Talk:Agriculture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Agriculture has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

	This article has been identified by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team as a Core Topic, one of the 150 most important articles for any encyclopedia to have. Please help improve this article as we push to 1.0. If you'd like help with this article, you may nominate it for the core topics collaboration.
GA	Agriculture has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Everydaylife article has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale.

[edit] Agriculture v Farming and other articles

This page and that of Agriculture should be coordinated. As to how, i have no idea: The finer points of the English language escape me here :-) Perhaps a merge and a redirect? --Anders T?rlind

I think they should be merged. Agriculture says: "Kinds of agriculture include farming, which is raising crops for harvest, and [animal husbandry]?."

Farming says: "Farming is the process of producing food by cultivation of certain plants and the raising of domesticated animals. See also agriculture."

Really I think the two are more or less synonymous. Animal husbandry and raising crops are part of both. -- hagedis

Both the Unesco Thesaurus and Library of Congress subject headings have "Farming: use Agriculture".

I think agriculture is the best term for both the economic sector (usually taken to include animal husbandry), and the practice of producing crops (though here, we often differentiate between "agricultural" and "pastoral" populations and activities, so livestock may sometimes be excluded). The article(s) could refer to such nuances, with links or redirects from/to "Animal husbandry", "Livestock production" or whatever is preferred.

Farming to me suggests a particular form of organisation, usually involving commercial production by a private operator engaged directly on the holding, hence distinct from estate, plantation or communal cultivation (the word itself originates around the 12th century with the leasing of western European estate lands, as in "to farm out" an enterprise). David Parker

The current articles were basically discussing the same thing, so I've combined them into Agriculture, with Farming a redirect. If there are any subtle separate meanings they can be fixed up later.

It would be wonderful to see agriculture, agricultural policy, futures contract, commodity markets and tax, tariff and trade all rationally related in some way, so that one could figure out in the first paragraph or so what one should be reading. At present futures contract seems to be the trader's view, agriculture the statistician's view, commodity markets the economist's view, tax, tariff and trade the policy-maker's view, and agricultural policy the politician's view! This is all very interesting but maybe it should be easier for such as me, who understand only gardening and Slow Food, to see how these large scale things relate to my small scale life. EofT

Agreed. todo

As a farmer (and at the same time a practitioner of agriculture), I'd say there's definitely not a whole lot of difference between the two politically. However, animal husbandry (which is farming) might not exactly be agriculture (at least etymologically: agros means field). I just started a new project on horticulture (which is closely related to agriculture, but not usually to animal husbandry... see the problem?), and it would be nice to see one on agriculture as well. I would certainly participate in any case. Also, on the main list of projects page I made a new subcategory to science (applied science), under which I put horticulture. Agriculture would probably go there too (following the old praxis vs. theoria Aristotelian thing.) SB Johnny 15:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corn v Maize

Concerning the word "corn" - Maize is called corn in the U.S., but I thought that "corn" in the U.K. means grains in general, primarily, but not only, wheat. Somebody who speaks the Queen's English please verify! :-) -- Marj Tiefert 13:45 Sep 3, 2002 (PDT)

I fear you will probably not consider my input acceptable, but when I talk to british people, the word "corn" refers "only" to grain. However, it is about two different types of crops : wheat and oats. Of course oats is not much used anymore. user:anthere

There's a nice story my father in law told me about Corn and Paris liberation by americans. People in Paris were rather hungry. They needed bread badly. At that time, our bread was made from wheat, sometimes from rye. When american people came to Paris, they asked how they could help us in terms of food. Some administrative employee said we needed corn to make bread (we still learn british english...)...We ended up with loads of maize, that basically nobody knew how to cook.

[edit] Crop production data

World production

Rice 381.1 million tons, trade 26.3 million tons
Maize 624 million tons, trade 75.4 million tons
Wheat 570 million tons, trade 97.8 million tons
Cotton 96.5 million tons, trade 31 million tons

hold on ! Year reference is required for such information. Where does that come from ? In particular, rice production numbers are somehow wrong if what "production" is is not described. User:Anthere

Data is from the US government website http://www.fas.usda.gov/currwmt.html, listed at bottom of article. I checked some of the figures from the included Excel tables, but I must admit rice looked low to me too. It's probably commercial production, since otherwise rice grown in India and China would surely make it top crop. I don't really know much about this topic, but I said to Kat that I would put in some world figures, having moved her US data to a subsiduary article.

I second you in the idea of creating an agriculture in the United States of America as I suggested to her (I decided to call people "her" as long as I don't know about their gender:-)) on her talk page. This article should stay as general as possible.

About the year reference. It is very important to put it in the article, not to expect readers to go at the external links to try to find that very precious information. Production rates and trade rates change a lot over time. And these figures (probably years 2000 or 2001 or 2002) will mean very little in 2010 perhaps. If year is added, editors will feel like keeping up to date also. But as such, it is not good. Please add the year.

As for gross figures, it should be mentionned what are defined exactly in the count. Rice as given here is giving (er, I am not sure it is the right way to say it) is milling rice.

Here are what I find are the most important points

the three most important cereals crops are wheat, corn and rice. All three are produced in rather equivalent tonnage. Wheat and corn around 600 millions tons, rice slightly below, around 550 millions tons in years 1998-2002. Until a couple of years ago, wheat was over corn. Wheat is predominant in europe, canada, russia, northern china, corn in americas and rice in south asia. Very roughly. But the volumes of the three cereal are quite similar.

However, the amount of rice is often underestimated because some give the milled rice production (rather than the paddy production) - in particular developped countries. The milled rice is about 60-70 % of total rice. Now, if we consider the goal of agriculture is first to feed the world, and for readers to understand which are the major cereals feeding the world, the paddy rice production must be given, or both amounts must be given

third important point. Corn and wheat are both delocated crops, with huge amounts being traded. There are a small bunch of countries producing most of these two cereals, and trading it to other countries. Rice situation is quite different, most production is directly consummed. User:anthere.

Probably better as a table anyway, but I'm one of the few HTML illerates, Apologies.

jimfbleak 12:53 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

No pb, my browser is allergic to table. It breaks the < and > ant

I believe the data is plausable, and of course the U.S. government is an unimpeachable source on any topic :-) >not<.

plausable yes. Just as I could say the population in the US is 1 millions people :-) It was plausable one day, but which year was it :-))))

I would recommand also using FAO data. There are presented in more international recommandations.

Most of the worldwide production of corn is fed to animals.

yup

Most of the U.S. production of rice is made into tasteless beer.

buy belgium beer made with honest barley :-)

The rest of the world eats rice and makes beer out of barley.

that's the best way.

In "Diet for a small planet," that onetime manifesto for the vegetarian movement, it is asserted that feeding grain to meat animals is an inefficient way to utilize the grain, compared to feeding grain to people. This is true, in that several pounds of corn (maize) must be fed to a steer for one pound of gain. The ratios are better for poultry and hogs but the principle is the same.

The point being, a great deal of corn is grown and fed to livestock, and it is quite plausable that the corn consumption exceeds rice consumption for this reason.

also true. The answer is precisely that the data given above is the milling rice, not the paddy rice.

Also, corn yields more tonnage per acre than rice, even in the U.S., and U.S. yields of everything are higher than yields in China.

uh ? The average yield for wheat in the world is 25 qx/ha. My country average is nearly 90 qx/ha. And some farmers in the north are over 110 qx/ha...monoculture or rotation with potatoes.

And, all kidding aside, I tend to believe that the USDA production estimates are accurate. They are publicly vetted in the trading pits (c.f. futures_contract), and the traders raise the hue and cry if they are off by more than a percentage point (sometimes less).

yes; but not all what is produced is traded

Reviewing the information accompanying the data on the USDA web site, I believe that they do intend for the figures to include the small, family production of rice (and other grains for that matter) typical of subsistence farms. If you look at the USDA data by country, you see that China is a major producer and the numbers seem to make sense.

on the spot info on rice is 592,8 millions tonnes in 2001 (397.2 milled) and 568,5 millions tons in 1996 (381.1 milled)

I think the figures would belong to a nice article on cereal. Ant

If there are no objections, I'll move the production figures back to the Agriculture page later today.

Kat 15:40 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I have an objection. No time to explain right now. Give me an overnight to be back. Please. User:Anthere

Take your time. By the way, does someone have some better worldwide statistics to work from? I suppose I started this whole mess by adding the U.S. ones originally, which I did mainly by way of demonstrating the relative importance of the different grain crops; particularly, the role of corn, soybeans, and hay as the major crops. I know that's not true worldwide (because of rice), but we should be able to tell some sort of similar story so that the reader understands which crops are the major ones.

I would like to be the first to point out that my understanding of agriculture is pretty much limited to North America.

It is interesting to put all the major crops. But shortly, and with links to richer articles on cereals, oil crop and prot crop (I sure don't know how you call them :-)) ant

Kat 18:31 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I originally moved most of the US stuff from agriculture to make it more global, but I left the history bit in because it seemed that the development of farming in N. Am was of global importance. As I said, I've no expertise in this area, but I think it's an arguable case. jimfbleak 06:11 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yes. I think it is arguable :-). I think similarly, the development of farming in Europe is of global importance (I presume the "global" mostly refer to trade issues, as well as food security and food safety). Australia and Russia are also having global importance in terms of trade. My country is also producing about half of european food :-)

Let's see...then we need to define what is important in ag history, in the scope of understanding where it stands now.

First the beginning of ag, as it is a major set point in devpt of human civilization.

Perhaps, the different major crops being used in the past, where do they come from (eg, corn from mexican area, wheat in fertile crescent...). The first tools and progress (sickle ?). Development of new techniques (rotation, breeding), related to each civilization (perhaps the wheel). Then, how ag progress could support growing population. Local trade first, followed by worldwide trade, due to transport progress. Modern progress. This is roughly underlined, but should be more detailed.

Along those lines, current soyabean american production is important, as it gives a handle to the USA to impose GM stuff over the world, and it imposes trading rules and commercial pressure. Soya trade is definitly of global importance.

But In the United States, farms spread from the colonies westward along with the settlers. In cooler regions, wheat was the crop of choice when lands were newly settled, leading to a "wheat frontier" that moved westward over the course of years. After the "wheat frontier" had passed through an area, more diversified farms including dairy cattle generally took its place. Warmer regions saw plantings of cotton and herds of beef cattle. is globally of no interest.

User:anthere

In the interest of moving beyond the statistics issue, I have restored the world production figures with a note on the difference between reporting methods for rice.

Anthere, to your point, the food value of a ton of grain varies widely depending on the commodity. I do not have the caloric content figures in front of me, but I believe that #2 yellow corn has somewhat higher caloric content than milled rice because of its greater fat content. Soybeans are higher still.

caloric content is not the only way to figure the quality of food. It is interesting to distinguish products either for the glucidic input (mostly cereals), oil content (such as soya, rape, sunflower) and protein content (soya, lentils, peas). If one only value the product by its caloric content, one is heading for trouble in the setting of a diet :-) Yes, soybeans are amazing food, but mostly because of their richness both in oil and protein.

but what is the point in relation with the statistics ?

You can pick apart the figures and so on in many ways but the point is that the milled rice figures are probably more directly comparable to corn and wheat than the paddy rice.

perhaps so. But not mentionning the difference result in a rather inaccurate information. If mentionned, this is fine.

By the way, I believe that the USDA estimates for rice are estimates of the total production, not the output of the milling operations. I believe they apply a standard multiplier to the paddy rice that is not commercially milled to arrive at the figure.

I don't think so. Otherwise, their information is just not coherent with the FAO. And not coherent with several other countries data. They may apply a multiplier of some sort, but the final data is not fitting with the info I have for total production. Would you have any other sources of data than the USDA perhaps ? Or is there a place somewhere the USDA state precisely which definition they are giving for rice ? User:anthere

Kat 17:53 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

on the spot ref

http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/news/2002/7538-en.html

How is it not coherent? The FAO and USDA values are within 1% for 2001, which is the link you supplied. I didn't search for 2002 values at FAO; apparently world production dropped considerably. The 2002 value is the one used in our page. Kat 18:52 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

yes. That is what I meant. The FAO data given for milled rice is nearly identical with the one given by the USDA. Hence, the number given by the USDA really is the milled data. With 'no multiplier'. 2002 data on the page is perfectly accurate. It appears USA is giving only milled data; In my country, we give paddy data mostly. Hence, the necessity to be clear about what is described. That's all. Lucky enough we are all using tons :-) ant

I added metric equivalents for the bushels/acre figures, but gave up on the q/ha figures. Firstly, I didn't know if they were US quintals (100 lb) or "metric quintals" (100 kg), and secondly I was confused by the words "q/ha (or t/ha)". Was the writer unsure about which units these figures are measured in? -- Heron

Oh Jesus ! Misnumbering. Of course ! 10 qx/ha is 1 T/ha. Big mistake :-(. Okay, I am sure of my values in qx/ha, but the ones in T/ha have to be divided by 10. A q is a quintal (=100 kg) while a T is a ton (=1000 kg). Ha is hectares (that is 100m on 100 m). When I work with british people, we use q/ha. But I know they also use T/ha. So I dunno which one would be best. Please someone decide what is best. In all cases, bushels per acres is undecipherable for me :-) User:anthere

Sadly, most North American readers know nothing else. The conversion varies by crop. I believe a standard bushel of #2 corn or soybeans is 54 pounds, while with oats it's 32 pounds. Kat 14:59 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

You are confusing two different things. Yes, as a quality factor, you may need a minimum "test weight" (bulk density) for a particular sample of at least 54 lb/bu to get a Number 2 grade. However, whether you have #2 corn, or #1 corn with a test weight of 58 lb/bu, or some much lower grade and much lower "test weight", a bushel of corn in the marketplace is always 56 lb. Those are the units used on the commodities market, or at the local grain elevator. Those bushels are not units of volume; they are units of mass, the size of which depends on the commodity being measured. OTOH, in those test weights discussed earlier in units of lb/bu, those bushels in the denominator do, of course, remain the units of volume.

BTW, for most commodities, the mass bushels are the same in Canada as they are in the United States, even though the volume bushels are 3.2% larger in Canada. Oats is the only exception I know of, with the bushels being 32 lb in the U.S. and 34 lb in Canada. In either place, however, to have good, highest grade oats you need a test weight of at least 38 lb/bu. So let's suppose I have 20672 lb of oats, with a test weight of 38 lb/bu (that's the U.S. or Winchester bushel in the denominator, even in Canada). We'll assume that they are perfectly clean, so we don't need to worry about dockage or any other deductions. That means that these oats occupy a volume of 20672/38 = 544 U.S. volume bushels, which is about 527 imperial volume bushels. But when I sell this in the United States, what I'd get paid for is 20672/32 = 646 bushels. But if I sold it in Canada, I'd get paid for 20672/34 = 608 bushels. Does all of this make any sense to you? (The price paid per bushel, of course, also varies with a number of different grading factors, so I wouldn't get paid as much for the same number of bushels of #2 corn and #1 corn.) Gene Nygaard 02:01, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yup. American compute by volumes, and most others by weight. It is even worse than conversion by crop. I understood you used a quite small number of varieties for crops such as wheat. Around 200 varieties are available in France for cropping. The 1000 kernels weight varying from simple to double. Since we compute by weight, there is no pb for us, but when we translate in bushels, we have to know the volume/weight ratio for each variety.

I have some doubts that the average yield for corn is up from 40 bu/acres (25 qx/ha) to 150 bu/acres (94 qx/ha). Unless this value is for the US of course. This value is quite similar to our own yields. However, there are numerous countries where it must be very much lower. Is this value worldwide or US only ? anthere

In the US, though the term bushel is used, the unit of trade is weight not volume, with various discounts and adjustments for test weight. So although bushel is traditionally a volumetric measure, when corn is sold, they weigh it and divide by 54 pounds (I believe) to arrive at bushels. Then they measure the density of the corn, which is quoted as test weight. Test weight is the weight of a bushel (by volume), with higher figures indicating higher quality. Sound confusing? It is. Different weights are used for various grains, with 32 used for oats.

Oh my!

The yield comparison is a US value from a US-based conversation that I authored. Kat 20:42 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Oki. I updated this. ant

Thanks for all these responses to my question. I have since discovered that there are lots of varieties of quintal, so I created an article on the subject. By the way, there is an error in what I wrote five paragraphs above. In a surprising reversal of the usual metric/nonmetric preferences, the US quintal is metric while the European quintals (several types) are nonmetric. -- Heron

Heron. I am not living in the past. I am alive *now*. And have already been living for a while :-) And I *assure* you that 1 quintal is definitly a 100 kg, and has been such for quite a long time. France has been using metrics for quite a while, and I am quite abashed when you say we are using non metric while US is using metrics. Please ! Anyway, I know nothing else than metrics, the EU agricultural legislation is in metrics. So everything I write on the topic is in metrics. Now, some old people still refer to "livres" (the livre is something slightly under 0.5 kg) sometimes when talking of their beef steak. This is quite unusual though. Not standard at all.User:anthere

Point taken, Anthere. My information on the French quintal was out of date. -- Heron

WikiKiss then Heron. Ant

Of course, thus the infamous Pulp Fiction "Royale with cheese" discussion. ;) -- John Owens 11:30 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Re: bushels. I added two types of bushel (wheat and maize) to the U.S. customary units page under a new heading, "Grain Measures". If people know more varieties, perhaps they would consider adding them to this page. If there are European types as well, they should probably go on the Imperial units page. -- Heron

I have removed an item about wood being a product of agriculture that was added by an unregistered user.

While there is not complete unanimity, there would appear to be a consensus that timber and pulpwood production, while closely related to agriculture, are not a part of it. A similar situation prevails with the cultivation of fish, and with the production of ornamental plants, and with the breeding of companion animals such as dogs and cats.

Kat 19:10 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Commercial link attempts

An anonymous user has tried several times to add a commercial site with links to seed starting information. The sites linked are informational, and would be no problem in themselves, but the anonymous user is obviously using the page as attempted spam. I have therefore removed the link. Pollinator 08:58, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] User 69.4.139.161 POV edit

I suggested that this user run some of his/her edits here first to gain some consensus. I have reverted his/her POV for the time being. Pollinator 01:35, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I consider the last edits made today as somehow pov. I would like some opinion of other participants. SweetLittleFluffyThing 08:20, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

I just read them and I can see what you mean. However, they are overall good additions to the article and shouldn't be reverted. I think changing a few key words would restore the NPOV. ike9898 01:08, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

They certainly should not be removed ! They are good, but, not very neutral. I agree that just changing a couple of things or words could help restore balance; I am no good at rephrasing other people words in a nice english fashion. I would appreciate that someone does so for these paragraphs in the future. SweetLittleFluffyThing

[edit] History

Sumerians as inventors of Agriculture: much too late --Yak 12:42, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Disagree. Much depends on the definition of "Agriculture". If very small scale and sporadic plantings/harvestings are accepted, it is almost certain some pre-Sumer cultures were doing this. If one insists on a sustained, systematic activity with fully conscious selection of plant traits, the Sumerians would be "first". JDG 05:42, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

ok, you can make a distinction agriculture/horticulture. But if people subsist on crops and domestic animals, this is scarcely "small scale and sporadic". And this is the case sinsce the pottery neolithic at least, if not the PPNB, speaking of Western Asia only, which puts us in the 8th/7th Millenium.

How do you define/detect a "fully conscious selection of plant traits" by the way? --Yak 07:36, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

JDGs comments aren't quite right. Sumerian agriculture differences mainly in terms of scale rather than in form. Neolithic agriculture was sustained and systematic, with conscious selection of plant traits (Neolithic peoples were not any less clever/attuned to plant behaviour than the Sumerians). Neolithic people survived in the Near East and Europe for some 3,000 years on their agricultural technologies (which included ploughing). For more info see: Boggard, A. 2004. Neolithic Farming in Central Europe. London: Routledge and/or Colledge, S. et al. 2004. Archaeobotanical evidence for the spread of farming in the Eastern Mediterranean. Current Anthropology S35. - Rattus 22:59, 3 Jan 05

Does a granary indicate agriculture? If so, then does this indicate that agriculture is 11.5 tya? --Brunnock 14:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The Modern history (ie post-medieval) is completely inadequate/non-existent. The Revolutions should be moved into the History section; and there should be discussion of artificial fertilizers --- as I understand it, world food production in 1900 was dependent on massive guano imports from declining reserves; and the Haber Process was discovered in the nick of time. Omicron18 10:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggest 12 possible wiki links and 14 possible backlinks for Agriculture.

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Agriculture article:

Can link Western world: ...ered]] plants and animals produce specialty drugs. In the Western world, use of [[genetics]], better management of soil nutrients a... (link to section)
Can link developing world: ...g most of the populace from intense agricultural labor. The developing world is behind by Western measures of productivity because of un... (link to section)
Can link physical sciences: ...ily on engineering and technology and on the biological and physical sciences. [[Irrigation]], [[drainage]], [[conservation]] and sanitar... (link to section)
Can link forest fires: ...ase control, transporting perishable products, and fighting forest fires. Radio and television disseminate vital weather reports and... (link to section)
Can link computer software: ...ed seed to be licensed to farmers in much the same way that computer software is licensed to users. This has changed the balance of powe... (link to section)
Can link balance of power: ...mputer software is licensed to users. This has changed the balance of power in favor of the seed companies, allowing them to dictate te... (link to section)
Can link nutrient management: ...are guilty of [[biopiracy]]. [[Soil]] [[conservation]] and nutrient management have been important concerns since the [[1950s]], with the ... (link to section)
Can link East Asia: ...atufian culture]] others say by the [[Sumerians]]), once in East Asia (rice) and once in [[Mesoamerica|Central America]] (maize, ... (link to section)
Can link Old World: .... Crops and animals that were previously only known in the Old World were now transplanted in the New and vice versa.... (link to section)
Can link New Zealand: ...1920s and '30s improved [[pasture]] (grasses and clover) in New Zealand. Extensive radiation mutagenesis efforts (i.e. primitive ge... (link to section)
Can link intensive farming: ...elds are due to improvements in genetics, as well as use of intensive farming techniques (use of fertilizers, chemical [[pest control]], ... (link to section)
Can link arable land: ...s. * Conversion of natural [[ecosystem]]s of all types into arable land.... (link to section)

Additionally, there are some other articles which may be able to linked to this one (also known as "backlinks"):

In Irish potato famine, can backlink food crop: ...ion unnecessary. The [[potato]] had become Ireland's major food crop after being introduced sometime around [[1650]], though its...
In Economy of Togo, can backlink food crop: ...oundnut]]. Small and medium-sized farms produce most of the food crop; the average farm size is one to three [[hectare]]s....
In William Bligh, can backlink food crop: ... for experiments to see if breadfruit would be a successful food crop there. The Bounty never reached the Caribbean, as mutiny b...
In 3rd century, can backlink food crop: ...|Buddhist]] arts in [[India]] * Diffusion of [[maize]] as a food crop from [[Mexico]] into [[North America]] begins...
In Pigeon pea, can backlink food crop: ...the Old and the New World. == Uses == Pigeon peas are both food crop (dried peas, flour, or green vegetable peas) and forage/cov...
In Solanum, can backlink Food crop: ... the common foods [[tomato]], [[potato]] and [[eggplant]]. Food crop species:...
In Monkey-puzzle, can backlink food crop: ...ely harvested in Chile. The tree has some potential to be a food crop in other areas in the future, thriving in climates with coo...
In Genetically modified food, can backlink food crop: ...History== The first commercially grown genetically modified food crop was a [[tomato]] created by [[Calgene]] called the [[FlavrS...
In Uganda before 1900, can backlink food crop: ...arly after the introduction of the [[plantain]], as a basic food crop around [[1000|1000 AD]]; farther north in the short grass u...
In Karas, can backlink stock farming: ...anie and [[Lüderitz]]. The region is a predominantly small stock farming area, consisting mostly of animals such as sheep or goats. ...
In Collard greens, can backlink food crop: ...'Brassica oleracea'' var. ''acephala'', which is grown as a food crop and garden ornamental, mainly in [[Brazil]], [[Portugal]], ...
In Alcohol fuel, can backlink food crop: ...usly considered producing ethanol from [[cassava]], a major food crop with massive starchy roots. However yields were lower than ...
In Xanthosoma, can backlink food crop: ... (''Xanthosoma saggitifolium'' (L.) Schott) is an important food crop in tropical areas, grown for its [[starch]]y [[tuber]]s, ea...
In Sadza, can backlink food crop: ... Shona. Despite the fact that maize is actually an imported food crop to Zimbabwe (circa 1890), it has become the chief source of...

Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right.
Feedback: I like it, I hate it, Please don't link to — LinkBot 11:28, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I see that no one has responded to your comprehensive compilation of links until now. My reaction to the links is that while some are directly related (i.e., Nutrient management, Intensive farming and Arable Land), most are only weakly related. For example to work in the fact that farmers use computers only says that they are no different than anyone else. Unremarkable, IMHO. As Chief Seattle is reported to have said: "All things are connected." The backlinks could be worked in where they highlight important apects of agriculture (if I understand correctly what you are proposing). Sunray 17:18, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

[edit] most people in the world earn livelihood by farming

that more than 65% of people farm as their primarily source of income seems unbelievable. what is the source of this info i wonder. i also wonder if the writer of this didn t mean that farming is the most prevalent source of income among forms of economic activity. at any rate i have taken the liberty of changing the statement to a more defendable one than more than 50% of people farm as their main source of money. matthew

I found some figures from the CIA and added them to the article. -- Beland 01:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category

The Category:Agriculture has more than 170 articles, and many should be put in subcategories. Can anyone help with this? Thanks. Maurreen 08:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I can help with the subject matter, but I don't know much about the mechanics of categories in Wikipedia. Could you describe what needs to be done? Sunray 16:34, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Sunray, thanks for your offer. I started to do it, but that didn't go over well. All you need to do is:

See if the article is in any appropriate categories.
If so, especially if those are a subcat of "Agriculture", delete the agriculture category.

I might ought to warn you that when I started doing this someone didn't like it. See this note.

Also, is there a better name for "Plant farming"? I made that subcat, and it's listed at CFD.

And the number of articles in the main cat is down to about 120. Maurreen 17:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Plant farming? It depends what is meant. I don't think it is a good category. Horticulture is a general term for cultivation of plants though it often has the connotation of small scale. Crop management or field crop management are often used in agriculture. Vegetable farming or growing is more specific. Perhaps we should consider what articles would go in this subcategory or subcategories. Sunray 17:34, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the reason some people didn't like it is that doing this job takes a little common sense. For example, just because it is in a subcategory doesn't automatically mean it should not be in the parent category. Or in a different subcategory of the same category (one which might also have other categories above it). Sometimes, for example, a term will have a specific meaning or special importance within one subcategory, yet it has a slightly different meaning or applicability in agriculture in general.

BTW, even the 170 articles you started is a nice size for a category; small enough to fit on one page with some room for expansion. Now that it is down under 120 articles, there is no urgency in depopulating the parent category; by all means continue to put those which apply to only one or two existing subcategories into those categories, but take time to consider both the need for them and good names for them before adding new categories. Gene Nygaard 18:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

There were far to many things in the cat, that were well described by a descriptive subcategory. I recategorised lots. [User:Pollinator]] seems to be revernting them all for no apparent reason. I CFD'd plant farming since it is a bad term for something covered by both cat:horticulture and cat:crops.--nixie 04:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I quote Gene's wise words: just because it is in a subcategory doesn't automatically mean it should not be in the parent category. Or in a different subcategory of the same category (one which might also have other categories above it). Sometimes, for example, a term will have a specific meaning or special importance within one subcategory, yet it has a slightly different meaning or applicability in agriculture in general. Furthermore, once you remove something from a category, it becomes hard to find; it vanishes from the page history. The agriculture category is our master index of the subject. Since I do not have the time to cut and paste the category back in, I will continue to revert all your deletions which are actually better characterized as "for no apparent reason," since you neglected to discuss this before starting your campaign. If you want to add, be my guest; if you delete, you are destroying other people's work. Pollinator 04:58, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

There are many articles that were in the general category that are better in a subcat, like books, agricultural organizations and agriculture by country. --nixie 05:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Saying that all of them in the subcategories belong in the parent category is even sillier than saying that none of them should be in the parent category. Like I said, doing it right takes a little common sense. Gene Nygaard 05:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Well its going to be difficult to get it right with one user unilaterally reverting any category changes.--nixie 06:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] To Pollinator

Pollinator, I initially was going to move on. But you changed my mind.

A disagreement does not necessarily mean that you are right and the other person is wrong. Nor does it mean, in and of itself, that you are wrong.

But it is a shame you can not disagree in a more agreeable manner.

Some points for you to consider:

Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages
From Wikipedia:Categorization -- "An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory, for example, Microsoft Office is in Category:Microsoft software, so should not also be in Category:Software. ... A good general rule is that articles should be placed in the most specific categories they reasonably fit in."
From Category talk:Agriculture -- An attention notice was placed in April, with a note that "There are too many articles jumbled together in this category; they should be put into sensible subcategories."
From Wikipedia:Consensus -- "Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through polite discussion and negotiation."
From the GNU Free Documentation License -- "If you do not want your writing [read "work"] to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it."
From Wikipedia:Ownership of articles -- "When this watchfulness crosses a certain line, then you're overdoing it."
From Wikipedia:Resolving disputes -- "If you have a disagreement over an article, try to reach a truce and stop editing until you can resolve the issue. ... The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page. ... Assume that the other person is acting in good faith."
From Wikipedia:Revert -- "Being reverted can feel a bit like a slap in the face."
From Wikipedia:Vandalism -- "Vandalism is any indisputably bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia."
From Wikipedia:Wikiquette -- "Treat others as you would have them treat you. ... Work toward agreement. ... Argue facts, not personalities. ... Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible."

Maurreen 07:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I actually live on a farm, but i really dont work that much anymore but I used to. It is very hard and i wouldnt want to be working again but its nice living out in the country! :-) - Rachel Falls

[edit] History section (globalize)

The History section does not mention other centers of agriculture, which developed agriculture independently. Among them were New Guinea, China, and the Inca Empire (this list is not complete). 82.135.90.212 14:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does. Removing globalize notice. Jim Tour 18:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What this article needs now

To become a really excellent article we need a Livestock section equivalent in detail to current Section 3 (Crops). We give lip-service to the idea that animal husbandry is co-equal with crop farming in Agriculture, but the article has about a 10-1 crops-to-livestock imbalance. I'd do it myself, but I'm an urbanite. In a pinch I could scare up enough facts to get by, but it would be better if an Aggie came along and fixed us up. JDG 01:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A tractor ploughing an alfalfa field

Is that a plow or a harrow in that photo? KAM 21:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It's an antique for sure - a kind of hybrid between plow and disc. I think it actually was called a plow it its day. Pollinator 21:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It's called a one-way plough eg.you can't go up and back in the field,(must go round and round) as they leave a large furrow and can't be reversed(flipped over). They are still used in some parts of the world.--Yendor72 03:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too much external linking?

Seems to be a lot of regional additions lately... a bit much? SB Johnny 17:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crop improvement

I am only new to this Wikki Stuff, and hope not to offend anyone. The Yeild increase's stated in the extract(A) below may be reasonably accurate,(no citation). The last sentence states that the increase in yield is due to genetic improvements. I had recently read a reputable article about the subject that states 68% worldwide is due to crop management.I have provided the extract(B) below, along with a link to the article. I would like to remove "primarily due to improvements in genetics." If there is any evidence to that proves it is due mainly to genetics please provide it to this forum. Is there any objection to removing this statement in the next week or so?

Extract(A) For example, average yields of corn (maize) in the USA have increased from around 2.5 tons per hectare (40 bushels per acre) in 1900 to about 9.4 t/ha (150 bushels per acre) in 2001, primarily due to improvements in genetics.

Extract(B) "The proportion of the yield increase that can be attributed to crop management ranges from 47 to 83 per cent worldwide, with an average of 68 per cent," he says.

http://www.grdc.com.au/growers/gc/gc62/farmmgt2.htm

--Yendor72 14:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-Columbian agriculture

The topic of agriculture in the Americas is conspiciously absent, given its importance to several cultures. Twinxor t 04:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] industrial agriculture

i was trying to edit a rather opinionated article called factory farming. the article is written as if factory farming was a general term for a certain farming system. i started moving passages to the article on intensive farming, with the idea to leave only passages about the usage of the term factory farming. but now i wonder. intensive farming is not exactly the large scale agriculture that people who speak about factory farming have in mind. a vegetable plot could be intensive farming. should i rather start an article called industrial agriculture and put the factory farming content there. so far industrial agriculture redirects to agriculture. any opinions?trueblood 20:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC) i just changed the redirect industrial agriculture, and turned it into an article to find a home fore stuff from factory farm sections. trueblood 10:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] methods

this list in the article seems to me a random list of words that are related to agriculture. what is it's use? how about a relatively short list entitled see also trueblood 14:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blue agriculture

we have forget about blue agriculture in recent day, there aquaculture and marine culture or mariculture they way farming cause they harsh condition of environment who create aquaculture with support with hydrophonic technology to deal with shortage clear water, to reuse, recycle, water treatment and control the water. And increased demand about sea product seaweed and sea grass for medicine, food and etc who create marine agriculture. if there no obtain i would add this in main articel Daimond 16:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blue properchy

with new modern technic agriculture have developed some revolution like green revolution who have change the way to plant and cultivated and still world of agriculture try fullfill human foods need. But with certain change of climate and shortage of clear water, the way to cultivation would change too. In near future when human would use the sea surface area to growing wheat and rice and other plantation to fullfill human foods. When human begin looking seeds and plants who able grow and adpet in high salt water (maybe they would able isolated the gene from beach forests plant). The agriculture would move not to depend on climate or rain water or clear water to cultivate. Maybe It would begin in equator(sea around equator area) line, Maybe they would plant near the beach first and evantualy going plantation in middle sea, so marine agriculture would change rapidly to the future needs, not so like now who only seaweed and seagrass cultivated and harvestingDaimond 12:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/g/r/Talk%7EAgriculture_eeb5.html"