Talk:Intensive farming

Proposed major revision

After studying a number of agriculture articles relating to the Factory Farming controversy, it appears to me that someone broke this Industrial agriculture article into two sub-topics:

• Industrial agriculture (animals)
• Industrial agriculture (crops)

It also looks like they copied and pasted whole sections from the parent article to the two child articles without removing it from the parent, which resulted in a large amount of duplication. I endorse the split as the parent was getting rather long (46.4KB). (See wiki guide on article length.) However, to improve the split to meet wiki standards, I plan to make the following changes to the parent article:

1 History
2 Challenges and issues
3 Animals Change to a one-paragraph summary below the main topic link to the Industrial Agriculture (animals) subtopic article

3.1 Aquaculture Delete -- This text exists in the subtopic article

3.1.1 Shrimp Delete -- This text exists in the subtopic article

3.2 Chickens Delete -- This text exists in the subtopic article

3.3 Pigs Delete -- This text exists in the subtopic article

3.4 Cattle Delete -- This text exists in the subtopic article

4 Crops Change to a one-paragraph summary below the main topic link to the Industrial Agriculture (crops) subtopic article

4.1 History Delete -- This text exists in the subtopic article

4.2 Examples Delete -- This text exists in the subtopic article

4.2.1 Wheat (Modern management techniques) Delete -- This text exists in the subtopic article

4.2.2 Maize (Mechanical harvesting) Delete -- This text exists in the subtopic article

4.2.3 Soybean (Genetic modification) Delete -- This text exists in the subtopic article

4.2.4 Tomato (Hydroponics) Delete -- This text exists in the subtopic article

5 Sustainable agriculture

You can compare a number of the table of contents from several Ag articles here.
JD Lambert 21:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That break into two articles was just a bit of a hack job, so they'll definitely need a cleanup.. There's intensive farming and extensive farming too by the way.. I'd propose that those just focus on the concept rather than the implementation which is industrial agriculture and all the sub articles.. NathanLee 22:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way: I like your tree structures on that linked page.. Think they show a sensible division of the bits and pieces.. But as you say obviously way way too much info to put under one (and the terms deserve to exist in their own right). NathanLee 22:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Responses to proposed changes

I quite like having short summaries of each of the subtopics (aquaculture, chickens, etc.) with links to the subtopic articles. I would argue rather for deletion of "Industrial agriculture (animals)" and "Industrial agriculture (crops)." I think the "Industrial agriculture" article should contain a strong general overview, which it will with short summaries of each of the subtopics. Furthermore, the animal and plant aspects of industrial agriculture are strongly linked, so I don't see a great benefit in having a separate article on each. It is a more "natural" division to have articles on each of the separate animals and crops, rather than artificially separating the animal and plant aspects. And I think it would be unnecessary duplication to have "Industrial agriculture (animals)" and "Factory farming." Given that a consensus to delete "Factory farming" is unlikely, I think the best and least divisive outcome would be to retain the following entries: "Industrial agriculture," "Factory farming," each of the "subtopic" articles (on chickens, maize, etc.), as well as "Intensive farming" and "Extensive farming." And to delete the following entires: "Industrial agriculture (animals)"; "Industrial agriculture (crops)." FNMF 01:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of "Industrial agriculture (animals)" and "Industrial agriculture (crops)" serves no good purpose. Let them retain information not included elsewhere. Let them be articles that detail what is merely summarized elsewhere even as they themselves summarize data that is more fully developeed elsewhere. Farming is a big topic. Leave it room to grow. WAS 4.250 07:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to retaining them if that's what people think is necessary. But I'm just not sure what information they will contain that is not included either in "Industrial agriculture" or the more specific entries on chicken farming, maize, aquaculture, etc. FNMF 07:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The articles can evolve. Deciding ahead of time is inappropriate as these are top level articles that essentially summarize other articles that go into more depth. Who knows what editors who have yet to join wikipedia will find relevant to add? But reducing redundancy is indeed called for. I deliberatly created these with redundancy because I wanted others to decide where to trim ... should this detail go in this article or that article? I only want all details to go somewhere and some slight redundancy kept for the purposes of multiple context and linking and use of summary style. With wikipedia containing so little farming data, I see our job here as planting article seeds rather than providing a finished article that adequately covers the subject. It would take a freaking library to adequately cover farming. WAS 4.250 07:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Not if you read the certain sites for the source of truth on agricultural information: It's all just a simple redirect isn't it? ;) NathanLee 15:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

NathanLee NathanLee NathanLee. Consider yourself slapped with a wet noodle. "Less heat, more light" as they say. Would you like to add material to wikipedia's intensive farming articles? Only factory farming is locked down. ALL the rest are begging for your wise and informed contributions. Please don't waste your writing skills on endless arguing on locked article's talk pages. Add data where you can. Thanks. WAS 4.250 16:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

C'mon that was worth a chuckle.. :) Have busied myself with missing Australian ice cream articles of late as I went to tell some american friends about paddle popss and they weren't there. Travesty! I'd like to start the cleanup with this section, but I'm a bit worried stuff will get lost.. Still, might as well do a bit along the way. NathanLee 18:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge to or from Industrial agriculture (animals)

The article Industrial agriculture (animals) seems to contain only the same information in the relevant sections of this article. The sections in this article could be severely reduced with the main article at Industrial agriculture (animals), or Industrial agriculture (animals) could be redirected here. Exploding Boy 19:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to the ongoing debate over this entire subject area at Talk:Factory Farming and its archives.-Localzuk^(talk) 21:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but from what I read over there this is a separate issue. I'm not especially concerned with what the main part of the article title is ("factory farming," "intensive agriculture" or "industrial agriculture"), only with where the information is and whether or not it's completely duplicated.

To clarify, the issue here is whether this article should include long sections on mass farming of animals, or whether the information should be in its own article (whatever that article may be titled). Exploding Boy 00:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to remove most of the duplicated information in the next hour or so. WAS 4.250 16:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Industrial agriculture (animals)

This strikes me as an attempt at WP:SYNTH structuralization. We need to deeply rework the entire agricultural series and part of it is to consolidate articles so that correct, non-POV forking can happen as needed. I think this freestyle WP:SYNTH has to stop, and encyclopedic quality and approach not be taken. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I object to this merge and related merges. The two subsections have the following characteristics:

• A logical, justified split between animal and arable agriculture. I do not see how this split can be characterised as a POV fork.
• In farming, animal husbandry and arable practices are quite distinct. It is not only a logical split, but is a split reflected in the real world.
• Within each area, there is considerable scope for discussion of the information relevant just to the topic. There are parallels and overlaps but this is true of many topics.
• There is already sufficient information in each article for them to be justified in their own right.
• All articles in Wikipedia are synthesised to some extent, it is the nature of how Wikipedia is written. There appears to be a reasonable level of sourcing. If there are particular issues, then demonstrate them specifically.
• Industrial agriculture as a topic has a considerable overlap with these subtopics, so care needs to be taken not to overlap. However, there are clearly aspects, such as the supporting industrial process around the farming that are not specifically crop or animal related that will find a home there, for example, the specialised farm machinery industry, how technology has enabled agriculture and so on.
• The names for the articles are well chosen, neutral, uncontentious names which allow good neutral articles to evolve.
• There is no timescale to be imposed on the production of Wikipedia. There is no urgent need to have these articles at FA status now. Deletion is not generally a good way to progress articles. Divide and conquer is a sound approach to getting articles to a reasonable quality. Spenny 10:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the SYNTH. Also, these articles are split up along a logical path in order to place content in easily reachable, easily understandable format. I don't see any reason to merge these articles. Jav43 21:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Your entire explanation is unsourced, unpublished, original research, hence the basis for WP:SYNTH. Thanks!--Cerejota 07:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Industrial agriculture (crops)

As per above. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

As per above, I don't see the SYNTH. Also, these articles are split up along a logical path in order to place content in easily reachable, easily understandable format. I don't see any reason to merge these articles. Jav43 21:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Synthesis

This article and related subpages should be merged and reworked until they are no longer WP:SYNTH. They include material POV forked from Factory farming, but I think they can be reworked, as factory farming specifically deals with land animals, and these seem to expand into crops and other forms of animals. Thanks! --Cerejota 01:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You have not explained what the synthesis might be. Please justify this claim. The explanation above is nothing to do with synthesis. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia with this inappropriate tagging. Spenny 09:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I will remove this tag as it is unexplained/unjustified. Jav43 21:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have explaned what this synthesis is, but to explain it again: Your POV pushes the assertion that "Factory Farm" is a sub-page of Factory farming. Furthermore, in the context it provides and unpublished synthesis of various form of animal farming (Acuaculture et al) as part of a global entity called "Industrial agriculture". It is the WAS list/structure WP:SYNTH put in practice. Thanks!--Cerejota 07:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(1) Please address the content, not the editor.

(2) This is a continuation of a content dispute. If you assert it is POV pushing on that basis, your claim of POV is equally tarnished by the same dispute. POV argument is therefore not sustained.

(3) Your argument of SYNTH is still simply claiming synth without any structured argument. What you say 3 times is not necessarily true.

(4) It is normal Wikipedia practice to write articles in English as a flow of text, supported by citations. That is not synthesis, it is editing. Within that editing there may be synthesis, there may be insufficient citation. As a whole the article is not a synthesis as you claim. Please deal with individual content problems constructively.

On this basis I feel the removal of the tag would be justified. Spenny 07:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense, Cerejota. For example, "factory farm" redirects to "factory farming". I don't understand your argument. Jav43 14:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the tag remain as long as there is a discussion. The basis for WP:SYNTH is clear: instead of using notable secondary sources to provide a narrative, the articles pulls the narrative out of the original research hat. Thats it, its not to complicated. Sources are the be all end all. However, I am waiting for the AfD of the most egregious example of original research and POV forking to be done before editing. The community might yet endorse the monstrous violation of core policy these pages represent.--Cerejota 18:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

NYT

There's a Mark Bittman article on factory farming in the [NYT Week in Review. Useful? Incidentally, a quote: "Growing meat (it’s hard to use the word “raising” when applied to animals in factory farms) uses so many resources that it’s a challenge to enumerate them all." Is the use of the word 'growing' common? Perhaps we should consider using it here. Relata refero (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Minimizing inputs

In the section entitled "convenience and choice" this article makes the highly contentious claim that "Industrial agriculture treats farmed products in terms of minimizing inputs and maximizing outputs at every stage from the natural resources of sun, land and water to the consumer..." While outputs may indeed be maximized in terms of sheer quantity, Inputs are likewise maximized rather than minimized. Industrial agriculture usually involves massive use of intensive irrigation and fossil fuel inputs in the form of natural gas-derived fertilizers, petroleum-derived pesticides and herbicides, and the petroleum-fueled equipment of mechanization. In these respects, the inputs of industrial agriculture are immeasurably higher than those of non-industrialized agriculture systems. It would seem difficult to find what (apart from non-quantifiables such as manual labour and intensive planning) if any inputs are minimized by industrial agriculture. If this claim is to stand in any form, these issues must be addressed and some reliable sources should be added to support it. Otherwise it should be either changed or promptly removed. WaynaQhapaq (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

False claim based on ideology rather than reality. Farmers are businesspeople... their goal is to make as much money as they can. The idea that they would buy as much fertilizer, pesticide, etc as they can and wantonly use it, is just plain stupid. Of course they want to minimize the inputs - that does not mean "use none", it means "use only as much as you need in order to get the maximum output." For pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 14:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Rename of article

For anybody who wants to actually learn more about what industrial agriculture is, this article is quite useless. It does seem useful for informing readers about criticisms of industrial ag - that is what most of the content describes. I suggest a rename to "Criticisms of industrial agriculture". Jytdog (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your point that the article is lacking but I don't think it only points out criticisms. The bits about animals read that way. What parts did you think were problematic? Geraldatyrrell (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Well howdy! As we had discussed on your talk page, I went looking for real information about the history of agriculture, and found this piece of crap. I am kind of bummed that you cannot see the problem. Where does WIkipedia actually explain what industrial agriculture is, what techniques and technology are involved, and how were they developed and by whom, what problems were solved and how; what problems do farmers still have? I will answer -- no where. This article is much the same as the state in which I found most of the genetically modified food/crops etc articles. People who know nothing about farming - who don't actually care about farming - but are full of very strong opinions about what is "good" and "bad" - have filled it with Big Ideas about What is Wrong with the World. There is no information here about industrial ag. Did you notice what the most used source is in the history section? "Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy." This article is a great example of what is wrong with many articles in Wikipedia. It takes people who care to write articles. Too many times, the "care" is actually an ax to grind, not a desire to create a NPOV, well sourced article on the topic. Jytdog (talk) 02:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I do agree with you. This article needs work but I don't think renaming is the way to go. We shouldn't be putting the trash in the basement. It's time for spring cleaning. Geraldatyrrell (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Meaning

You think the meaning would still be different in Australia ? User:anthere

Not quite sure... I need to do more research. Andrewa 01:38 Mar 21, 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Andrewa. Or maybe there are two different terms (e.g. intensive farming for high levels of pesticides and care, intensive agriculture for a way of allocating land - implying high levels of care as a consequence, not as a definition). Rdelre 10:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

pretty biased, ill try to edit - unsigned

What's biased? It's clearly labeled under "disadvantages," and it only lists those disadvantages that are well-documented. Jason Godesky 15:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

merge with factory farming

can we merge this article with factory farming. i feel this article has been a bid neclected but carries the more neutral title and both cover the same subject.trueblood 13:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

would also merge with Mechanised agriculture, a 3 way merge. but i am a deletionist and may be overreacting

have no opinion on that, because i want to deal with this first. factory farming will keep an article, but i hope only about the usage of the term.

i started moving passages from the factory farming article into this article. maybe these passages can be changed, since the seem not exactly neutral. but i believe this is the better home for them.trueblood 10:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Oysters

The ancient world, while knowing little about the reproduction of oysters, knew much about the conditions necessary for their growth.

Could you qualify the highlighted part of your entry with a citation? If it is your or popular opinion, it should be removed.

How is a legitimate question regarding un-sourced opinion considered vandalism on a DISCUSSION page? I didn't edit the actual article, yet merely discussing an opinion which I believe has no merit that is entered as fact.

factory farming / mechanization / intensive farming are different

These three topics should not be merged; instead, the distinction between the terms should be clarified.

'Mechanization of agriculture' is a fairly easy one to seperate, since it could take a more historical-technical bend, addressing specifically the use of machines and technology in agriculture, including irrigation systems. 'Factory farming' and 'intensive farming' overlap, (as might agribusiness, Corporate farming, Green Revolution) but the terms could be distinct.

Factory farming is primarily a definition of operation scale. Intensive farming, on the other hand, can be any scale (though it is generally large scale), and refers primarily to the amounts of resource inputs relative to output. The britannica online suggests that factory farming applies only to animal farming, a definition supported by most animal rights and activist literature including fast food nation.

-wgh 18:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC) dialectric. User_talk:Dialectric

i started doubting the wisdom of my intiative. factory farming though is not a name for a farming system, it is a highly charged term, used as you say by animal rights activists. i wanted to get an article about modern intensive farming that has a more neutral touch to it. with the name factory farming that is impossible. maybe i should try to move to industrial farming...

i agree mechanization has a mostly historical angle. trueblood 21:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC) i removed the section i brought into this article to a new article industrial farming. so this article can really improved into a neutral article, describing what intensive farming is as opposed to extensive farming without any judgmental tone. garden plot could fall into intensive farming, an australian farm with thousands of cattle or sheep but also thousands of hectar would be extensively farmed.trueblood 09:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Title

Agree that factory farming is different. Was pointed over here from the factory farming article. Intensive farming is definitely different from factory farming. I'm also arguing that factory farming is NOT industrial agriculture too. NathanLee 21:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Supply a source and stop giving your own opinion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, these are different and should be separate articles. Jav43 20:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

They are used interchangeably by reliable sources; we've given plenty of examples in Factory farming and its talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Experts use these terms differently. News reporters get technical stuff wrong all the time, and in casual conversation terms are often used imprecisely. WAS 4.250 00:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Although they're used in the same article (even in the same sentence) we haven't yet had anything that shows the terms are anything other than a type of the other.. The CNN article doesn't use them interchangably [1], britannica and the sci-tech dictionary says it applies to animal farming as per cramped conditions [2], this one supports the notion that the term means livestock [3], this one refers to concentrated animal feeding operations [4] no mention of "factory farm" anywhere, this one [5] does not mention the term factory farm, webster's dictionary backs up the indoors/livestock [6], this article [7] talks specifically about cows.. On and on through the list.. Nothing to back up your claims, thus: it is original research.

Even the PETA link on factory farming (completely unadmissable I would say given PETA are a pro-vegan, anti every type of farming site) mentions only animals [8]. NathanLee 11:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Move to Intensive agriculture ?

As long as we're moving, does anyone else think that Intensive agriculture would be better than Intensive farming? Haber 04:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Please investigate as much as is warrented, then post the results here, then wait 24 hours for response, then act boldly according to consensus. WAS 4.250 05:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no complaints about that move. Particularly since there is also the term "semi-intensive agriculture" and "extensive agriculture" out there[9] .. Farming's a bit less of a formal sounding name (in my opinion). NathanLee 11:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Additionally the term is the one preferred by britannica.. [10] So I reckon go for it.. NathanLee 18:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Needs a lot of references and tidy up

Made some attempts at the header to up the citations and tidy up the wording a bit to include a few more things. Anyone else want to have a go too? Whip the article into shape.. NathanLee 19:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Have added in definitions, bunch of rewording, a pretty picture, section on advantages/disadvantages, start of sections on the types.. Any and all feedback welcome. NathanLee 20:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Factory farming naming dispute

Talk:Factory_farming#Request_for_Comment is factory farming synonymous with intensive farming or industrial agriculture? --Coroebus 10:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, here's an article from today that talks of an activist report that mentions again the animal and the confinement aspect.. SMH blog article, which if you follow the links has a definition:

'a system of raising animals, using 'intensive production' line methods that maximise the amount of meat produced, while minimising costs. Industrial animal agriculture is characterised by high stocking densities and/or close confinement, forced growth rates, and high mechanisation, and low labour requirements... Latterly, the term has been extended to include farming practices that involve the use of transgenetic farm animals.'

As we've nothing to suggest crops are referred, and really: this question is only coming up because we have some disruptive editors on factory farming who haven't yet been able to answer the arguments against they're weird interpretation of two articles.. Versus encyclopaedia entries, normal interpretations etc etc.. I dunno how many hundred quotes you found Coroebus. But it's definitely animal related.. As intensive farming can be crop related, it's different. NathanLee 11:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I was actually posting the link here to the factory farming RfC to solicit comments over at the RfC talk, rather than here. The idea of the RfC is to get some input from people outside of the dispute who can hopefully look at the evidence dispassionately. --Coroebus 11:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Aah, fair enough.. I'd say that the people in the chat earlier/above on this page seemed to come to the conclusion they were different.. (the first handful of sections) NathanLee 12:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think agroecologists and agricultural anthropologists would take issue with the position that industrial agriculture is done with less cost. Factory farming tends to depend heavily on subsidies and externalization of costs, not their reduction. What we are talking about actually is not reduction of costs but growth of scale in order to sustain added costs and concentrate profits. Investors into industrial farming see sustaining of communities, soil fertility, watersheds, biodiversity, local markets and ecosystems generally as costs, and they will draw from the existing wealth in these in order to augment their profits, and hide or divert costs onto other parties. See my discussion below under population growth driving intensification.Singing Coyote (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Water use efficiency

I deleted the reference to high evapoative loss under overhead irrigation. Current lit suggests that these losses are low and may actually be beneficial though reducing plant water use etc GILDog (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Redundant phrase

Unless someone has an objection, I will remove the redundancy from the third paragraph which reads, "...ploughing, chemical fertilizers, herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, plant growth regulators and/or pesticides." Since herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides are **all** pesticides (according to the US Environmental Protection Agency), the sentence becomes overly "wordy". The new phrase will read, "...ploughing, chemical fertilizers, plant growth regulators and/or pesticides." Kwagoner (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Update -- I removed the redundancy as I specified above. Kwagoner (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Renaming page

A user User:Aleksa Lukic recently moved this page without discussion to 'Intensive type of farming'. The term 'Intensive farming' is an appropriate title for this article, and no justification was given for the move other than the edit summary 'more appropriate page name'. I oppose the move, and it is not at all clear that 'type of farming' is the more appropriate name. For example, a quick check of google scholar reveals 20,000+ articles with 'intensive farming' in the text, and less than 100 with 'intensive type of farming'.

Pre-modern intensive Farming?

I noticed this section is one sentence and has not citations or references. I researched this but could not find anything on "Pre-modern Intensive farming" which leads me to believe this information is made up and not accurate. If anyone can find anything to support this section let me know or I will remove it. Thanks. BennyD519 (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Water-use efficiency

Was sad to see that my "water-use efficiency" search query was redirected here. Water use efficiency is drastically different than intensive farming and is becoming a popular term in the American utility industry. Will attempt to write article ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.196.100.64 (talk) 00:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC) I would go with intensive agriculture. It seems like a more appropriate term, and most of the articles I have read have used this term instead of "intensive farming" BennyD519 (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Dialectric (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge (added Industrial Agriculture)

Today I merged Industrial agriculture here as these are overlapping concepts and this is the more neutral name.Jytdog (talk) 02:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC

Apparently no complaints. I modified the title so its clear what was merged at a glance Geraldatyrrell (talk) 04:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Is intensification a cause of pop growth or response to? (Is it important?)

"Agricultural intensification has been the dominant response to population growth, as it allows for producing more food on the same amount of land."

Are we sure people haven't been learning how to grow food more intensively which gives the impression of wealth and splendor leading everyone to have babies? Geraldatyrrell (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Ester Boserup's book The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: The Economics of Agrarian Change Under Population Pressure (Aldine, Chicago, 1965) is all about this issue of intensification and population growth. Considered one of the classics in the debate it deserves a more upfront position than the passing reference it has now. Her argument and the literature it works off of should be referenced in the definition. Robert Mc. Netting in his magnum opus Smallholders, Householders: Farm Families and the Ecology of Intensive, Sustainable Agriculture (Stanford University Press, 1993) develops Boserup's thesis thoroughly based on a lifetime of research and extensive review of the literature. Both he and Boserup take the position that it is population growth which has driven intensification. He also shows evidence upholding Boserup's position that when land becomes more available people switch to more extensive methods. The initial definition in the first paragraph may do better to reference Boserup rather than (or in addition to) the Encyclopedia Britannica, and I'd advise becoming familiar with Netting's three books on Africa, Swiss Village and this one mentioned above to give more thorough grounding for this article. Netting and Boserup, furthermore, would not conflate high input agriculture with traditional intensification. From an ecological and energetics viewpoint they are very different, and furthermore calling something intensification becomes problematic when far more energy, imported from the outside, is invested into a system than what comes out as yield. Prior to introduction of fossil energy, energy invested into production was deducted from the produce of the farm leading to development and exploitation of more and more complex pathways of energy capture and resource cycling within the agroecosystem (emulating ecosystem progression towards climax in which increasingly larger amounts of energy go into maintenance relative to production, whereas fossil energy input tends to invert the relationship and discount maintenance because it doesn't see itself any longer dependent on sustaining the viability or richness of the agroecosystem). With introduction of fossil fuels people have become indifferent to the energy and resource pathways of the farm ecosystem. I think even as early as 1905 the agronomist F H King expressed concern about this and its implications in the introduction to his book Farmers for Forty Centuries (and perhaps before that G.T. Wrench and Sir Albert Howard's works). The anthropologist John Bodley, in his text Cultural Ecology: Tribes States and the Global System (Barnes and Noble, 2011), sees a major and essential divergence in the trajectory of agricultural development with the introduction of fossil energy into agriculture. Though his book is presented as an anthropology text book, basically it is a comparative study of forms of intensification and ecological adaptation from hunters and gatherers up to industrial farming. I'll try to develop these issues if someone else does not do so when I can find time. Singing Coyote (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I just deleted the sentence from the lead " Agricultural intensification has been the dominant response to population growth, as it allows for producing more food on the same amount of land." It is not supported in the body, which never draws the causal arrow one way or the other, but instead notes that the intensification and growth happened together. I think the causal discusssion is a BWOT as there is no answer. Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Might lay out different viewpoints on the matter, if there are opposing viewpoints. I am familiar with only one of them, I think.99.126.179.115 (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'm still skeptical that there is a correct answer, I tend to think of it as a stepwise process, and in some cases tech drives pop, but other times pop just increased and ag intensified because there were more hands working the land. I like this sentence: "With intensification, energy use typically goes up, initially provided by humans, then supplemented with animals, and supplemented or replaced with machines." Looks much better to my eye, thanks all! Geraldatyrrell (talk) 03:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone have comparative production numbers across different farming methods?

Does this data exist? Different methods might include modern industrial corn/soy vs. modern industrial organic vs. small-scale (non-industrial) vs. pre-modern. Alternatively I would be interested to hear thoughts about modern industrial ag. For instance, do we use tractors because they requires fewer people in the business, are less disruptive to fields, etc? Thanks Geraldatyrrell (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, has anyone read this article? >>> Reid, John F. (Fall 2011). "The Impact of Mechanization on Agriculture". The Bridge on Agriculture and Information Technology 41 (3)<<< John Reid works fro John Deere, and the article reads like a company advertisement. He references the company twice, plugs a figure they created to illustrate how awesome their products are, and uses their tech as examples of innovations. I'm not saying that his main thesis is wrong, but this was a shameless plug and the source should be taken with a spoonful of salt. Geraldatyrrell (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)