Whittlesey’s 13 Agricultural Systems
Summary Chart
| # | Agricultural System | Key Features | Main Crops/Livestock | Key Locations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Nomadic Herding | Primitive, subsistence; seasonal migration (transhumance) | Cattle, sheep, goats, camels, yak, reindeer | Sahara, Arabian Peninsula, Central Asia, Tibet, Andes, Arctic |
| 2 | Livestock Ranching | Commercial, extensive, fenced parcels, scientific breeding | Cattle, sheep, goats, horses (for meat, wool, hides) | USA, Argentina, Uruguay, Australia, New Zealand |
| 3 | Shifting Cultivation | Slash-and-burn, temporary fields, low capital | Millets, tubers, maize; varied by region | Amazon, Central Africa, NE India, Indonesia |
| 4 | Rudimentary Sedentary Tillage | Subsistence, same land reused; fallowing common | Grains, rubber (some tree crops) | Tropical regions, parts of Africa, South America |
| 5 | Intensive Subsistence (Paddy Dominant) | Small landholdings, manual labour, high yield per area | Rice, vegetables | China, India (coastal/northern), SE Asia |
| 6 | Intensive Subsistence (Without Paddy) | Similar to above; wheat and millets dominate | Wheat, barley, sorghum, soyabean | N. China, N. Korea, N. Japan, W. & S. India |
| 7 | Commercial Plantation | Colonial, single crop, export-oriented, capital-intensive | Tea, coffee, cocoa, rubber, sugarcane | India, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, W. Africa, Caribbean |
| 8 | Mediterranean Agriculture | Climate-specific, fruit-oriented, winter crops in demand | Grapes, olives, figs, citrus fruits | Mediterranean basin, California, Chile, Australia |
| 9 | Commercial Grain Farming | Mechanised, large farms, low yield per acre | Wheat, corn, oats, rye, barley | Prairies (USA/Canada), Pampas, Steppes, Velds |
| 10 | Mixed Farming (Crops + Livestock) | Balanced system, high capital input, rotation practices | Wheat, maize, fodder + cattle, pigs, poultry | NW Europe, E. USA, S. Brazil, Australia |
| 11 | Subsistence Crop & Livestock | Traditional, poor inputs, low productivity | Wheat, rye, barley + sheep, goats | N. Europe, Middle East, Mexico mountains |
| 12 | Commercial Dairy Farming | Urban-oriented, high capital & labour, year-round activity | Milk, butter, cheese (cattle dominant) | NW Europe, Canada, SE Australia, NZ |
| 13 | Specialized Horticulture | High-value crops, near cities, capital-intensive | Vegetables, fruits, flowers; poultry (factory farms) | NW Europe, NE USA, Mediterranean |
🧠 Tips for Revision
- Group similar systems: e.g., Nomadic Herding & Livestock Ranching = livestock-based.
- Compare intensive vs extensive: Intensive = labour-heavy, small land (e.g., subsistence tillage); Extensive = large land, low labour (e.g., grain farming).
- Think colonial legacies: Plantation systems were shaped by colonial powers—know who did what where.
- Relate to physical geography: e.g., Mediterranean = climate-based; shifting cultivation = tropical forests.
🎓 Mnemonic
“No Lazy Students Should Really Practice Planting More Good Crops, So Some Dairy Helped Hugely.”
Each word (or part of it) represents an agricultural system:
| Mnemonic Word | System Name |
|---|---|
| No | Nomadic Herding |
| Lazy | Livestock Ranching |
| Students | Shifting Cultivation |
| Should | Sedentary Tillage (Rudimentary) |
| Really | Rice-based Intensive Subsistence Tillage |
| Practice | Paddy-less Intensive Subsistence Tillage |
| Planting | Plantation Agriculture |
| More | Mediterranean Agriculture |
| Good | Grain Farming (Commercial) |
| Crops | Crop-Livestock Mixed Farming |
| So | Subsistence Crop & Livestock Farming |
| Dairy | Commercial Dairy Farming |
| Helped Hugely | Horticulture (Specialized) |
🧠 Memory Hack: Visualise the Story
Imagine this scene:
A group of nomadic students (“No Lazy Students”) wander through fields, shifting and settling down (“Should”) to farm. Some of them get really good at rice cultivation, while others say, “Let’s practice wheat instead!” They learn plantation farming from their colonial professors, then travel to the Mediterranean coast. Later, they grow grain, mix crops and livestock, and survive with subsistence farming. Eventually, they open a successful dairy business and end up in horticulture, selling flowers and fruit to urban markets.
✅ Merits of Whittlesey’s Classification
Think of Whittlesey’s work as the Google Maps of global agriculture in 1936—it didn’t show every small path, but it gave people a big-picture view of the world’s farming systems.
- Systematic Framework for Atlases & Reference Work:
Whittlesey’s model helped organize and map the world’s major agricultural regions. Atlases, geography textbooks, and global agricultural studies used it as a base layer of understanding. - Statistical Basis with Five Core Criteria:
He didn’t randomly name regions. He used five measurable factors—crop-livestock combination, labour-capital ratio, productivity, consumption patterns, and techniques. This makes it a semi-quantitative model—rare for that time. - Comparative Study Possible Through Unified Mapping:
Since all systems were plotted on a single global map, it allowed comparative analysis—e.g., how Commercial Grain Farming in USA differs from Mixed Farming in Europe. - Focus on Observable Features of the Landscape:
His classification relied on things you could actually see on the ground—fields, animals, farm types. That made the system practical and field-based. - Framework for Further Research and Refinement:
Whittlesey’s model acted like a first draft—a structure others could build on, critique, or localise based on regional agricultural developments.
❌ Criticism of Whittlesey’s Classification
However, no model is perfect—especially when human geography meets the dynamic world of politics, economy, and culture. Let’s see where Whittlesey’s model falls short:
- Ignores Evolving Institutional, Cultural, and Political Factors:
Factors like land reforms, political boundaries, subsidies, and trade policies constantly evolve. But his model assumes stability, which isn’t realistic in the modern geopolitical scenario.
🧠 Example: Nomadic herding in Central Asia today is influenced more by border controls and modern infrastructure than just by pasture availability.
- Misses Critical Indicators of Agricultural Structure:
He didn’t consider:- Land tenancy or ownership (who owns or rents the land),
- Size and fragmentation of landholdings,
- Government support policies or cooperative farming models.
These are all ground-level realities that strongly impact what and how agriculture is practiced.
🧠 Example: Two regions with the same crops and tools may have very different outputs due to land ownership patterns or access to government credit.
🧾 Conclusion
Whittlesey’s classification remains a seminal contribution—a structured attempt to map the agricultural diversity of the world. It’s like a snapshot of agriculture frozen in time. But, as with any model, its strength lies in how well it allows for updates and adaptations in light of new realities.
In the hands of a geography student, it is not a final answer, but a starting point for deeper exploration—an invitation to understand how physical landscapes, cultural traditions, economic systems, and state policies all intersect in the world of agriculture.