raised on antibiotics may develop antibiotic resistant strains of pathogenic bacteria ("superbugs").[52] Use of animal vaccines can create new viruses that kill people and cause flu pandemic threats. H5N1 is an example of where this might have already occurred.[53][54][55] <br />Pollution — Large quantities and concentrations of waste are produced.[56] Lakes, rivers, and groundwater are at risk when animal waste is improperly recycled. Pollutant gases are also emitted. Concentrations of animals can produce unacceptable levels of foul smells as opposed to the tolerable odours of the countryside. In less intensive conditions, natural processes can break down potential pollutants. Large farms can maintain and operate sophisticated systems to control waste products. Smaller farms are unable to maintain the same standards of pollution control. By consolidating waste products, farmers can efficiently manage waste. <br />Ethics — Cruelty to animals: Crowding, drugging, and performing surgery on animals. On some farms, chicks may be debeaked when very young. Confining hens and pigs in barren environments leads to physical problems such as osteoporosis and joint pain, and also boredom and frustration, as shown by repetitive or self-destructive actions known as stereotypes.[57]. Animal treatment is subject to welfare legislation, though there is not consensus on what is acceptable. Some harmful treatments, such as debeaking, are tolerated on the basis that the alternative is greater harm to the animals. <br />Destruction of biodiversity — A tendency towards using single adapted breeds (a mono-culture) in factory farming, both in arable and animal farming, gives uniform product designed for high yields, at the risk of increased susceptibility to disease. The loss of locally adapted breeds reduces the resilience of the agricultural system. The issue is not limited to factory farming and historically the problem is reflected in the rapid adoption of one or two strains of crops across a wide area as seen in the Irish potato famine of 1854 and the Bengal rice famine in 1942.[58] The loss of the gene pool of domesticated animals limits the ability to adapt to future problems. This issue exists in all types of farming practices.ricky kurniadihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11453774853927972848noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-565018554135012293.post-46328813943701284642008-08-05T06:34:00.000-07:002008-08-05T06:37:56.091-07:00Collective farmingCollective farming is an organization of agricultural production in which the holdings of several farmers are run as a joint enterprise.[1] A collective farm is essentially an agricultural production cooperative in which members-owners engage jointly in farming activities. Typical examples of collective farms are the kolkhozy that dominated Soviet agriculture between 1930 and 1992 and the Israeli kibbutzim.[2] Both are collective farms based on common ownership of resources and on pooling of labor and income in accordance with the theoretical principles of cooperative organizations. They are radically different, however, in the application of the cooperative principles of freedom of choice and democratic rule. The creation of kolkhozy in the Soviet Union during the country-wide collectivization campaign of 1928-1933 was an example of forced collectivization, whereas the kibbutzim in Israel were traditionally created through voluntary collectivization and were governed as democratic entities. The element of forced or state-sponsored collectivization that was present in many countries during the 20th century led to the impression that collective farms operate under the supervision of the state,[3] but this is not universally true, as shown by the counter-example of the Israeli kibbutz.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Communist collectivization<br />Collective farming was sweepingly introduced in the 12 core republics of the Soviet Union between 1928 and 1933. The Baltic states and the East European countries adopted collective farming after World War II, with the accession of communist regimes to power. In Asia (People's Republic of China, North Korea, North and South Vietnam) the adoption of collective farming was also driven by communist government policies. In all communist countries, the transition to collective farming involved an element of persuasion by force, and the collective farms in these countries, lacking the principle of voluntary membership, can be regarded at best as pseudo-cooperatives.<br /><br /><br />Soviet Union<br />Main article: Collectivization in the USSR<br /><br />In the Soviet Union, collectivization was introduced by Stalin in the late 1920s as a way, according to the theories of communist leaders, to boost agricultural production through the organization of land and labor into large-scale collective farms (kolkhozy). At the same time, Soviet leaders argued that collectivization would free poor peasants from economic servitude under the kulaks. Stalin believed that the goals of collectivization could be achieved voluntarily, but when the new farms failed to attract the number of peasants hoped, the government blamed the oppression of the kulaks and resorted to forceful implementation of the plan, by murder and wholesale deportation of farmers to Siberia. Millions of unfortunates who remained died of starvation, and the centuries-old system of farming was destroyed in one of the most fertile regions in the world for farming, once called "the breadbasket of Europe." The immediate effect of forced collectivization was to reduce grain output and almost halve livestock, thus producing major famines in 1932 and 1933.<br /><br />In 1932-1933, an estimated 3.1–7 million people, mainly in Ukraine, died from famine after Stalin forced the peasants into the collectives (this famine is known in Ukraine as Holodomor). Most modern historians believe that this famine was caused by the sudden disruption of production brought on by collective farming policies that were implemented by the government of the Soviet Union. Some believe that, due to unreasonably high government quotas, farmers often received far less for their labor than they did before collectivization, and some refused to work; others retaliated by destroying their crops. It was not until 1940 that agricultural production finally surpassed its pre-collectivization levels.[4] [5]<br /><br /><br />Baltic states<br />The Baltic states — Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania — were only occupied by the Soviet Union on the eve of World War II, and had thus missed the first wave of Soviet collectivization. Furthermore, the opposition to kolkhozy was rather high in these countries. Primarily to break this opposition, Stalin ordered the wave of March deportations of 1949. This was successful in motivating peasants and brought great acceleration to collectivization in most regions.<br /><br /><br />Hungary<br />Main article: Collectivization in Hungary<br />In Hungary, agricultural collectivization was attempted a number of times between 1948 and 1956 (with disastrous results), until it was finally successful in the early 1960s under János Kádár.<br /><br />The first serious attempt at collectivization based on Stalinist agricultural policy was undertaken in July 1948. Both economic and direct police pressure were used to coerce peasants to join cooperatives, but large numbers opted instead to leave their villages. In the early 1950s, only one-quarter of peasants had agreed to join cooperatives.[6] In the spring of 1955 the drive for collectivization was renewed, again using physical force to encourage membership, but this second wave also ended in dismal failure. After the events of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, Hungary opted for a more gradual collectivization drive. The main wave of collectivization occurred between 1959 and 1961, and at the end of this period more than 95% of agricultural land in Hungary had become the property of collective farms. In February 1961, the Central Committee declared that collectivization had been completed.[7] This quick success should not be confused with enthusiastic adoption of collective idealism on the part of the peasants. Still, demoralized after two successive (and harsh) collectivization campaigns and the events of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, the peasants were less keen to resist. As membership levels increased, those who remained outside likely grew worried about being permanently left out.<br /><br />Hungary<br />Main article: Collectivization in Hungary<br />In Hungary, agricultural collectivization was attempted a number of times between 1948 and 1956 (with disastrous results), until it was finally successful in the early 1960s under János Kádár.<br /><br />The first serious attempt at collectivization based on Stalinist agricultural policy was undertaken in July 1948. Both economic and direct police pressure were used to coerce peasants to join cooperatives, but large numbers opted instead to leave their villages. In the early 1950s, only one-quarter of peasants had agreed to join cooperatives.[6] In the spring of 1955 the drive for collectivization was renewed, again using physical force to encourage membership, but this second wave also ended in dismal failure. After the events of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, Hungary opted for a more gradual collectivization drive. The main wave of collectivization occurred between 1959 and 1961, and at the end of this period more than 95% of agricultural land in Hungary had become the property of collective farms. In February 1961, the Central Committee declared that collectivization had been completed.[7] This quick success should not be confused with enthusiastic adoption of collective idealism on the part of the peasants. Still, demoralized after two successive (and harsh) collectivization campaigns and the events of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, the peasants were less keen to resist. As membership levels increased, those who remained outside likely grew worried about being permanently left out.<br /><br /><br />Czechoslovakia (1948-89)<br />In Czechoslovakia, land reforms after World War I distributed most of the land to peasants and created large groups of relatively well-to-do farmers (though village poor still existed). These groups showed no support for communist ideals. In 1945, immediately after World War II, new land reform started. The first phase involved a confiscation of properties of Germans, Hungarians, and collaborators of the Nazi regime in accordance with the Beneš decree. The second phase, promulgated by so-called Ďuriš's laws (after Communist Minister of Agriculture), in fact meant a complete revision of the pre-war land reform and tried to reduce maximal private property to 150 hectares (ha) of agricultural land and 250 ha of any land (forests, etc...). The third and final phase forbade possession of land above 50 ha for one family. This phase was carried out in April 1948, two months after Communists violently overtook power. Farms started to be collectivized, mostly under threat of sanctions. The most obstinate farmers were persecuted and imprisoned. The most common form of collectivization was agricultural cooperative (in Czech Jednotné zemědělské družstvo, JZD; in Slovak Jednotné roľnícke družstvo, JRD ). The collectivization was implemented in three stages (1949-1952, 1953-1955, 1955-1960) and officially ended with implementation of the constitution establishing the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, which illegalized private ownership.<br /><br />Many early cooperatives collapsed and were recreated again. Their productivity was low since they provided tiny salaries and no pensions, and they failed to create a sense of collective ownership; small scale pilfering was common, and food became scarce. Seeing the massive outflow of people from agriculture into cities, the government started to massively subsidize the cooperatives in order to make the standard of living of farmers equal to that of city inhabitants; this was the long-term official policy of the government. Funds, machinery, and fertilizers were provided; young people from villages were forced to study agriculture; and students were regularly sent (mandatorily) to help in cooperatives.<br /><br />Subsidies and constant pressure destroyed the remaining private farmers; only a handful of them remained after the 1960s. The lifestyle of villagers had eventually reached the level of cities, and village poverty was eliminated. Czechoslovakia was again able to produce enough food for its citizens. The price of this success was a huge waste of resources because the cooperatives had no motivation to improve efficiency. Every piece of land was cultivated regardless of the expense involved, and the soil became heavily polluted with chemicals. Also, the intensive use of heavy machinery damaged topsoil. Furthermore, the cooperatives were infamous for over-employment.<br /><br />In the late 1980s, the economy of Czechoslovakia stagnated, and the state-owned companies were unable to deal with advent of modern technologies. A few agricultural companies (where the rules were less strict than in state companies) used this situation to start providing high-tech products. For example, the only way to buy a PC compatible computer in the late 1980s was to get it (for an extremely high price) from one agricultural company acting as a reseller.<br /><br />After the fall of Communism in Czechoslovakia (1989) subsidies to agriculture were stopped with devastating effect. Most of the cooperatives had problems competing with technologically advanced foreign competition and were unable to obtain investment to improve their situation. Quite a large percentage of them collapsed. The others that remained were typically insufficiently funded, lacking competent management, without new machinery and living from day to day. Employment in the agricultural sector dropped significantly (from approx. 3% of the population to approx. 1%).<br /><br /><br />People's Republic of China<br />Collective farming began in the People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong. It was further pursued during the Great Leap Forward, an attempt to rapidly mobilize the country in an effort to transform China into an industrialized communist society. The policy mistakes associated with this collectivization attempt during the Great Leap Forward resulted in mass starvation. According to many other sources, the death toll due to famine was most likely about 20 to 30 million people. The three years between 1959 and 1962 were known as the "Three Bitter Years" and the Three Years of Natural Disasters.<br /><br /><br />North Korea<br />While Hungary arguably provides the best positive example of collective farming in a communist state, North Korea provides its negative counterpart. In the late 1990s, the collective farming system collapsed under the strain of droughts. Estimates of deaths due to starvation ranged into the millions, although the government did not allow outside observers to survey the extent of the famine. Aggravating the severity of the famine, the government was accused of diverting international relief supplies to its armed forces.<br /><br /><br />Socialist Republic of Vietnam<br />Following the Fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975, South Vietnam briefly became the Republic of South Vietnam, a puppet state under military occupation by North Vietnam, before being officially reunified with the North under Communist rule as the Socialist Republic of Vietnam on July 2, 1976. Upon taking control, the Vietnamese communists banned other political parties, arrested suspects believed to have collaborated with the United States and embarked on a mass campaign of collectivization of farms and factories. Reconstruction of the war-ravaged country was slow and serious humanitarian and economic problems confronted the communist regime. In a historic shift in 1986, the Communist Party of Vietnam implemented free-market reforms known as Đổi Mới (Renovation). With the authority of the state remaining unchallenged, private ownership of farms and companies, deregulation and foreign investment were encouraged. The economy of Vietnam has achieved rapid growth in agricultural and industrial production, construction and housing, exports and foreign investment. However, the power of the Communist Party of Vietnam over all organs of government remains firm.<br /><br /><br />Cuba<br />Agricultural production cooperatives were experimented with in the first few years following the Cuban Revolution. Between 1977 and 1983, farmers began to collectivize into CPAs — Cooperativa de Producción Agropecuaria (agricultural production cooperatives in Spanish). Farmers were encouraged to sell their land to the state for the establishment of a cooperative farm, receiving payments for a period of 20 years while also sharing in the fruits of the CPA. Joining a CPA allowed individuals who were previously dispersed throughout the countryside to move to a centralized location with increased access to electricity, medical care, housing, and schools. Democractic practice tends to be limited to business decisions and is constrained by the centralized economic planning of the Cuban system.<br /><br />Another type of agricultural production cooperative in Cuba is UBPC — Unidad Básica de Producción Cooperativa (basic unit of cooperative production in Spanish). The law authorizing the creation of UBPCs was passed on September 20, 1993. It has been used to transform many state farms into UBPCs, similarly to the transformation of Russian sovkhozes (state farms) into kolkhozes (collective farms) after 1992. The law granted indefinite usufruct to the workers of the UBPC in line with its goal to link the workers to the land, establish material incentives for increased production by tying workers' earnings to the overall production of the UBPC, and increase managerial autonomy and workers' participation in the management of the workplace.<br /><br /><br />Israel<br />Collective farming was also implemented in kibbutzim in Israel, which began to be created in 1909 as a unique combination of Zionism and socialism. The concept has faced occasional criticism as economically inefficient and over-reliant on subsidized credit.[8]<br /><br />A less known type of collective farm in Israel is moshav shitufi (lit. collective moshav), where production and services are managed collectively, as in a kibbutz, whereas consumption decisions are left to individual households. In terms of cooperative organization, moshav shitufi is distinct from the much more common moshav (or moshav ovdim), which is essentially a village-level service cooperative, not a collective farm.<br /><br />In 2006 there were 40 moshavim shitufiim in Israel, compared with 267 kibbutzim.[9]ricky kurniadihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11453774853927972848noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-565018554135012293.post-27354765715177750712008-08-05T06:33:00.002-07:002008-08-05T06:34:49.606-07:00Types of farming- Collective farming <br />- Factory farming <br />- Intensive farming <br />- Organic farming <br />- Vertical farming <br />- Fell farmingricky kurniadihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11453774853927972848noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-565018554135012293.post-77999502426652984952008-08-05T06:33:00.001-07:002008-08-05T06:33:35.788-07:00FarmingFarming<br />Further information: Agriculture <br />The term farming covers a wide spectrum of agricultural production work. At one end of this spectrum is the subsistence farmer, who farms a small area with limited resource inputs, and produces only enough food to meet the needs of his/her family. At the other end is commercial intensive agriculture, including industrial agriculture. Such farming involves large fields and/or numbers of animals, large resource inputs (pesticides, fertilizers, etc.), and a high level of mechanization. These operations generally attempt to maximize financial income from grain, produce, or livestock.<br /><br />Traditionally, the goal of farming was to create a profit, and to produce an amount of cultivated material (i.e. corn, wheat, etc) so that the resulting harvest has more worth than the cost of planting such a harvest. The costs could include the acquisition of seeds as well as the time and energy required to tend to such a venture. The resulting product is often used to sustain those who farm as both a food to eat and a commodity to sell.ricky kurniadihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11453774853927972848noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-565018554135012293.post-17857578366712143972008-08-05T06:31:00.000-07:002008-08-05T06:32:16.782-07:00Farm EtymologyThe word came via French ferme from Late Latin firma = "fixed payment" from Latin firmus = "firm, solid", and originally referred to a big landowner farming out his land among other men to run it, rather than running it all himself. As times have changed fewer people are needed to assist in running the farm because of the increase of mechanization.ricky kurniadihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11453774853927972848noreply@blogger.com0