Dear Joe and All,
I have added some thoughts, below.
on 2001-02-22 05.40, Joseph B. Reid at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Gene Mechtly wrote in USMA 11065:
>>
>>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Joseph B. Reid wrote:
>>>> ... I predict a long life for the nautical mile, knot, and hectare.
>>> Your prediction might be realized, Joe, but I advocate meter
>>> squared (m2 as the simplified symbol) for the US, not hectare.
>>> Gene.
>>
>>
>> Here it is not a question of symbols, but of numerical values; 1 ha =
> 10
>> 000 m2. Increasing the number of digits in the area of a farm by 4
>> non-significant digits is not good practice, as well as being
> inconvenient.
>
>
> Further to the above, do you think you can persuade a farmer who has a
> quarter section to say that he has a farm of 647 000 m2?
You won't have to convince them - they'll convince themselves when they come
to know how easy it is to figure the cost of fertiliser or spray at x grams
per square metre. It is so much easier than trying to calculate the amounts
you need from x ozs. per square yard or even x lbs. per acre.
The Australian experience was that farmers moved to metric measures
surprisingly rapidly. The leading farmers realised the advantages of the new
ways and they were well supported, largely by the sales staff from the
supply companies.
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin CAMS
Geelong, Australia
