Talk:Agriculture/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Agriculture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110041224/http://bs-agro.com/index.php/20152-pessimism-about-future-grows-in-agribusiness to http://bs-agro.com/index.php/20152-pessimism-about-future-grows-in-agribusiness
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140131234028/http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome to http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Agriculture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130201021133/http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/AgProductivity/ to http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/agproductivity/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ilo.org/safework/info/standards-and-instruments/codes/WCMS_161135/lang%E2%80%94en/index.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ilo.org/safework/areasofwork/hazardous-work/WCMS_110188/lang%E2%80%94en/index.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130706005846/http://croplife.intraspin.com/pesticides/paper.asp?id=461 to http://croplife.intraspin.com/pesticides/paper.asp?id=461
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100918182458/http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err94/ to http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR94/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Time to bring this back to GA

This is a very mature article, formerly featured indeed, and peer-reviewed after that, and it is in a good state. I'd like to take it through GAN; if anyone would like to join me, they're very welcome to be co-nominators. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Doubt I'd be a co-maintainer (I did some work here a decade ago) - but at a glance, Agriculture#Status should be less focused on 2007 and more of a broad overview of the trends of the past few decades. II | (t - c) 17:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

It generally reads well and is well-referenced. I agree that the "Status" section (and also the "Workforce" section) need to be improved. "Agricultural science" should probably be expanded, and the "List of countries by agricultural output" giant chart doesn't flow well in the middle of the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks both for the suggestions, I'll see what I can do, and all inputs gratefully welcomed. I'm not sure the chart belongs here at all - we could collapse it so it's basically just an aside, I guess. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I've reworked the article, including Status, Workforce, and Agricultural Science, and have done some work on the illustrations too. The giant charts are now all collapsed which I hope works for everybody. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The history section needs a lot of work if it's going to meet GA #3a, in my opinion. The origins and development of agriculture is probably the most intensively studied topic in prehistory, but what we have on it here is out of date and woefully incomplete. I will try and find the time to work on it. – Joe (talk) 08:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, that would be very helpful. Can we not simply summarize History of agriculture, with a main link? Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to say, that article is already in a good place. Thanks for summarising it. – Joe (talk) 12:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Climate change

The article says that "agriculture" has a very bad negative effect in regards to climate change. This is actually very inaccurate. It should state that animal husbandry has a very bad effect on climate change. This as it is one of the main reasons of prodiction of methane gas, one of the worst GhG gases (allot more potent than CO²). In addition, I find it's useful to also mention that life in prehistoric times had allready been killed once (globally!) trough the effect of methane gas. Appearantly, the levels for this to happen were only 5x as large, excluding other gases (ie effect of CO² emissions from transport, ...) See http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/07/dinosaurs-farted-their-way-to-extinction-british-scientists-say/ 91.182.243.253 (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

It is accurate to state that agriculture, not just livestock production, has some implications for climate change. The 100-year GWP of nitrous oxide is about 298 (compared with about 25 for methane and 1 for carbon dioxide), and major sources of nitrous oxide from agriculture include nitrogenous fertilizers and fixed nitrogen derived from legume crops, as well as nitrogen in livestock manure. The effect of methane on climate change is due to change in atmospheric methane concentration, which has not recently been correlated with anthropogenic emissions, and is only partly due to livestock sources. For example, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Third Assessment Report Table 4.2 tabulates methane emissions estimates for ruminant livestock ranging from 80 to 115 Tg per year, and for rice production ranging up to 100 Tg per year, i.e. overlapping the range suggested for ruminant livestock. However, recent average net production of global methane was estimated at only about 1 Tg per year in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (i.e. total of anthropogenic and natural sources estimated at 582 Tg/year; total sinks estimated at 581 Tg/year), and despite the magnitude of anthropogenic methane emissions, atmospheric methane concentration has not increased at all in some recent years (Dlugokencky, E. J. et al. 2011. Global atmospheric methane: budget, changes and dangers. Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. 369: 2058-2072). In addition to methane and nitrous oxide emissions, agriculture also contributes carbon dioxide emissions from combustion of fossil fuels, and additional net emissions of carbon dioxide (from oxidation of soil and biomass carbon) have been attributed to some conversions of lands to agricultural production. Such considerations justify avoiding a narrow focus on animal husbandry or exclusive emphasis on methane in this article's comments regarding agriculture's effects on climate change. Schafhirt (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it is not animal husbandry itself is the problem, but certain modern practices. Likewise, certain modern non-livestock crop production practices, particularly the production of corn, also have significant negative effects on climate change. Montanabw^(talk) 23:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It's too bad Schafhirt didn't edit the article on climate change. The article he cites Global atmospheric methane: budget, changes and dangers does show rice paddies as a source of methane, but does not seem to have much else about agriculture. Certainly the Haber process has energy impacts. II | (t - c) 04:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Agriculture as a whole is a massive contributor to climate change. An excellent [and phenomenally well-researched] book on the subject is "The Carbon Farming Solution" by Eric Toensmeier [Chelsea Green, 2016]. According to Toensmeier, "Emissions that result directly from agricultural production account for 11 to 15 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions world-wide...Land clearing and deforestation for agriculture accounts for [an additional] 15 to 18 percent." And this isn't just because we use diesel tractors or other industrial methods. "Agriculture's most damning contribution to climate change is the release of carbon held in the soil" due to deforestation and tillage. And Toensmeier's data on the subject goes on and on. There is simply no question that the vast majority of agriculture, reliant on deforestation and cultivation, is fundamentally tied to massive CO2 emissions, simply through the process of exposing soil carbon to the air, which quickly facilitates it's release into the atmosphere. There are other ways, such as no-till and agroforestry, but it's just irresponsible and wrong to argue that agriculture, as practiced most commonly, isn't a major contributor to global warming.Will Szal (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Whether general agriculture has an impact or not, it is undeniable that animal agriculture is by far more harmful overall than any other form of agriculture. This ought to be reflected in the article, and yet the article does not reflect this well at all. Animal agriculture is incredibly harmful to both the environment and to humans in general, far more so than the farming of crops. See my comment above regarding this industries role in the emergence and transmission of infectious disease, for example. I can only presume the industry is gate-keeping this article and censoring out information, just like they do in all other media. As for the comment above mine, perhaps the author ought to educate themselves on carbon fixation processes in plants. How many cows do you see packed with chloroplasts?

This is not a forum, but for the record there is no industry gate-keeping of this article. The article already states in terms that one branch of agriculture, animal husbandry, is responsible for many of the effects, which it lists; the claim is sourced to the HLPE report. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Should there be a section/article for agricultural patents?

Hi all

Perhaps there should be a section in this article for agricultural patents and even an article, it seems like an important topic. Perhaps it already exists but not under that name? I found Biological patents but that is a wider topic.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 08:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about a section yet, but wikilinks like Plant breeders' rights, Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970, etc. can be used for the crop end of it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Rye?

The Origin section of the article claims that Rye was cultivated over 13,000 years ago (Hillman, G.; Hedges, R.; Moore, A.; Colledge, S.; Pettitt, P.; Hedges; Moore; Colledge; Pettitt (2001). "New evidence of Lateglacial cereal cultivation at Abu Hureyra on the Euphrates". Holocene. 11 (4): 383–393. doi:10.1191/095968301678302823.)

I am not aware of any sources since also claiming this. The lede of the article mentions the cultivation of grains 11,500 years ago, which is my understanding. The 2001 statement should be removed; I will leave that to those who assist with this page. William Harris • (talk) • 10:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Additionally rice. We have one source for 8,200 - 13,500 (depending on mutation rate - so it is not reliable). There is another date with " Rice was domesticated in China between 11,500 and 6,200 BC with earliest known cultivation from 5,700 BC", and I have absolutely no idea what that phrase is trying to communicate about timing.

We need to be telling a coherent story based on WP:RELIABLE, WP:SECONDARY sources or multiple WP:PRIMARY sources, and not dubious dates provided by single primary sources. That might mean deleting some of these. William Harris • (talk) • 10:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

No mention of the role of animal agriculture in the emergence and spread of infectious disease in humans

Wondering if industry gatekeepers are responsible for censorship on this page like they are on many other Wikipedia pages. The role of animal agriculture in the emergence and spread of infectious disease in humans seems not to be mentioned anywhere, and yet an enormous number of such diseases stem from this industries practices.

Signed and dated for archive purposes only - William Harris • (talk) • 10:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Established styles for page ranges, initials

The styles used here (and in anything I've taken to GA, btw) are pages 123–129, i.e. spelt out in full (indeed, I had been led to believe by the gnomish contributions from many editors that this was the only acceptable format, but never mind); and initials Doe, J. R., i.e. fully spaced. If any instances in the article differ from that, it's an accident. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Please take a second look at my edits -- they were intended to remove the "accidents". The result was a consistent presentation of page ranges and initials. No more mixing of 123-4 with 123-24 with 123-124. No more A. B. Charles with A.B. Charles. Also, non-spaced initials are more sensible. How often do you see U. S. (or U. S. A.) compared to U.S. or U.S.A.? Please revert. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC) Also, there were other helpful edits which were "lost" by your revert. One example: WP:NOTUSA. 03:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for discussing. I agree we need consistency, but the article's style is with full page ranges and fully spaced initials for humans: there's nothing "more sensible" about compressing separate human intials into a lump. USA wouldn't need initials, obviously, but there are no instances in the article. I'll attempt a cleanup but a full revert would be entirely wrong. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I've been through all the refs, and fixed a variety of types of error. There were in fact rather few compressed initials, as I'd suspected, and very few compressed page ranges. I hope I've fixed them all, and that you're happy with the more consistent citation style. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Agriculture for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Agriculture is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Agriculture until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Meatpacking as agriculture

Chiswick Chap, you removed my content, claiming that meatpacking is not part of agriculture. This seems silly to me. Of course slaughtering is part of animal agriculture. Slaughter is defined as, killing of animals especially for food. The slaughter process is involved in both the final steps of animal husbandry and care, and the first steps of food processing. If the harvesting of crops is still part of agriculture, then it only makes sense for the harvesting of animals to be part of agriculture as well. Please return my content. RockingGeo (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

RockingGeo, many thanks for replying. However, agriculture as widely understood and defined in textbooks and dictionaries (and even encyclopedias) extends only as far as the farm gate; government and academia share that understanding. The food processing chain including animal transport, slaughter, processing, packaging and marketing is not considered agriculture, however much you might wish that it was, and it is not acceptable to attempt to force your point of view on to other articles by inserting materials into articles against consensus, however passionately you believe the message ought to be told.

Among the dictionaries, the Oxford definition is "The science or practice of farming, including cultivation of the soil for the growing of crops and the rearing of animals to provide food, wool, and other products." Collins has "Agriculture is farming and the methods that are used to raise and look after crops and animals." Dictionary.com has "the science, art, or occupation concerned with cultivating land, raising crops, and feeding, breeding, and raising livestock; farming."

In government, agriculture is concerned with livestock, crops, and the environment on the farm.

In academia, it is taken for granted that the scope of agriculture is " livestock and crop enterprises and agribusinesses."

The section on safety is already quite long enough, and it covers safety on the farm. Welfare of food processing workers and those in food transport and supermarkets is a serious political and social concern (and deserves coverage in the encyclopedia) but it is not agriculture. Even if (for the sake of argument) we were to suppose that food processing was a component of agriculture, then meat packing would be only one small component of that subsection, and welfare of workers in meat packing would be an even smaller element of that sub-subsection, so the coverage is clearly WP:UNDUE by a large margin. But connecting welfare of people not working on a farm with a section on farm safety is already a great stretch: basically, this is simply a misplaced piece of material which does not belong in the Agriculture article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Agriculture encompasses raising livestock for slaughter, but not the slaughter itself. I support the removal of the discussed content. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 10:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC).

To be honest, I had never really thought this was controversial, so I’ve researched it for a few days in order to prevent myself from just relying on pre-conceived ideas. Here’s what I found:

As you say, [1] in academia, it is taken for granted that the scope of agriculture is " livestock and crop enterprises and agribusinesses," though this can include meatpacking in their business, especially for large intensive farms. Slaughterhouses and slaughter methods are part of the curriculum for a BSc Agriculture.

The USDA regulates slaughter, while the food and drug administration regulates butchery, storage, etc.

In Kansas, slaughter is regulated under the department of agriculture, whereas food processing is regulated by the department of commerce and does not include slaughter methods, though it does include butchery regulation.

Canada's 2016 Census of Agriculture also involves slaughter statistics, and slaughter is also regulated by Agriculture Canada.

In Australia, slaughter is further regulated the department of agriculture.

In the UK, Slaughters are included in agricultural statistics, not food processing statistics.

The same thing can be said for smaller countries like Guyana.

I can't find one country where the actual slaughter of the animals is regulated under a non-agricultural department or ministry (especially one that controls food processing).

A general theme seems to be that the slaughter and care of animals prior to slaughter is part of agriculture/husbandry, while the actual postmortem dismemberment of the animals is legally considered food processing. However, it appears that slaughterhouses are in this weird twilight realm that switches from agriculture to food processing, and neither group wants to claim it. (Though this seems like a disservice to the workers, and may be partially why these issues are brushed under the rug.)

That said, because only the slaughter (and prior care) portion of the work appears to be part of agriculture I think the most reasonable course of action would be to add one short sentence about the psychological safety of the workers who slaughter animals with a link to expanded material about it on a different page. That would stay on topic, it would take care of the WP:UNDUE issue, and it would leave the physical safety of butchering to the more relevant food processing article. Would you agree to that? RockingGeo (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Well you have certainly tried very hard, and the results are interestingly equivocal, with butchering definitely out. I suggest you do as you say - a short sentence, mind! - in the interest of harmony, and without accepting that slaughter is actually agriculture. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion, I remain unconvinced, let us look at some dictionary definitions of agriculture:

• the Oxford dictionary “the science or practice of farming, including cultivation of the soil for the growing of crops and the rearing of animals to provide food, wool, and other products”
• the Collins dictionary “farming and the methods that are used to raise and look after crops and animals”
• the Chambers dictionary “the cultivation of the land in order to grow crops or raise animal livestock as a source of food or other useful products, eg wool or cotton”

None of them include the slaughter of livestock.

I cannot speak with knowledge of all of the jurisdictions you have listed, but the Australian department of agriculture is also responsible for setting environmental water flows down our major rivers, that they oversee abattoirs is unconvincing, usually such things are determined by political expediency. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 09:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC).

Well, pace the compromise talk above, nobody thinks slaughter is farming; the most that can be claimed is that it sometimes comes administratively under the ag. bucket, and sometimes under the food bucket, which certainly isn't a terribly strong claim for inclusion in the top-level article on agriculture. It would be far better to place it elsewhere; say, in the article on Slaughterhouse, where nobody would dispute its relevance. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2020

Ash grayninja (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

the availability of capital and the demand for fish production have encouraged agricultural development. The main farming areas are Diqdaqah in Ras al-Khaimah. Falaj al Mualla in Umm al Qawain, Wadi adh Dhayd in Sharjah, Al Awir in Dubai and the coastal area of Al Fujairah. Total cultivable land is around 160,000 hectares.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- S.Hinakawa (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020

Agriculture is one of biggest sector of India and more than half of India's people are involved in it 2402:3A80:1F49:6661:B76:3A3F:4C02:29 (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Would need a source, but I don't think specific countries need to be mentioned in this general article. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

. . . and would point you to the article Agriculture in India as a more appropriate location for such information. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Early farming

Here is an article (re-published from another credible source) about nascent farming that happened much earlier. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150722144709.htm

I believe there might be more sources to be found, so it looks like we need to incorporate this info somehow on the relevant pages. I leave it to more experienced editors, also specializing in agriculture. 2601:1C0:CB01:2660:357A:21B9:B06A:653A (talk) 03:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

lede image too large for users that use zoom

Due to my poor eyesight I need to zoom web pages to read the text, but this article page has an over-large thumbnail (upright = 2.2) which completely fills the entire 1920 pixels of my monitor. I have to reduce my zoom to 150% before there's space for any text, but that makes the text somewhat too small for me to read the lede text. My settings do have thumbnail size set to 400px which I could reduce but then I'd have to zoom more for the normally smaller thumbnails. Could the size be reduced to something more reasonable, please? Other FA articles do not have this problem. For reference here is the thumbnail markup:

Harvesting wheat with a combine harvester accompanied by a tractor and trailer

[[File:Unload wheat by the combine Claas Lexion 584.jpg|thumb|upright=2.2|[[Harvest]]ing wheat with a [[combine harvester]] accompanied by a tractor and trailer]]

-84user (talk) 15:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I bumped the thumbnail size down a bit. KoA (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, I sympathise, but for an image with this aspect ratio (low and wide), a larger size is entirely reasonable. I'd have thought you could have panned across the image; but if it fills the monitor, it seems the setup might be working rather well really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion about lead image

I'd like to suggest to replace the lead image with a collage of 4 images like we have done for other articles, so that the variety of agriculture becomes immediately visible and so that we don't just focus on large, mechanised, high-income type agriculture (as if that is "the main/the best/most common). Compare with the image collage at sewage treatment or sustainable energy or climate change adaptation. We could pick out 4 images that show a spread of geographies, sizes, type of agriculture... EMsmile (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Climate change aspects

I've just split the existing climate change section in two as one is about the effects of CC on agriculture and one is about the contributions of ag to CC. Two different things. I would be inclined to use excerpts from effects of climate change on agriculture and greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture so that we always have the latest information there - would that be OK for a WP:GA article? EMsmile (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)