While flying over the country, I noticed that whereas most farms are set in rectangular shapes, the farms around the Kansas area to be circular. Why is that?
Probably has to do with the use of a rotating device for irrigation.
Something like this: http://scotthaefner.com/kap/gallery/image.php?i=bruneau1.jpg&g=2003
This was an awesome featured picture on Wiki earlier this month. It’s currently my desktop:
It’s not the farms that are circular so much as the irrigated portions of many farm fields. Here’s the Wiki article on center-pivot irrigation.
Enjoy the view while it lasts. The force behind all of this irrigation is not sustainable. Those green circles will be brown, probably sooner rather than later. Ogallala Aquifer Wiki
It’s not just Kansas. Many of the irrigated plots in West Texas and New Mexico are also circular in shape. I assume they exist elsewhere too.
The actual boundaries of the farms in Kansas are almostly completely square. Most of the property lines in the midwest & western states are laid out in very regular, square shapes. Many are even exactly square with north/south and east/west directions. (Most exceptions are in cases where natural features (usually rivers & creeks) interfere.)
As I understand it, this is because these states were laid out by surveyors, and they naturally made them square and followed compass directions. This is NOT true of a fair amount of the eastern states (the original colonies), where land was often divided up before surveyors were common in the area.
The square shape of the actual plots is due to The Homestead Act of 1862. I didn’t have the patience to dig up a good illustration of the entire process, but National Archives describes the basics:
Sorry about the [sic]s, but when I hit two errors in rapid succession on an “authoritative” website, I get snarky. I don’t know what’s happened to the NARA website. I used to consider them quite reliable, since they have access to (and often link) the original source documents and images, but lately --probably due to dumb luck-- I keep hitting pages that are riddled with errors. AFAIK, laws that took effect in 1862 rarely changed their terms in 1800, but maybe time travel was a side effect of the spacewarps used to reach the "astronomical starting points’.
Anyway, as I was taught it, parcels as small as 160 acres were common, and units of 40 acres were often leased or sold between leading to the common use of phrases like “the north 40”. That’s not gospel, just what I was taught, but I’m told that Internet posters are held to a diferent standard than the National Archives.
umm, KP, you do know that before satellites and GPS, surveyors used the stars and the sun to determine things like latitude, right? and a noon sight combined with a chronometer to determine longitude? so that the starting point for a survey could well be an astronomical sighting?
Almost correct. The east-west lines of latitude are parallel.
The north-south lines of longitude converge at the north pole and there are offsets every few miles or so. North-south roads, in Illinois at least, had two square corners at the points of making allowance for the offsets. Today the have rounded the corners so there is an “S” curve to negotiate.
The US Geological Survey replaced that nonsense with accurately located monuments year ago.
Now GPS units are used by surveyors. Simple enough (almost) for any one to do the job.
maybe so, but that’s not what KP was sic-ing. The passage in question was talking about how the land was originally surveyed, which would have been in the mid-19th century. The permanent markers can only be installed once the land has been surveyed.
Take a close look at the borders of Saskatchewan. The Canadian surveyors also made square blocks with an offset (the “correction line”) when the squares got too far from the lines of longitude. The grid roads were spaced one mile by two, giving road access to each quarter-section. The land wasn’t sold by the government, but granted free to settlers so there would be a population loyal to Canada (really to England at the time) instead of a bunch of Americans. (The government had seen what happened to Texas! 
)
I flew over Saudi Arabia on the way to India and saw lots of big green circles in the middle of sandy desert. Talk about not sustainable…
England? WTF are you smoking? Saskatchewan wasn’t settled en masse until the turn of the century, at which point Canada had existed for some decades. Also, correction lines exist not because section boundaries get “too far from lines of longitude”, but because the distance between lines of longitude get narrower as one moves north, which means that without corrections the true acreage of sections would diminish.
Yes, you are quite correct that the sun and stars were used to establish landmarks in the mid-19th century. My tsk’ing involved the terms they used – which have had actual technical meanings in astronomy and surveying/geolocation. They weren’t saying what they thought they were – in 1862 or today-- and certainly not saying it well
I won’t deny that I see much more awkward or technically incorrect phrasings elsewhere on the web, but as with their remark that the minimum tract size of the Homestead Act of 1862 changed in 1800, we may be able to figure out what they mean, but it’s still careless to the point of being simply incorrect. I’ve seen such errors often enough on their website recently that I can no longer consider the site authoritative – and “authoritative” should be the hallmark of the “National Archives and Records Administration”, don’t you think?
I do apologize for the snark. It really isn’t typical of me. I’m just terribly disappointed. I had such high hopes for the NARA site when it was established (with limited web offerings and a lot of “email us and we’ll talk”). Over the years its web offerings have grown --somewhat slowly, by internet standards, but nicely, nonetheless— then suddenly they seem to have started to make mistakes. The first time I had a factually inaccurate NARA website quote thrown in my face asn irrefutable, I chalked it up to the inevitable fallibility oif human authors. After the third time, I no longer felt it was inevitable.
Yes, I’ve considered the possiility that I was wrong. I don’t have this problem with all sites. YOU try justifying the “1800” date cited above
I respect NARA, but they were always in the record-keeping and preservation business. I wonder if whoever composes their webpages is up to the task of interpreting the diverse technical topics in their collection – or if they will become the kind of difficult to refute source of misinformation that Dopers often encounter.
Why the vitriol? These mean the exact same thing.
A friend of mine wrote a successful piece of software for Farm Management, for AgResearch (a New Zealand Crown Research Institute). One of the features involved mapping paddock area, so the farmer could calculate grass yield etc.
When the software started to be sold in Australia, my friend had to revise the software and add a new paddock type - a circular one, for the pivot irrigation systems used in Oz.
Si
Well, I was certainly excessively snarky, but they don’t mean the same thing at all. North/south grid roads run exactly north/south. As such, in the absence of corrections they’d never deviate from a given line of longitude. At a correction line, what happens is that the roads to the north are all moved away from the longitudinal line that the corresponding roads to the south were following, in order to reset themselves back to 1 mile intervals.
Of course you’re correct on both points. I don’t know where England came back from; I can only say I typed it in a moment of total confusion. The longitude/section boundary difference is from my memory of a SK government handout from long ago, in which they repeatedly emphasised the squareness of the sections. (I can’t give a better cite, since I lost or tossed the leaflet in a move quite a few years ago.)