Talk:Organic farming
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Agriculture, which collaborates on articles related to agriculture. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||||||||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. |
||||||||
|
|||||||||
Please add new comments at the bottom of the page and sign with four tildes ~~~~
 Archives |
Contents |
[edit] Archives
The archive box will have copies, but here will be permalinks. This way you can be sure that I didn't miss anything. ImperfectlyInformed (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] shorten intro
hello, can we cut this passage from the intro and just leave that in the section on growth:
In addition, as of 2005 'organic wild' products are farmed on approximately 62 million hectares (IFOAM 2007:10). As of 2001, the estimated total market value of certified organic products was estimated to be $20 billion (Lotter 2003:1). By 2002 this was $23 billion and by 2005 $33 billion, with Organic Monitor projecting sales of $40 billion in 2006 (IFOAM 2007:11). The change from 2001 to 2005 represents a compound growth of 10.6 percent.
i would like an intro that just concentrates on the basics, giving the figure of organicly farmed surface should be enough, what are organic wild products anyway? trueblood (talk) 08:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Feel free to move the growth and market size information. I wouldn't cut out the organic wild stuff, as that's a major part of organic farming which probably doesn't receive the attention it should. If you want to know what organic wild products are, why don't you click that anchor and go to page 10? Although I don't mean to sound rude -- they are what they sound like: products which can be harvested from basically wild land -- some fruits, bamboo, ect. I should wikify "organic wild" and write up an article on it. I also plan on giving a brief sentence on growth when I happen across the numbers -- it's pretty easy to calculate CAGR (final value/initial value)^(1/years). ImperfectlyInformed (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Roy Bateman removing peer-reviewed studies
... and at the end. I removed: On the other hand, a large range of scientifically-based studies when aggregated, provide evidence that homogeneous-chemical-input-based farming (aka "conventional farming") is only about as productive as other practices on a globally-averaged basis, and probably significantly less productive in less-developed areas.[1][2][3] ... these are not peer reviewd papers!!! 20:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)RPB, 3 April 08
- [4] appears in a University of Cambridge journal so it is probably reviewed in some manner. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 20:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Also, looking at this edit [5] it seems you may have a conflict of interest. Please review WP:COI. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 20:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- can i remove the expression homogeneous-chemical-input-based farming (aka "conventional farming") and replace it with conventional farming? sounds a little polemic, also why does conventional farming link to green revolution?trueblood (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Melchett and Trewavas
I'm referring to a section recently added to the Controversy section:
In the UK, some of the debate has been summarized in an exchange between Prof A. Trewavas and Lord P. Melchett, and published by a major supermarket, concerned about examining the issues. Amongst many others, Trewavas[41] contests the notion that organic agricultural systems are more friendly to the environment and more sustainable than high-yielding farming systems; furthermore, practices such as the use of copper fungicides may do greater long-term damage than their synthetic equivalents for crop disease control.
Why should we care what these people think? I think we should rather stick with peer-reviewed literature -- actual science. These are just a couple of guys spouting off uncited facts. Further, there's nothing about copper fungicides in that article, so that claim is uncited.
By the way, how would I enclose the above passage with some sort of formatting? ImperfectlyInformed (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- trewawas is a critic of organics, who's name will pop up again and again, i think it is worth to mention his name. trewawas really is an agricultural scientist whilst dennis avery for example is just a anti organic propaganidist. let's get rid of the copper fungicide argument if it is not in the article and it is really just a claim. it is not very strong anyway since copper fungicides are used not just in organics. also the formulation 'practices just as ' implies that there are lots of other examples. trueblood (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- I see that someone (you?) has added a citation of Trewawas's critique of organic farming, so my concerns that these people don't have real credentials are quelled. I will take down the fungicide thing here, though. ImperfectlyInformed (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- I looked at the "Urban myths of organic farming" article by Trewawas. It's interesting, although not very convincing -- he claims that organic farms have 50-70% of the yields of conventional with no source. He does mention copper, as well, but he doesn't cite anything regarding how much copper is used by organic farmers, and also mentions that copper will be banned in the EU by 2002. ImperfectlyInformed (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Archiving the junk
I'd like to archive most of this Talk page. Anyone have an objection? ImperfectlyInformed (talk) 00:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Go for it. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 02:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I used the permanent method. If you'd prefer the traditional way you can change. I'd rather the permanent method was used so that there's no chance of people manipulating the Archive -- you can be sure that I didn't cut anything out, but there are disadvantages. I don't think there was much of value in this particular archive anyway. ImperfectlyInformed (talk) 04:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] External links
A user removed the external links with reference to WP:NOT, which suggests avoiding "Mere collections of external links". This is an article, not a mere collection; External links are perfectly acceptable in articles. Hgilbert (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see commercial or blog-like links in the list; the links here seem to be more in number, but similar in content to the external links in the Farming article, for example. It obviously needs review, however, as there have been a number of concerns expressed. Hgilbert (talk) 10:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] shortened intro
i cut this section: Organic farming is contrasted with conventional chemical farming. Organic agriculture can be considered a subset of sustainable agriculture, the difference being that organic implies certification in accordance with legal standards. Organic methods are studied in the discipline of agroecology.
for the following reasons, to say conventional chemical farming and the link leads to industrial agriculture, that to me is polemic, the term conventional chemical farming is only used be organic advocats and not clearly defined, also what organics is not is already said further up. i do not agree with organics being a subset of substainably farming. organics is relatively cleary defined, sustainable agriculture is not, just compare the two articles at wikipedia. organic methods may be studied under all kinds of disciplines, there are universities that teach agroecology, or sustainable farming or organic farming or whatever. the information conveyed here can more easily conveyed by putting the terms into the see also list. they are probably already there. keep it short. trueblood (talk) 10:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Lotter writes that organic farming is a subset of sustainable agriculture, and I agree. We could word it as "viewed as a subset" if you prefer. It is better to keep these terms in the intro because it immediately leads people to related articles, rather than later. I'd like to put the sentence back in -- I can cite Lotter on the subset thing.
Also, I don't see any polemic in calling conventional agriculture chemical. That is just fact. Please explain how it is polemical. Conventional, or, if you prefer, "mainstream" farming intensively uses isolated chemicals -- in pesticides and fertilizers. Organic does not. If necessary, I will cite these facts. ImpIn | (t - c) 00:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Organic agriculture and the global food supply (2006)
The statements made in the beginig "Productivity and Profitability" section misrepresented the research from the referenced source.
These statments:
A recent study suggests that converted organic farms have lower yields than their conventional counterparts in developed countries (92%) but much higher yields in developing countries (132%). The researcher attributes this to a relative lack of expensive fertilizers and pesticides in the developing world compared to the intensive, subsidy-driven farming of the developed world.
now read:
A 2006 study suggests that converted organic farms have lower pre-harvest yields than their conventional counterparts in developed countries (92%) and that organic farms have higher pre-harvest yields than their low-intensity counterparts in developing countries (132%). The researcher attributes this to a relative lack of expensive fertilizers and pesticides in the developing world compared to the intensive, subsidy-driven farming of the developed world. Nonetheless, the researcher purposely avoids making the claim that organic methods routinely outperform green-revolution (conventional) methods.
Narmical (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Misrepresented? It seems as if you're simply adding wordiness. It is obvious that organic methods do not routinely outperform "green revolution" methods -- they have lower relative yields in the areas in which these "green revolution" methods are used. Thus, it's redundant to add that last sentence. Please respond. ImpIn | (t - c) 00:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
