Talk:Agriculture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Agriculture is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Welcome! This subject is outlined on the List of basic agriculture topics. That list, along with the other Lists of basic topics, is part of a map of Wikipedia. Your help is needed to complete this map! To begin, please look over this subject's list, analyze it, improve it, and place it on your watchlist. Then join the Lists of basic topics WikiProject!

Contents

[edit] geography

agricultural revolution started in the south western areas of persia, aswell as Iraq, mention of syria should be erased.

Hello all, I found this article from British source 'The Guardian' about Andean South American farming, go to this link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2114533,00.html hope it helps.

[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 shutup 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)

The agricultural history section is quite outdated. Simultaneous origination rather than diffusion is the new model and the dates for non-Middle Eastern origination constantly being pushed back. See new datings on MesoAmerican agriculture, Ethiopian highland agriculture, the desert of southeastern Sahara, woodland savannas of West Africa. --User: 69.232.37.156 March 20, 2008 (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:
  1. See if the article is in any appropriate categories.
  2. 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:

  1. Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages
  2. 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."
  3. 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."
  4. From Wikipedia:Consensus -- "Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through polite discussion and negotiation."
  5. 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."
  6. From Wikipedia:Ownership of articles -- "When this watchfulness crosses a certain line, then you're overdoing it."
  7. 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."
  8. From Wikipedia:Revert -- "Being reverted can feel a bit like a slap in the face."
  9. 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."
  10. 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)

The start of this article says:

"The term "farming" covers the wide spectum of agricultrial practices. On one end of the spectum is the subsistence farmer, who farms a small area with limited resource inputs, and produces only enough food to meet the needs of his/her family. At the other end is commercial intensive agriculture, including industrial agriculture. Such farming involves large fields and/or numbers of animals, large resource inputs (pesticides, fertilizers, etc.), and a high level of mechanization. These operations generally attempt to maximize financial income from grain, produce, or livestock."

Currently there is an argument over at Factory farming over whether intensive agriculture and industrial agriculture are both synonyms of factory farming and thus should just be redirects there, or whether [[factory farming should be reserved for confined animal rearing and intensive and/or industrial farming used to refer to the wider phenomenon including monocropping. This has an impact on this paragraph and your views would be appreciated. --Coroebus 11:13, 18 May 2007 (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)

[edit] Good article Review of GA status

This article is being reviewed at WP:GA/R for possible delisting of its Good article status. --Ling.Nut 04:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Delisted, citations bad.Sumoeagle179 03:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] redirect from field systems

Since this article doesn't contain much on field systems I have removed the redirect. I have put in a link from field system to agriculture. Rjm at sleepers 09:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, someone consider adding the UN document titled "Livestock's Long Shadow" in this article. There should be a link to it. It is an extremely important document, and it seems that statistics from it have been used in the article, but it has not been referenced.

Good Luck to all

TusharMehta

[edit] Heads up re: new research

This just came out in Science and should probably worked into the article. I wish I had time to do it myself, but I don't. But I wanted you all to know:

Michael Balter, Seeking Agriculture's Ancient Roots. Science 316(5833):1830-1835.

--Margareta 03:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

hello can anybody help me to summary about ontario canada ? ty

[edit] How many times invented?

Can somebody tell me exactly how many times (and where) Agriculture was independently invented? I know it was obviously created in the Fertile Crescent first and defiantly in South America (or is it Central America?), independently so that's two at-least. This article seems to be also saying it developed independently in China as well, though I'm not quite clear on India, was it invented there also or did it just come in from the middle-east? (or China?). I ask this firstly for my own personal interest, and secondly because I think it would be an interesting fact to have in the article. --Hibernian 04:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Agricolture was independently invented, between 7000 and 5000 BCE, six times exactly. It was in:
    • Nilus Valley (Egypt)
    • Mesopotamia (Iraq)
    • Indus Valley (Pakistan)
    • Huanghe Valley (China)
    • Mesoamerica (Mexico)
    • Peru

Some scholars have the abitude of classify Egypt and Mesopotamia under the "Fertile Crescent" label, while the peruvian invention was questioned by some until one decade ago. The article History of agriculture expose some of this information, though it doesn't mention an explicit list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.217.121 (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Academic use of the word agriculture

Donald Axel says:

The term agriculture is in academic terms cultivation of soil as correctly stated in the intro to this article. The popular usage includes livestock, but why not keep livestock in the other article, "Farming"?

But as I read on I get the feeling that the focus is missing. Agriculture/Farming - just tool-words, not knowledge. Wikipedia is kind of authority on history, computerscience and technical aspects, but agricultural subjects seem to be lagging behind a little - well not much, the grass (poaceae) article has evolved enormously the last couple of months!

// I hope this comment is put in the right place:-) Regards from Donald Axel. 2007-10-01_20:27-UTC --d-axel 20:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal splat attack

Then why not make it one of the ones that go across the bottom of the page with well sorted links, rather than one that interferes with reading the article? Making an infobox "slightly larger" so that the article itself cannot be read does not help navigate Wikipedia, it merely blocks reading the article. Try it on a low bandwidth internet connection and small screen some time to see how awful this makes the article look. KP Botany 01:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agriculture Safety and Health

It would be nice if the page addressed the significant safety and health risks involved in farming.

Agriculture ranks among the most hazardous industries. Farmers are at high risk for fatal and nonfatal injuries, work-related lung diseases, noise-induced hearing loss, skin diseases, and certain cancers associated with chemical use and prolonged sun exposure. Farming is one of the few industries in which the families (who often share the work and live on the premises) are also at risk for injuries, illness, and death. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/agriculture National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health - Agriculture


Child agriculture injury is also a topic of concern. An estimated 1.26 million children and adolescents under 20 years of age resided on farms in 2004, with about 699,000 of these youth performing work on the farms. In addition to the youth who live on farms, an additional 337,000 children and adolescents were hired to work on U.S. farms in 2004. On average, 103 children are killed annually on farms (1990-1996). Approximately 40 percent of these deaths were work-related. In 2004, an estimated 27,600 children and adolescents were injured on farms; 8,100 of these injuries were due to farm work. (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/aginjury National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health - Agriculture Injury) --Tisdalepardi 02:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this is too much focus on one aspect of agriculture and a VERY US-Centric view at that.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Petroleum price, availability, and the effect on agriculture

This new section has been deleted wholesale three times by WAS 4.250, and reinstated twice, all without discussion. Can I suggest that the issue is now discussed here before further editing? The explanation for the latest deletion by WAS 4.250 was: "this section is utter nonsense. create a section on ENERGY prices and agriculture if you wish, but as a source of raw material, coal can be used for anything oil can be used for". Here is the deleted text:

Further information: Peak oil#Agriculture and population limits
Since the 1940s, agriculture has dramatically increased its productivity, due largely to the use of petrochemical derived pesticides, fertilizers, and increased mechanization. Called the Green Revolution, this has allowed world population to grow more than double over the last 50 years. Some arguing that because every joule in modern food that one eats requires 5-15 joules to produce and deliver, it is inevitable that a decreasing supply of oil will cause industrial agriculture to collapse. Such a collapse would lead to a drastic decline in food production, food shortages and possibly even mass starvation, unless the uses of fossil fuels in agriculture can be efficiently replaced with alternatives. For example, by far the biggest fossil fuel input to agriculture is the use of natural gas as a hydrogen source for the Haber-Bosch fertilizer-creation process[citation needed]. Natural gas is used because it is the cheapest currently available source of hydrogen[citation needed]. Were natural gas to become too expensive, other sources (such as electrolysis powered by solar energy or hydropower) would have to be used to provide the hydrogen to create these fertilizers without relying on fossil fuels. Oil shortages may force a return to organic agriculture methods. While some farmers using modern organic-farming methods have reported yields as high as those available from conventional farming (but without the use of fossil-fuel-intensive artificial fertilizers or pesticides)[1][2][3][4], this may be more labor-intensive[citation needed] and require a population shift from urban to rural areas, reversing the trend towards urbanization which has predominated in industrial societies. Besides adjusting for increased fuel costs, farmers are now planting non-food crops such as corn to help mitigate peak oil, with the result of lower food production.[5] Others point out that rising food and fuel costs will limit the abilities of charitable donors to send food aid to starving populations.[6] In the UN, some warn that the recent 60% rise in wheat prices could cause "serious social unrest in developing countries."[7]

--Richard New Forest (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


  1. "see|Peak oil#Agriculture and population limits" - Peak oil is a controversial theory.
  2. "Since the 1940s, agriculture has dramatically increased its productivity, due largely to the use of petrochemical derived" - unsourced and inaccurate
  3. "Called the Green Revolution," - part of it was, part wasn't
  4. "this has allowed world population to grow more than double over the last 50 years." - another unsourced half truth
  5. "Some arguing" - weasel wording
  6. "that because every joule in modern food that one eats requires 5-15 joules to produce and deliver," - unsourced
  7. "it is inevitable that a decreasing supply of oil will cause industrial agriculture to collapse." - utter garbage. there are other sources of energy and other sources of raw material like coal

Why go on? It's unsourced crap. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Peak oil is controversial the same way the Theory of Evolution is controversial. Peak was proven for the state of Texas in the 1970s, and now it's been proven for the world in this decade. Your claim that coal can do what oil has done for Agriculture is nothing more than speculation. That section may need some attention, but it's clearly not unsourced.--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Offshore oil has barely been tapped. Peak oil has not been proven, although there is a degree of validity to the theory. Shale oil is just starting to be tapped. The only thing that has peaked is oil on land that is so easy to extract that you just pump it out with little effort. The cheapest oil is then replaced by slightly more expensive oil, and so forth. Oil will never run out. It will just progressively get more expensive until other energy forms are cheaper and then it will be used for non-energy purposes such as as a raw material for plastics. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
So let me get this straight. Oil will become progressively more expensive until it can only be used for plastics? Is this not exactly what the section is saying?--Richard New Forest (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Some of these do look like valid criticisms – but still puzzled about deletion. Surely these are mainly appropriate for {{fact}}, {{weasel}} or similar tags? What is the argument that the whole section should be deleted? It's an important and far-reaching topic which could affect us all. (What is your source that coal or anything else is a viable alternative at the current scale of oil and gas?) --Richard New Forest (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Start with World energy resources and consumption. It looks ok. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Now you've totally lost me. The talk section for "world energy resources and consumption" reads "numbers do not add up," "bias," "references vandalized," "article contents - major problems," and "sources and consumption should be better linked." Books are referenced that give no pages (one book mostly available on Google books seems to say the opposite of what's it's sited for), and it's a B article. Peak oil is was rated GA this summer, and after a lot of improvement by myself and others I have a feeling it's a few edits away from being A or FA (the current events section is too long and needs to be moved to other articles). It's been included as part of wikipedia for schools, and has no major issues with its sources (other than a few criticisms using poor sources AFAIK). What are you trying to say here, that if an article agrees with your opinion it doesn't matter that it has major problems? [GW]24.225.185.179 (talk) 08:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree about the {{fact}} and {{weasel}} tags. The issue is important, but some parts of that section need to be better sourced or fixed up. I have some higher-priority articles to deal with right now, but soon I'm going to deal with the problems in that section of this article (Agriculture).--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Mumia-w-18, when you get the time, come back and write sourced relevant NPOV claims and I won't have a problem. Don't write what others (me, for example) believe is false and expect it to stay in the article with a fact tag. Fact tags are not for stuff believed to be false. Stuff believed false gets deleted. Notable claims that are false are "made true" by attributing them in the text as in : Professor Gig stated "blah blah blah"[reference] WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
WAS 4.250: Your belief that something is false does not make it false either. This is a good-faith edit, and we all should be showing it some respect for that, even if we disagree with or disbelieve it. If you believe something to be false, tag it and see if your belief turns out to be right – that is surely what the "fact" tag is for? Those tags in the section at the moment are only November ones – if they become older and remain unjustified, that's the time to delete the "fact" – but even then it doesn't justify deleting the whole section.
Mumia-w-18 – for transparency, are you also User:24.225.185.179? --Richard New Forest (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
No.--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm User:24.225.185.179. I've been doing a lot of editing over at Peak oil, trying to make it read better, checking the sources, reordering sections, taking out redundancies and false statements, and finding places for some information in other articles. The agriculture stuff was accumulating there, so I brought it here where it seems to also be relevant. It had less sources than the rest of the article, and I don't know enough about agriculture to edit that section thoroughly, so I left it as-is hoping someone more knowledgeable would do a good job on it. By all means, make it correct, and WAS 4.250, if you have information we can use at Peak oil, please make it known... most of the criticisms are very out of date so we could use some new reliable information.[GW]24.225.185.179 (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
In that case, I have no problem with the section being removed.--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 09:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
What's wrong with bringing content here that seems to belong here instead of where I got it? If there's a different agricutlure article it should be in instead let's put it there, but other wise what's the problem? It has more sources than all but one of the other sections, you said yourself it's important and well put together.[GW]24.225.185.179 (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

WAS 4.250: Oh, you've deleted it again... Your edit summary was "consensus appears to favor removal". Which consensus was that then? I make numbers (for what those are worth) balanced 2:2 at present, but the subject is still very much under discussion, and so your yet-further delete was indecently hasty. Can it be right to wait until you have just one other person agreeing with you and then to call that "consensus"? I don't agree – my own view remains that the section is a valuable contribution and that it should be restored, and then edited where necessary. I have yet to see any reasoned argument to show it should be removed wholesale, and you have yet to respond to many of the counter-arguments made so far.


Mumia-w-18: I'm not really clear on your current view. Could you please explain it? --Richard New Forest (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Currently, the section seems to be just flotsam from the reorganization of another article. I'm the only one who's offered (so far) to improve that text, but I don't need to waste my time on attempting to research what amounts to random text. If I do have time to add something about the connection between petroleum and agriculture, I would probably start from scratch, and if another editor needs that section, it's available from the page history.--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
My thoughts are that this fits under a Sustainability section, assuming it's well-sourced and not original research (which, of course, it is not -- fossil fuels are a focus of research in all areas right now). In fact, I'll be doing that now. OptimistBen (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I hope you don't think of it as "flotsam" or "random text" just because I used the phrase "accumulating in Peak oil." It's put together from two agricultural sections that where in Peak oil. If it was simply random and useless, I would have deleted it. As it is, it is important and fairly coherrent, but agricultural sources were not added by the original authors, and it's more "about agriculture" than "about peak oil". I moved it here because this does seem to be where modern agricultural concerns are housed. It fits in with the subject and the editors here would know enough about the subject to figure out where the sources are to be found. [GW]24.225.185.179 (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] section break

WAS 4.250: I see you are keeping several archives of agricultural articles. I assume that means you care a lot about the subject, and probably know about it as well. Why not help us out with the sources and explain what's wrong with the reasoning? Your main issues seem to be that:

  1. petroleum isn't the main reason agriculture has been able to increase productivity since the 40's (please explain what's wrong with that statment; would there be food for 6+ billion people (not to mention tons and tons of food rotting away when not sold) if not for modern fertilizers, pestisides, and mechanization)
  2. a misunderstanding of what exactly the Green Revolution is (please clarify what you mean by that, otherwise the misunderstanding will continue)
  3. increased ag. in the past 50 years allowed population to increase as much as it did (explain your problem with this statement; it seems logical to me)
  4. "some argue" in re: to the joules in joules out equation (I'm not sure what the sources of the equation or Haber-Bosche are, so if you know please help us out; with more info I could probably find the source where "some are arguing" the point in question)
  5. you claim coal can be used, so please provide a source, and an amount of coal available source, and a source that shows it's sustainable (especially if oil production tanks and everyone decides to use coal instead)

If you explain the problem instead of throwing around epithets maybe we can reach consensus.

As for Peak oil being controversial, I think Mumia-w-18 addressed that just fine above. That article is extremely well sourced and no one has stepped forward to deny that. Even King Abdulah of S.Arabia and the former head of Aramco's exploration division (not to mention more local oil execs) have been saying there's a looming problem. Look up the Hirsch report and see that the US gov is worried. [GW]24.225.185.179 (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Total coal reserves according to coal: 909 billion tonnes. Conversion of coal to oil yeilds 2.6 barrels/ton according to p. 42 of [Hirsch report]. That makes about 346 barres of oil. With world consumption of coal at 5.3 billion tons/year and world oil production at 31 billion barrels/year, that makes for just about 10 years of coal assuming coal and oil demand doesn't grow in China, India, and other developing countries, not to mention in the US. This doesn't sound sustainable or advisable to me. [GW]24.225.185.179 (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
See World energy resources and consumption for total world energy usage and resources. The world can and will migrate from oil to the many other energy sources available. Fossil fuels like coal will increasingly be used not for energy, but as a raw material for plastics and such. At some point we will mine our vast garbage dumps for plastics and other raw materials. The big picture is that the sun supplies plenty of energy for all human needs and technology is making it cheaper every year to convert sunshine directly to electricity so there is no long term energy shortage, only long term technology development and energy source migration. And for use of oil as a raw material for non-energy purpose, all the other fossil fuels can be used for that; and in the long term what we use it to make can be recycled as the raw material doesn't disappear - it only changes form - and with energy and technology it can be reformed and thus recycled. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I never said there wasn't an oil issue that needed to be responded to. I said this the original research conclusions offered about its affect on agriculture were nonsense. Changes in energy and agriculture toward sustainability is official policy in all technologically advanced nations with billions of dollars being spent to implement sustainability. Yes, there is an issue. Yes, it is being dealt with. Yes, we should have articles on it. Yes we do. Not enough. We are very lacking in agriculture and national policy articles. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

  1. petroleum isn't the main reason agriculture has been able to increase productivity since the 40's. National policy, science and technology is.
  2. the Green Revolution refers to a specific agricultural technological advance. It does not include every technological advance in agriculture since 1940.
  3. increased ag. in the past 50 years is one factor in allowing population to increase as much as it did
  4. "some argue" needs a source and then we can change "some" to whoever is saying it.
  5. this item is covered above WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. You might as well say it was brains that increased agriculture productivity. Please, tell us what fueled the success/pace of the new science and technology (and what would have fueled it with no oil around), and how can a policy come before some change/invention that has allowed for the new policy?
  2. a) you have still not clarified, and b) according to green revolution, your claim is wrong; there is no mention of anything specific there, only "programs of agricultural research, extension, and infrastructural development"
  3. OK, take away increased food and what do you get? (hint, the answer is not "an increased population") If it's that big a deal to you to make this point, it would have taken 3 simple words to edit the claim:
  4. Yes, I agree in needs a source. You claim to know ag, so get me an ag source so I can understand the statements ag side, then I'll find out who said what (or how the claim was actually made). Really, this is the third time I've repeated that, so please don't make me go in a circle again.
  5. a)have you abondoned your original position that Peak oil is contoversial?, cause your general reasoning sounds like that of Peak oil theorists b)you still don't have a source, so let's just call your specific claims POV c)Yes or No question: Do you believe that CURRENT alternative energy thechnologies are viable and in place to cover a sudden and dramatic drop in oil production? (if you are going to argue with the validity of the question, please use sources, not POV; if you want my sources, there are about 130 of them at [Peak oil], plus 28 books and 50+ external links, so take your pick) [GW]24.225.185.179 19:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Any objections to this wording? "More than 10 kcalories (kilogram-calories or "large calories") of exosomatic energy are spent in the U.S. food system per kcalorie of food delivered to the consumer. Put another way, the food system consumes ten times more energy than it provides to society in food energy... About 330 quads (1 quad = 1015 BTU) of all forms of energy per year are used worldwide by humans. A large fraction of this energy, about 81 percent, is provided by fossil energy worldwide each year. Moreover, about 50 percent of all solar energy captured by photosynthesis worldwide is already used by humans, but most of it is captured as food and other agricultural products, which are not included in the 330 quads. That agricultural output is already inadequate to meet human needs for food and forest products. We would be in grim trouble if we had to derive our energy needs from current basic photosynthetic production, as our ancestors did. Given the anticipated decline in fossil fuel use, and the continued growth of human populations, that problem is ahead of us rather than behind us... Clearly, there is a room for substitutability among fossil energy sources, and natural gas and coal are expected to increase their share as soon as oil supply will decrease. However, gas supplies are not at all that much better off. Coal is not infinite and it exacts a high environmental cost or a high price to clean it up... Currently worldwide there is serious degradation of land, water, and biological resources generated by the increasing use of fossil energy by the world's population. Already, more fossil energy is used than is available in the form of a sustainable supply of biomass, more nitrogen fertilizer is used per year than could be obtained by natural supply, water is pumped out of underground reservoirs at a higher rate than it is recharged, and more minerals are taken out of mines than are formed by biogeochemical cycles. Fossil energy and technology enabled humans to (temporarily) sustain excesses. At present and projected world population levels, the current pattern of human development is not ecologically sustainable. The world economic system is built on depleting, as fast as possible, the very natural resources on which human survival depends... Approximately 1/3rd of the world's arable land and forests were lost during the past 40 years due to mismanagement and degradation. Currently, there is only 0.28 ha of arable land per capita with a world population of 5.5 billion people. It is estimated that about 0.5 ha per capita is needed for a diverse and varied diet. With the world population to double to 11 billion people, there will be less than 0.15 ha per capita in just 40 years (very close to a "Chinese situation"). At the same time, evidence suggests that arable land degradation is increasing as poor farmers burn more crop residues and dung as fuel f or cooking and other purposes, instead of returning them to the land... The level of energy consumption that will be enjoyed by a future "sustainable society" will lie below the one reached today by developed countries (based on the relentless exploitation of fossil fuels) and above the one typical of pre-industrial societies which rely completely on photosynthesis. Renewable energies have to play a major role to substitute for the role currently played by fossil energy. The lower the population density, the lower will be the demand of energy for food production, the lower the environmental impact of agriculture, the larger the choice of possible alternative energy sources and in the last analysis, the higher the probability of achieving an acceptable standard of living and eco-compatibility." [1]

Mario Giampietro wrote his doctoral thesis on "Complex systems theory applied to the analysis of sustainability of agriculture: developing innovative tools and procedures for bridging social, economic and ecological analyses," and is now ICREA Research Professor at the Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA), Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain.

David Pimentel teaches Environmental Policy in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University. He was a an Oxford fellow and a consulting ecologist in the Nixon Whitehouse.[GW]24.225.185.179 21:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

See the "sources" section below. Basically, it would be better to use http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=12178986&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google and to state that "Mario Giampietro and David Pimentel have said ..." WAS 4.250 15:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History section

WAS 4.250: some of your recent edits are kind of puzzling. Shouldn't a really long history section be in a seperate history article? Shouldn't the entemology be in wikionary? Why did you delete that graph that showed some very interesting effects of modern agriculture on the work force? [GW]24.225.185.179 (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, I agree with the above user and I'd like more input from others. I did the reorganization. The history section is excessive and takes away from what the focus of the article should be: an overview of the more recent aspects of agriculture. If you want all the historical aspects, you can go to the history. The history section should offer a brief overview of the history (that overview, by the way, is accomplished well in the "Overview") and the subsections should be in the history article. There's just too much History in this article and not enough of everything else. Further, the in-depth history content is often poorly written and sourced. Etymology is in the Wiktionary page on agriculture, which is why I deleted it.
An Overview section is not strictly necessary. The brief beginning could be called an Overview. Changing the current Overview to History works well IMO. Agricultural Trade needs to be incorporated into this article. Really, this article needs a lot of work, and I'm going to be trying to do more of that (assuming I find the time). OptimistBen (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] that's not what the sources say

High prices increase the profits of crop growers, but they put pressure on the slim margins of livestock farmers.[8] While biofuels are often viewed as environmentally friendly, the cultivation of biofuels has been criticized for its unintended consequences.[9] Strong demand for biofuels provides an incentive for farmers in the developing world to raze forests and plant crops such as palm oil, putting further stress on the environment.[10]

I moved this here because the sources provided do not establish the claims being made. The claims are phrased as general truths, while the sources establish a much narrower claim limited in time and location and circumstance. It's like using a link that is only about climate change in Alaska to source a claim that the whole world in undergoing a climate change or a link to a bank robbery by a gang of women to claim something about crime in general or women in general. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

WAS 4.250: Not sure quite what you're after. Taking the first statement: it is self-evident, and is also supported by an example showing that there is indeed such pressure (though personally I'd limit the statement to livestock farmers using grain-based feed – but that's an edit, not a deletion). The second "claim" merely states that biofuels have been criticised – this is no great surprise, and the ref proves that they have. Finally, the statement that strong demand for biofuels provides an incentive to grow them is hardly controversial, and the ref clearly shows how this can be environmentally damaging in some parts of the world. I see no arguing from the particular to the general here – these are illustrative examples, and very many others could have been substituted.
So in fact all of these statements are well supported by the refs, or are uncontroversial anyway. Could you give an example of the kind of ref that would satisfy your standards in these cases? --Richard New Forest 15:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I argue that the sources do not make the same claims as are articulated in the statements that they are attached to and you agree pleading "self evident". No. Not self evident. Get a source for the claim, not an example. Examples don't prove more general statements. You can't claim it always rains on Sunday in New York and then provide an example of it raining on Sunday in New York. Higher prices only increase profit if costs have not increased proportionately. WAS 4.250 16:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I did not "agree, pleading 'self-evident'". I disagreed, as is, dare I say it, self-evident. The statement is self-evident – that's not a plea, it's a statement. What exactly is not self-evident about "higher costs put pressure on margins"? A self-evident statement doesn't need a source – but in this case, an example is given to illustrate it. Your analogy ought to be: "It can rain on Sundays in New York": example of a Sunday when it rained. Now, how about answering the question? What sort of ref would satisfy you? (I can't help feeling that few of your arguments are looking too rational at the moment...) --Richard New Forest 21:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Here is a better source on the impact of biofuels on the forests and the environment.
While you're correct in noting that increased demand (and subsequent higher prices) increases profits only if input prices remain the same, you should be aware of the fact that input prices haven't risen really proportionally if you're up to date on this topic (however, prices of fertilizer and fuel are rising). Given that, you could perhaps help find sites rather than delete the claims. If you disagree with the assertions, then you could explain why and maybe show a source for that. To be honest, I planned on fleshing out these claims later. Here and here are other sources on increased profits for farmers. To get these profits, as we'd expect, farmers are planting corn. I think stating that there's been a drive towards growing corn (oddly, corn isn't even up as much as wheat according to that NYT article) in hopes of higher profits could work better. Obviously, when a lot of farmers plant corn, they aren't planting wheat -- so you have decreased supply of other grains, and the price of all grains goes up.
Did you write the History of Agriculture section? There's only ONE source among that entire section, and tons of claims are made. So maybe deleting some of that stuff would be better. As I've already written, I want to summarize the history, then cut out lots of the specifics and keep it in the history article so we can focus on other aspects of agriculture. OptimistBen 16:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested edit of Agriculture, Petroleum, and Population section; comments please

Further information: Peak oil#Agriculture and population limits

Since the 1940s, agriculture has dramatically increased its productivity, due largely to the use of petrochemical derived pesticides, fertilizers, and increased mechanization. This has allowed world population to grow more than double over the last 50 years. Every energy unit delivered in food grown using modern techniques requires over ten energy units to produce and deliver. The vast majority of this energy input comes from fossil fuel sources. Because of modern agriculture's heavy reliance on petrochemicals and mechanization, as well as the lack of any quickly available non-petroleum based alternatives, the 10:1 energy equation has caused many agriculture, petroleum, sociology, and ecology experts to warn that the ever decreasing supply of oil (the dramatic nature of which is known as peak oil.[11][12][13][14][15]) will inflict major damage on the modern industrial agriculture system, causing a collapse in food production ability and food shortages as energy becomes increasingly unavailable for food production (a list of over 20 published articles and books supporting this thesis can be found here in the section: "Food, Land, Water, and Population").

One example of this chain reaction is the effect of petroleum supplies on fertilizer production. By far the biggest fossil fuel input to agriculture is the use of natural gas as a hydrogen source for the Haber-Bosch fertilizer-creation process[citation needed]. Natural gas is used because it is the cheapest currently available source of hydrogen[citation needed]. When oil production becomes so scarce that natural gas is used as a partial stopgap replacement, and hydrogen use in transportation increases, natural gas will become much more expensive. If other sources of hydrogen are not available to replace the Haber process, in amounts sufficient to supply transportation and agricultural needs, this major source of fertilizer would either become extremely expensive or unavailable. This would either cause food shortages or dramatic rises in food prices.

One effect of oil shortages (and by far the most sustainable alternative) is a full return to organic agriculture methods. This conversion would take time, as well as major reconditioning of soil which now relies on chemical fertilizers to be produce enough food to meet demands. Also, while some farmers using modern organic-farming methods have reported yields as high as those available from conventional farming (but without the use of fossil-fuel-intensive artificial fertilizers or pesticides)[16][17][18][19], this may be more labor-intensive[citation needed] and require a shift of work force from urban to rural areas.

Farmers have also begun raising crops such as corn for non-food use in an effort to help mitigate peak oil. This has already lowered food production[20], an effect which will be exacerbated when demand for ethanol fuels rises. Rising food and fuel costs has already limited the abilities of some charitable donors to send food aid to starving populations.[21] In the UN, some warn that the recent 60% rise in wheat prices could cause "serious social unrest in developing countries."[22] [GW]24.225.185.179 23:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I copied some of the above to the article and edited it. My general concerns are combined with another above comment and place below in "sources". WAS 4.250 14:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I think this will end up better in a Sustainability section. Have you thought about replying to some of my comments, WAS? -OptimistBen 19:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Perhaps even moved to Sustainable agriculture. No, I did not write the history section. I am frustrated that people do not carefully discriminate between similar yet importantly different things. Oil becoming rare enough that energy substitutes will be used and agriculture will evolve accordingly is unencyclopedically stated in terms of running out of oil [sic] destroying agriculture [sic].
These claims are not made, and especially not verbatim.[GW]24.225.185.179 20:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
What some people think might happen is written as if it were a fact that it will happen. WAS 4.250 16:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
How about encyclopedically providing sources and evidence for your opinion that 'agriculture is in a position to evolve quickly enough to avoid wide-spread food shortages or extreme price increases' (start with how long it takes to develop and produce the solar powered farm equipment, and where the new chemicals will come from, and how we avoid using too much land for corn)? How about not misrepresenting views which conflict with your own? Nothing here says anything about "running out of oil" or "destroying agriculture" (you do know what sic means, right)? Things that many experts say will happen are sourced to those experts, and links are given for checking on the experts and their theories. If you have a personal problem with the conclusions presented... well according to wiki standards that's too bad. If you have well sourced evidence and are willing to write good faith edits with those sources... THAT'S WHY I brought this information here in the first place: I want a better section. [GW]24.225.185.179 20:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

The comments and suggested text to add to the article are much improved and I thank everyone for their wonderful efforts. I don't want to make anyone frustrated or discouraged, so don't take this lecture on sources the wrong way. In fact the improvements are already good enough that directly adding to the article and editing it from there might be advised so as not to look like I'm trying to own the page and it is more fun that way and it respects authorship attribution better. But there are still sourcing issues that you guys need to hear about and do your best to accommodate to maintain compliance with Wikipedia content policies.

The general idea is to use the best sources to establish that a claim is relevant to the article and generally believed by those in the best position to know. Primary sources are not as good for this as secondary sources. Let's take the above source http://www.dieoff.com/page69.htm as an example. the authors check out ok, but the site http://www.dieoff.com/ is self published and thus unacceptable as a reliable source in general. As a list of sources it seems ok. The article is summarized at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=12178986&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google which is a reliable source and should be used. The full article has a major problem in that it is essentially an opinion piece that is a primary source. At best one could say "Mario Giampietro and David Pimentel have stated that ..." but the relevance of their opinion should be established by some other more general source - in other words we can use what they say here for claims that are given credibility elsewhere. This is a process at wikipedia, and we don't have to make it perfect before we add it to the article, but we should not add claims that we have reason to believe are contested opinions without also giving the other opinions due weight so the article can be WP:NPOV.

See WP:NOR for more information. WAS 4.250 15:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much that I think you're trying to own this page (although now I have to ask "was that just a cigar?"), it's more the fact that you're treating us all like children. Apparently you don't feel the need to explain your actions to us beyond the fact that we don't know how to make good decisions, and we should just trust what ever you do. You've forced me to use up time I wanted to devote to other things, all in the name of saving you the trouble of a few small edits (the original version said the same thing that the current one does), and then you say "good job team!" You haven't put in any effort except to come up with one source which you haven't even tried to integrate into the section, and you criticize sources and whole wiki articles apparently without even reading them. Your above criticism of sources makes no sence given the version you are commenting on... would you like the article to read "Paul Ehrlich, William E. Rees, David Pimentel, O. Bailey, P. Kim, E. Mullaney, J. Calabrese, L. Walman, F. Nelson, X. Yao, and Albert A. Bartlett, Marcia Pimentel, Gretchen C. Daily, Mario Giampietro, Henery W Kindall, Anne H. Ehrlich, Joseph Fletcher, Lindsey Grant, Xuewen Huang, Ana Cordova, Don Hinrichson, Paul J. Werbos, Roy Beck,T. Michael Maher,John B. Hall,David F. Durham and Jim C. Fandrem, Thomas Dietz and Eugene A. Rosa, Robert A. McConnell, Rachel F. Preiser, The NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL under Henry Kissinger, the Rockefeller Commision, Donald L. Huddle, Donald Mann, Lester R. Brown and Hall Kane, Sandra Postel,Peter Weber, and Joel Campbell say"? [GW]24.225.185.179 01:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I read the source in its entirety and read some of the home page. Have you read WP:NOR ? What is the relevance of the list of names? That a self-published web page has included them on its home page? That proves what? Do you understand the processes of verification? If you don't want to be treated like a child, then stop making childish arguments. WAS 4.250 16:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you really this silly, or are you just playing devil's advocate? The page doesn't just list names, it links to articles which support the thesis (which you've acknowledged elsewhere in case you forgot). Have you read them ALL, or is this some type of strawman? Have you done anything besides duck the issues we've raised?
Our arguments: you're deleting what you admit just needs to be edited with false reasons (original research, consensus, etc, etc)
Your response: It's obviously garbage!
Our arguments: It's widely acknowledged as relevant and important, it's sourced, and here's an extra list of scolarly articles and government reports that back it up.
Your response: Stop making childish arguments!
I've looked at your talk archives, and see you've been acting in the same sanctimonious way since you first got your user name in 2005. Why not take your own advice:

"You have some basic naivete about your own condescending attitude and how it affects your relationship with others. I'll take the opinion of the experts over yours any day. I'm glad you are helping with the [agriculture] articles. I just wish you would add as much data as you delete. I always saw my role as adding sourced data that then others would polish/edit. I should not have to write a perfect encyclopedia paragraph for it not to be deleted. All I'm saying is don't delete based on imperfect writing. Deleting and tagging is child's work; try adding sourced data or polishing existing data to make it read better - now that's a job for an adult."

"...that's the job of an adult." Wow. Pot, meet kettle. [GW]24.225.185.179 19:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction in lead

Lead currently reads:

"As of 2006, an estimated 36 percent of the world's workers are employed in agriculture[1] (down from 42% in 1996), making it by far the most common occupation. However, the relative significance of farming has dropped steadily since the beginning of industrialization, and in 2006 – for the first time in history – the services sector overtook agriculture as the economic sector employing the most people worldwide. "

That sounds like it contradicts itself. Anyone know which it is?[GW]24.225.185.179 (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Environmental impact

I believe the section about the environmental impact should be revised, considering the difference with the figures outlined in the recent IPCC report. (especially figure SPM3, page 4 of http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf) The current text is strongly biased against animal production. This report mentions 13,5% for agriculture (i.e. plant and livestock production together), leaving energy production (25,9%), industry (19,4%) and forestry (17,4%) as bigger GHG producers.

Concerning the land claims made by livestock production, it is necessary to consider which land is used. Not all is suitable for plant production (over 70% of land area can not support plant production according to the FAO and only under 20% is "suitable" or "very suitable" - I should check were I downloaded those xls's). The current text is suggesting (although not explicitly stating) livestock production takes away land that could be used for crops. This may be the case in Europe, North America and Southeast Asia, but surely not in areas were agroclimatological circumstances are (far) less favourable. One could easily argue that livestock production leads to environmental, energetic, social and other benefits in those areas (but I believe that should not be put in the article as it would lead too far to explain pros and cons of that line of argument).

Just running this by you before I make any changes. 81.247.26.55 (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

How do you grow animals on land with no plants? Where does their food come from? What ratio of calories eaten to calories provided do animals give us? What physical impact do animals have on the land they occupy (with or without plants)? Are you talking about the hearding of native animals, or the hearding of non-native animals? This looks like a can of worms... best to flesh it out here before making major changes. NJGW (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hold your horses (no pun intended). I'm just writing anonymously because my login seems to have disappeared. I was not talking about "growing" animals on land without plants. I meant land that is not suitable to plant production, such as savanna, wetlands, tundra, ... There's lots of plants, but you cannot use this land to grow wheat, corn, vegetables, ... because there's not enough water e.g. If you consider the calories ruminants eat (which cannot be used by monogastrics!) and the calories they produce (and can be used by humans) in the form of milk, meat, ... you'll see that using animals is not always "wastefull". That said, I believe I mentioned that I would not put this part in the text. 134.58.253.57 (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, some distinction needs to be made between the land that is unsuitable for plant production and how much of it is suitable for animal production (do you have a ref?), as well as where the water would come from, what environmental impact the animals would have on the land, what environmental impact changing the land into animal producing land would have on the local ecosystems, and I've heard plenty say that you get way more calories from growing plants for human consumption than for animal consumption (milk and eggs perhaps being exceptions, but again we need refs). This is all valid discussion, and what ever good sources are available should be used and included to make the section more complete. If it gets too big, it becomes it's own article, which is great. NJGW (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] conservative agriculture, direct drilling, no-till technology

Nothing about these topics in Wikipedia?! Not even a single mention?! See [2] and [3] and [4] and [5] --Espoo (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question: Generic term for farming of wild animals

Hello. I wonder if anybody here can help me. I just created the article is:Eldi on the Icelandic WP and I've been looking for iw-links without success so far. As the Icelandic term is used it refers almost exclusively to the farming of wild species (e.g. fish farming, fur farming etc.) as opposed to is:búfjárrækt (animal husbandry) which is the farming of domesticated species. I believe the farming of wild species has specific issues connected to it that would warrant a special article (e.g. danger of genetic contamination of native stocks, introduction of new species in the wild through escape from the farms (this was how the mink was introduced in Iceland in 1931), animal rights issues etc.) Is there an article on en:wp (or any other wp) with the same subject? Should there be or am I misguided? With many thanks for your help. --130.208.152.78 (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC) (is:Notandi:Akigka).

[edit] Other species

There doesn't seem to be any mention or link to agriculture as practiced by insect species. E.g. "Agriculture is a specialized form of symbiosis that is known to have evolved in only four animal groups: humans, bark beetles, termites, and ants." [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.218.19.195 (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)