Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know why you're defending this so vehemently. It's not a matter of size. Farming is more prevalent in the Midwest, which is a term that has nothing to do with total area.
Obviously that metric is going to be skewed towards states without large metros, so that takes some Northeastern states out of the running, but that's also the case with several Midwestern states. Or you could look at the raw GDP from agriculture:
And, of course, that one is biased towards larger states, but Iowa, Illinois, and Wisconsin are only slightly larger in land area than New York or Pennsylvania.
10 of 12 Midwestern states get an above average percentage (for the entire U.S.) of their GDP from agriculture. 2 of 9 Northeastern states do.
Yes, parts of the Northeast have a strong farming industry. So does, say, Louisiana. The difference is that farming is virtually ubiquitous in the rural Midwest.
Also, I have to point out that I love that soda vs. pop map, but I live in Madison, which is blue, and no one says pop except transplants. You don't start hearing it until Iowa or the Twin Cities suburbs. At least 80% of Wisconsin says "soda".
He had no idea NY was top 5 for agriculture products. Most Midwesterners think the Northeast is just NYC, Boston and Philly.
Upstate NY and PA is full of farmland and are very agricultural states. Hes sounding as if the Midwest is the only place capable of producing anything. What substantial crops can those states grow NY and PA cant? Thats my point. It then becomes just a matter of size, since the Midwest is obviously much larger. It doesnt make NY or PA any less agricultural because the Northeast is smaller in comparison.
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 5,092,866 times
Reputation: 1028
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForYourLungsOnly
It's very prevalent in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic and South too.
Not to the degree of the Midwest. The Midwest has specific trademark crops, such as corn and wheat, which are grown in mass amounts that aren't grown anywhere else. in addition, most of the Midwest has a Catholic element to it, and the accent is pretty close to General American...the closest you'll find in the eastern and central portions of the country.
He had no idea NY was top 5 for agriculture products. Most Midwesterners think the Northeast is just NYC, Boston and Philly.
Upstate NY and PA is full of farmland and are very agricultural states. Hes sounding as if the Midwest is the only place capable of producing anything. What substantial crops can those states grow NY and PA cant? Thats my point. It then becomes just a matter of size, since the Midwest is obviously much larger. It doesnt make NY or PA any less agricultural because the Northeast is smaller in comparison.
Sorry, but this is not correct.
It is not just the size of the region that makes the Midwest more of an agricultural region. Illinois, Indiana, Nebraska, Iowa, and parts of other Midwest states have the best soils in the world, and product better crop yields per acre than anywhere in the Northeast. It is not just because there is more space.
This map shows the corn yields in bushels per acre by state. Notice the dark green colors in Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Ohio, Minnesota, etc. The cornfields in these states are producing much more per acre than cornfields in the northeast. This stat does not measure how much land is used for farming. It is only measuring the quality of farming.
Don't get me wrong... NY and Penn are definitely agricultural states, and the farms are especially beautiful because of the hilly terrain. I love driving through those states. But the farmers there are not working with the same quality of land that the farmers in the heartland are.
Yes, but the OP specifically mentioned the entire Midwest. I could be wrong about this, but I don't think there's too much agriculture going on in places like Chicago, St. Louis and Minneapolis (just to name three).
I was going to suggest the winter weather as a common factor.
Yes, but the OP specifically mentioned the entire Midwest. I could be wrong about this, but I don't think there's too much agriculture going on in places like Chicago, St. Louis and Minneapolis (just to name three).
I was going to suggest the winter weather as a common factor.
If the ENTIRE Midwest was nothing but agriculture, where would people live?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
