• Journal of the Korean association of regional geographers
• /
• v.5 no.1
• /
• pp.101-120
• /
• 1999

The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of agricultural polices on the change of regional structure based on the specialization during the productivism period. Analysis are carried on through the comparison of distribution in 1950s and 1997. Since the 1950s, governmental policy has played a leading role in shaping the pattern of farming in Great Britain. The range of British measures have also been employed in an attempt to improve the efficiency of agriculture and raise farm income. Three fairly distinct phase can be identified in the developing relationship between government policies and British agriculture in the postwar period. In the 1st phase, The Agricultural Act of 1947 laid the foundations for agricultural productivism in Great Britain until membership of the EC. This was to be achieved through the system of price support and guaranteed prices and the means of a series of grants and subsidies. Guaranteed prices encouraged farmenrs to intensify production and specialize in either cereal farming or milk-beef enterprise. The former favoured eastern areas, whereas the latter favoured western areas. Various grants and subsidies were made available to farmers during this period, again as a way of increasing efficiency and farm incomes. Many policies, such as Calf Subsidy and the Ploughing Grant, Hill cow and Hill Sheep Schemes and the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Grant was provided. Some of these policies favoured western uplands, whilst the others was biased towards the Lake District. Concentration of farms occured especially in near the London Metropolitan Area and south part of Scotland. In the 2nd stage after the membership of EC, very high guaranteed price created a relatively risk-free environment, so farmers intensified production and levels of self-sufficiency for most agriculture risen considerably. As farmers were being paid high prices for as much as they could produce, the policy favoured areas of larger-scale farming in eastern Britain. As a result of increasing regional disparities in agriculture, the CAP became more geographically sensitive in 1975 with the setting up of the Less Favoured Areas(LFAs). But they are biased towards the larger farms, because such farms have more crops and/or livestock, but small farms with low incomes are in most need of support. Specialization of cereals such wheat and barely was occured, but these two cereal crops have experienced rather different trend since 1950s. Under the CAP, farmers have been paid higher guaranteed prices for wheat than for barely because of the relative shortage of wheat in the EC. And more barely were cultivated as feedstuffs for livestock by home-grown cereals. In the 1950s dairying was already declining in what was to become the arable areas of southern and eastern England. By the mid-1980s, the pastral core had maintained its dominance, but the pastoral periphery had easily surpassed arable England as the second most important dairying district. Pig farming had become increasingly concentrated in intensive units in the main cereal areas of eastern England. These results show that the measure of agricultural policy induced the concentration and specialization implicitly. Measures for increasing demand, reducing supply or raising farm incomes are favoured by large scale farming. And price support induced specialization of farming. And technology for specialization are diffused and induced geographical specialization. This is the process of change of regional structure through the specialization.

• Journal of Food Hygiene and Safety
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.40-51
• /
• 2019

Ginseng has a unique production system that is different from those used for other crops. It is subject to the Ginseng Industry Act., requires a long-term cultivation period of 4-6 years, involves complicated cultivation characteristics whereby ginseng is not produced in a single location, and many ginseng farmers engage in mixed-farming. Therefore, to bring the production of Ginseng in line with GAP standards, it is necessary to better understand the on-site practices of Ginseng farmers according to established control points, and to provide a proper action plan for improving efficiency. Among ginseng farmers in Korea who applied for GAP certification, 77.6% obtained it, which is lower than the 94.1% of farmers who obtained certification for other products. 13.7% of the applicants were judged to be unsuitable during document review due to their use of unregistered pesticides and soil heavy metals. Another 8.7% of applicants failed to obtain certification due to inadequate management results. This is a considerably higher rate of failure than the 5.3% incompatibility of document inspection and 0.6% incompatibility of on-site inspection, which suggests that it is relatively more difficult to obtain GAP certification for ginseng farming than for other crops. Ginseng farmers were given an average of 2.65 points out of 10 essential control points and a total 72 control points, which was slightly lower than the 2.81 points obtained for other crops. In particular, ginseng farmers were given an average of 1.96 points in the evaluation of compliance with the safe use standards for pesticides, which was much lower than the average of 2.95 points for other crops. Therefore, it is necessary to train ginseng farmers to comply with the safe use of pesticides. In the other essential control points, the ginseng farmers were rated at an average of 2.33 points, lower than the 2.58 points given for other crops. Several other areas of compliance in which the ginseng farmers also rated low in comparison to other crops were found. These inclued record keeping over 1 year, record of pesticide use, pesticide storages, posts harvest storage management, hand washing before and after work, hygiene related to work clothing, training of workers safety and hygiene, and written plan of hazard management. Also, among the total 72 control points, there are 12 control points (10 required, 2 recommended) that do not apply to ginseng. Therefore, it is considered inappropriate to conduct an effective evaluation of the ginseng production process based on the existing certification standards. In conclusion, differentiated certification standards are needed to expand GAP certification for ginseng farmers, and it is also necessary to develop programs that can be implemented in a more systematic and field-oriented manner to provide the farmers with proper GAP management education.