The cow-calf sector of beef production in Hokkaido has grown remarkably since the late 1950s. The growth has coincided with the increase and decrease in technologically different types of operations with change in time. This paper examines the growth in Taiki by viewing it as an “evolutionary” process. The evolution of the population of operations is here defined as the change in the composition of the population with the increase or decrease in each type of operation. In Taiki, three types of operation are distinguished by size: small (fewer than 25 breeding cows), medium (25-49 cows), and large (more than 50 cows). To illustrate the evolutionary process, this study focuses on the three phases which farmers inevitably face in changing their operation type: 1) investment in required equipment or facilities, 2) adaptive acquisition of technology, and 3) sustained use of the technology. During each phase, farmers enter into the operation, or retire from it, or change the operation type; this results in an increase or decrease in each type. The analysis is based on personal data on transitions of operations from 1957, when beef cattle breeding started, to the present.
These five decades are divided into three periods according to the trend in the cow-calf sector and the farming environment: the first period (1957-1964), second period (1965-1987), and third period (1988-2003). Each type of operation increased or decreased in a complex manner in each period.
A small operation is easy to initiate, and it is possible to make easy profits. This type was wide spread in every period as a source of additional cash for farms facing low incomes. It should be noted, however, that the majority of farms adopting this type are doomed to disappear eventually due to the lack of farmer successors with the present price decline for agricultural crops.
Medium-sized operations require a certain amount of investment, and it is not easy to acquire necessary skills for making profits. This type cannot provide a living. It was therefore introduced only by farms that faced sharp declines in crop harvests at the beginning of the second period, or booming calf prices in the third period. However, this type of operation was not sustained for long because of its low income; neither will it spread widely in the future.
Large operations require a huge amount of investment with complete facilities and machinery, as well as an exceedingly high level of technology. This type was introduced by several farms that were unable to enlarge crop farming or dairy farming in the early second and the late third periods. They took advantage of publicly subsidized projects and financing. Although there are large income gaps between operations, most of the large operations have been sustained to the present thanks to financial aid from agricultural cooperatives. This type of operation will give farmers an opportunity to shift from other declining sectors, but it will not spread quickly or widely because of difficulties in fulfilling the technological requirements.

View full abstract

Many articles analyzing linguistic resources have appeared in Japanese geographic journals since the late 1990s. Although those articles discuss the same type of resources using similar methods, they have not referred to each other and been articulated. The authors assume that the reason for this is that the themes of articles have varied and many geographers are not interested in the methodologic and epistemologic issues that are shared in the articles. On the other hand, most review articles in Japanese geography have not discussed methodology but generally introduced diversity themes and trends international geography and related disciplines. The situation of Japanese geography differs from that of Anglophone geography in which methodologic and critical discussions have revolved around linguistic studies across themes and disciplines. The authors think that empirical studies are the most important while considering trends in Anglophone geography and wish to share arguments common to the humanities and social sciences.
Our purposes in examining these Japanese geographic studies methodologically and epistemologically are to point out the problems and explore methods of discourse analysis in geography. First, the authors determine that Japanese geographers have analyzed various resources from the literature, newspaper articles, and reports of conferences, to dialogues from their fieldwork. Second, the authors ascertain that this concept contained these variations by performing an overview of the arguments based on the concept of discourse. Third, the authors introduce discussions by Anglophone geographers and make our stance on discourse analysis in Japanese geography clear. Finally, by examining Japanese geographers' articles regarding discourse analysis in detail, the authors identify the direction and geographic implications of this of study.
Briefly, discourse analysis attempts to understand and criticize the dynamics of the discursive force that can make many people voice similar opinions and think in the same way unconsciously. Therefore we cannot avoid the matter of the language that we use without criticism and reflection, although geographic studies do not have to analyze too deeply the language itself. Geographic discourse analysis should start with an analysis of geographic content expressed in linguistic texts. The authors hope that Japanese geographers who are interested in linguistic resources will also focus on both the geographic spaces in which dispersed words converge and the process by which diverse texts are produced, interpreted, and consumed in the geographic spaces.
However, since geographic studies analyzing linguistic resources include many themes, the authors do not think that it is best for geographers to standardize the wide range of studies to fit discourse analysis. Future studies investigating linguistic resources could vary in method and theme. If those studies are not consistent with expectations, we will accept them in their diversity. On that basis, it is important to examine critically the thinking that creates such differences and the problematic points in specific studies.

View full abstract