Crop rotation and mechanization technologies; new food effects

[killmeplease]

Currently in the game most of population works on food tiles what looks ok well before the renaissance and then just inept.

Historically not just specific yields were rising but also a portion of rural population was decreasing greatly, from 100% in ancient times to 5-10% in modern countries.

i have an idea of non worked farms producing food
say when you researched a crop rotation technology, you start receiving X food per each non worked farm in the city radius, but not more than a number of your citizens working on farms. X may be an average farm worker productivity divided by two.
eg
1) you have 10 farms, 4 are being worked. you get +4X additional food
2) you have 6 farms, 4 are being worked. you get +2X additional food

mechanization is another story. it doubles farm yields per rural worker but there shouldnt be more workers than number of farms divided by two. so this means one farmer works two plots

mechanization and crop rotation effects may be combined
eg
1) you have 10 farms, 2 are being worked. you receive yields of 4 farms, and also 4X additional food from crop rotation.
2) you have 6 farms, 2 are being worked. you receive yields of 4 farms, and also 2X additional food from crop rotation
3) you have 3 farms, 2 are being worked. you receive yields of 3 farms, and no additional food from crop rotation.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Crop rotation is not a modern technology.

If you want recent technologies that greatly increased calorie per acre yields: pesticides, herbicides, genetic engineering, mechanical harvesting.

 

[steveg700]

Agricultural advances like irrigation and crop rotation are incorporatd into the broader tech of Civil Service.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Also there was very high urbanisation in Mesoamerica and Indochina from 500-1500

I don't see anything wrong with the current system tbh, no need to make it needlessly complicated

 

[killmeplease]

you really dont think most citizens working farms in modern era is silly?
such a fundamental effect of human history as urbanization is non existent in the game

Eagle Pursuit, crop rotation is used nowdays too
fertilizers increase specific yields but crop rotation effect retains

 

[Bechhold]

Or just implement seasons replacing turns and get rid of the whole permanent farming problem until replaced biology, grocers, globalization etc.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Eagle Pursuit, crop rotation is used nowdays too
fertilizers increase specific yields but crop rotation effect retains

I'm not contesting that fact, but if you want to make Crop Rotation a technology, it would be a classical era tech. Thusly, you can construe that it has not contributed significantly toward urbanization. Crop rotation does not increase the calories per acre nor reduce the labor requirements to work land. The primary purpose is to keep the yield from deteriorating season after season.

Pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, and genetic engineering have all increased the calorie yields of agricultural products. They increase the volume (of edible material) and density (per acre) of plants and make them less likely to be destroyed by natural forces.

Agricultural mechanization has significantly reduced the amount of human labor required to plant, manage, and harvest crops, while maintaining or increasing the calories per acre yield. This frees up the work force to move into the urban areas and become productive specialists. If you work a desk job, thank a John Deere.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I agree, fallow should not give free food, because actually the lands being on fallow just "rest", they are not worked thus don't give any benefit.

 

[killmeplease]

Crop rotation does not increase the calories per acre nor reduce the labor requirements to work land. The primary purpose is to keep the yield from deteriorating season after season.

by the second sentence you have disproved the first. as a farmer works a fresh plot every time, average yield is increased. the cost of it is extensive use of land.

yes crop rotation was known before medieval era but had limited use because of some qualities of ancient societies. and the technology itself was significatly improved during the middle ages as well.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

by the second sentence you have disproved the first. as a farmer works a fresh plot every time, average yield is increased. the cost of it is extensive use of land.

yes crop rotation was known before medieval era but had limited use because of some qualities of ancient societies. and the technology itself was significatly improved during the middle ages as well.

preventing deterioration of crop yields =/= increasing crop yields. Crop rotation maintains the initial yield level. The initial level being the first point at which rotation is implemented. You can't go back to the original virgin-soil level except by allowing your field to remain fallow for years at a time or to fertilize. Rotation does not make it better, only to not drop further.

And yes, crop rotation was limited to organized cultures; while slash and burn agriculture continued to exist. However, that's still the case today. If partial adoption didn't count 2000 years ago, why would partial adoption count today?

 

[killmeplease]

preventing deterioration of crop yields =/= increasing crop yields. Crop rotation maintains the initial yield level. The initial level being the first point at which rotation is implemented. You can't go back to the original virgin-soil level except by allowing your field to remain fallow for years at a time or to fertilize. Rotation does not make it better, only to not drop further.

yes. with crop rotation productivity is retained. without - not, and the farmer (over some period) end up working degraded soil with less output. this means increased average productivity per worker.