Jump to content

Talk:Agriculture/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

History

Sumerians as inventors of Agriculture: much too late —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.205.94.15 (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC) --Yak 12:42, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

This entry seems to be rather skewed. There is mention of agriculture being able to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere (this is presuming that human effects on climate change are even significant, which is under quite a bit debate), but virtually the entire section talks only about ways in which agriculture increases greenhouse gas production. I also think more detail needs to be added how improved agriculture techniques can reduce greenhouse gas production. 208.44.232.6 (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have another comment, but there is no section for it. There is no mention of the dangers of GMO crops to humans and animals. GMO involves adding genetic material from other organisms, but it also requires those genes to be activated. Activators are not selective and many genes are "turned on" indiscriminately. This can have unwanted consequences, such as the allergic reactions most humans had from a genetically modified corn strain. 208.44.232.6 (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

conservative agriculture, direct drilling, no-till technology

Nothing about these topics in Wikipedia?! Not even a single mention?! See [1] and [2] and [3] and [4] --Espoo (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

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." [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.218.19.195 (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One article on growing crops, similar to the one article on animal husbandry

The English language is a little strange. We don't have one word which focuses on growing crops. Instead we tend to use words which are closely associated with that process, but have become too broad: agriculture, farming, cultivating, sowing, harvesting, ect. Until we can agree on one article for crop growing, there will be a void which will need to be filled. I suggest that we devote a word farming to the practice of actually growing crops. There, we can condense and wikilink the now-disparate articles on cultivating, sowing, ect. What word? Cultivation may be the best fit. Farming, although broad, seems somewhat more closely associated with growing crops (farming: to cultivate or produce a crop on). Anyhow, what are others' thoughts? II | (t - c) 01:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I started an article on cultivation, where we can simply focus on the mechanics and practice of growing crops, in large or small quantities. II | (t - c) 18:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I mention a farmer's union?

Where could I mention that the International Federation of Agricultural Producers (IFAP) represents democractic national farmers' unions in 79 countries and is the voice of farmers at the world level? How is it possible to describe the political organization of farmers on Wikipedia? If IFAP if it is not acceptable to mention that IFAP represents farmers worldwide, then it is not acceptable to mention any individual, Jared Diamond or anyone else, as being particularly important in terms of agriculture. * —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsorensen (talk • contribs) 15:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. A good place to mention this organization is in its own article, not in non-sequitor asides. A link in the See also section makes sense here, and maybe there's some place in the article to link to as well, but randomly throwing in a paragraph breaks up the flow of the article.
  2. Please don't remove material just because yours was removed.
  3. Your opinion of Jared Diamond would be appreciated more if you would explain how you came up with it.
-NJGW (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could try adding it to farmer. II | (t - c) 20:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books with full-text

There are 278 books on GBooks with full-text. They're pretty old, but they could still be useful. II | (t - c) 01:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence circular

The first sentence reads: "Agriculture refers to the production of agricultural goods ...". No way! I do not know what the best way to phrase this sentence is, but I am removing "agricultural". Mbarbier (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. No offense, but we don't need a new talk page section on every minor change. Is there anything else you want to discuss? II | (t - c) 21:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lunar Farming

We need some source for the lunar farming section. This seems like an unproven magical concept. We need at least some source to show this is not just a hox. Disagreeableneutrino (talk) 11:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specific foods general [nitpick]

"Specific foods include cereals, vegetables, fruits, and meat." Wouldn't specific foods include wheat kernels, squash, apples, and pork chops? "Food categories include..." perhaps. ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rufwork (talk • contribs) 16:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fishing / aquaculture?

Should fishing and or aquaculture be included in this article? I think it should be mentioned once, but should not be considered (under the umbrella of) agriculture. There are several statements in this article and history of agriculture which suggest otherwise/

Dialectric (talk) 05:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Growing of plants and animals for food and energy? Sounds like agriculture to me. Which statements would you remove? NJGW (talk) 06:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agriculture and oil / gas

I have marked this section ad non-NPOV (I hope I did that in the right manner), because it represents views from the "peak oil" camp, which have been, well, debunked - only 2% of US petroleum use goes to Agriculture, Fertilizer is not made from crude oil

It should be fairly easy to find more resources which represent more objective view of petroleum / gas usage in agriculture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xmedh02 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, pretty much everything is currently dependent on oil / gas / energy. It's rather redundant to say that Agricalture is too unless it would be in significantly higher quantities than other things (materials, heating, computers, ZOOs.. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.203.215.58 (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This section currently very much reads like propaganda. I'll do some research and come with a more balanced proposal. For one, the claim that it takes 10 energy units to deliver 1 energy unit via agriculture is not backed up by the text of the referenced source, http://dieoff.org/page40.htm. I'll try to find a source for the claim (one study by the way). Also, the whole section is very U.S. centric. Rruitenberg (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do so. BTW, the farmers did not start to produce fuel crops to mitigate peak oil (whenever that comes), but because if higher revenue and/or government subsidies..

Xmedh02 (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, the use of corn for ethanol production (corn is one of the largest sources, although other crops are also used such as wheat and sugar cane for example) is largely the result of US legislation mandating ethanol content in gasoline (see the EPA website for more info). this in turn is driven by the desire for energy self sufficiency in the US, consumer preference for "cleaner" alternatives to traditional gasoline, and the desire to provide incentives to farmers in the US (e.g. corn is a $50 billion industry in the US, therefore policies to support corn and other farmers benefit many constituents). while it may in part be driven by a fear over peak oil by some politicians and lawmakers, i would suggest that the reasons above constitute much larger drivers of this trend. further, peak oil is debatable in itself as the world will never "run out" of oil in the traditional sense - what is likely to happen in the event of severe supply constraints for oil is that the price will increase to such a high level that consumption will fall off rapidly, thus maintaining say 50 years of supply albeit at reduced demand levels. Ewinmill (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The NPOV tag has been sitting here for a while. A number of good points I think in the discussion. Claims that farmers started producing biofuels because of "peak oil" concerns do seem poorly supported by the references and as Ewinmill points out other factors beyond peak oil worries may have contributed to production (mandates etc). I'm going to take a light hand to edit around the edges and see if we can tighten this section up (which remains interesting I think). Many cheers. Augustz (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, edit in. Tightened things up a bit on length, removed peak oil as the single reason farmers are doing biofuels. Removed "One example of the chain reactions which could be caused by peak oil issues involves the problems..." section and linked to the biofuel effect on prices article which covers the same ground in more detail and more directly. Tidied up a few of the big "By far the largest xxx" type statements, especially where then contested in a following sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Augustz (talk • contribs) 22:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed material dealing with petroleum use in the U.S. food system as a whole, because this is an article about agriculture, which is only a small part of the food system. I think the discussion of food miles and off farm energy use is better suited to the food systems page. The claim that farm energy use accounts for 17% of energy used in the USA was not supported by the Pimentel reference cited, so I removed it. The material here is U.S. centered. Good research exists for the US, and the US food system may epitomize industrial agriculture, but it would be worth discussing agricultural systems in other parts of the world, which are very different from an energy perspective.Mbomford (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Narrowness of current agriculture

Can it be included that agriculture is a very narrow branch; of the 2500 species people grow and eat worldwide, international agriculture depends on only 3 crops for 50% of the worlds calorie intake; notably maize, rice and wheat.

Info from Science in Action -BBC Podcast- 5 Dec. 2008 Probably more info on the "Crops for the Future"-website (from organisation occupied with researching this) 81.245.170.131 (talk) 10:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC) tgfr[reply]

Pharmaceuticals, biopharmaceuticals, drugs, and illegal drugs

This is confusing:

The major agricultural products can be broadly grouped into foods, fibers, fuels, raw materials, pharmaceuticals and illegal drugs, .....plants have been used to grow biofuels, biopharmaceuticals, bioplastics,[1] and pharmaceuticals.[2] .....Drugs include tobacco, alcohol, opium, cocaine,and digitalis.

We need to differentiate between these items. Digitalis is a pharmaceutical. Tobacco is a drug but not a pharmaceutical and is not illegal. Opium can be a pharmaceutical but is illegal in some places. In fact, the term "illegal drugs" may constitute a POV issue. Alcohol is illegal in some cultures; marijuana is legal in others. Perhaps "recreational drugs" is a better term to cover non-pharmaceutical drugs? I may come back and edit this if I have time. 99.254.93.142 (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Agreed that `illegal drugs' is POV. For example, unprocessed coca leaf is legal in some countries. I propose `stimulants' as an alternative. Thoughts? Rruitenberg (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consumption-labour-balance_principle

Perhaps the consumption labour banace principle can be mentioned as it technically says that agricultural accounting is wrong.

As for the third-world farming section; perhaps it can be mentioned that subsidizing farms in the first world countries is beneficial to the environment, as having the farms operate in areas that are no biodiversity hotspots benefits the environment.

add some sources and include to article

The Agriculture picture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Farmer_plowing.jpg

I just need to know where the picture that for some reason? represents agriculture everywhere, came from.--Jakezing (Your King (talk) 03:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monoculture more ecological than polyculture

Perhaps it can be mentioned that polyculture is more bad to the environment in the way that it requires the soil to be conditionized for all crops. Making the soil more suitable for a single crop (thus not fertilizing with all the types of nutrients and making the pH neutral) keeps weed out as more weeds are capable on growing on too rich and/or basic soils.

Having the soil suitable to 1 crop (eg making the soil very acid still allows and even benefits growing of blueberrry but reduces weed growth) Eventually, the soil can be used intermittently to allow the soil to recover after a few years

Include section and info in article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.175.118 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 9 June 2009


I not sure about polycultures needing soil conditioning for all crops. John Vandermeer explains about 'niche differentiation'(Vandermeer, J. 1989. The Ecology of Intercropping. Cambridge University Press). Different crops in a polyculture of a good ecological-engineered design will have a niche differentiation that prevents resource use conflict in both spatial and temporal scales. Further, polyculture systems like agrforestry will increase soil fertility through mycorrhizal associations and hydraulic and nutrient lift (Sinclair, F., and Eason, B., and Hooker, J. 2000 Chapter 3: Understanding and management of interactions. And Incoll, L and Newman S. Chapter 7: Arable crops in agroforestry systems. And McAdam, J. Chapter 8: Environmental Impacts. In: Hislop, M., and Claridge, J., Ed (2000) Agroforestry in the UK. Bulletin 122. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh). Sinclair et al further suggest that by agroforestry systems mimicking the diversity and structure of natural ecosystems, improvements in the agroecosystem may include stability, sustainability and animal welfare. Self regulation of land is a highly stable system. Nature has been doing it for 3 billion years! Self-regulation has been linked to concepts such as ecological complexity, integrity, diversity, stability and resilience. (Parrott, L., 2010. Measuring ecological complexity. Ecological Indicators 10 (2010) 1069–1076). Further, the AMOEBA approach, a highly regarded marine sustainability assessment, concluded there were three characteristics of a sustainable system: yield; biodiversity and self-regulation (Bell and Morse, 2008 Sustainability Indicators. Measuring the Immeasureable. Earthscan). A self-regulating system is not a monoculture; a monoculture is the an unsustainable system. A well designed polyculture system should reduce the need for fertilisers and other agrochemicals applications by forming benefitial relationships between the crops, and it should certainly appreciate the principle of niche differentiation to maximise internal resource use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisehazel (talk • contribs) 17:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison

Can a Comparison of farming systems article be made. It should mention which farming system is best for which crop. This differs; as a study by Derk van Balen (on no-till farming) already made clear —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.93.64 (talk) 12:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Types

Types of agriculture should be discussed; eg

A small discussion on the creation of foods with longer shelflife (eg grains, packed/canned foods, salted, freesdried, dried), vs shorter shelflife foods (eg fruit, vegetable, unpacked animal meat) can be given and how this affects how the sales happen. Also, the loss percentage of the short shelflife foods can be noted in the article, aswell as the risk thereof (eg in case of national emergency; due to the requirement of electricity/cooling) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.79.192 (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements

The required improvements to agriculture (eg the new green revolution) required by 2030) should be discussed. See http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/06/cheap-food/bourne-text/1 Implement that the new green revolution prefers the use of techniques as

  • genetic modification of plants
  • crops bred with increased pest resistance, drought tolerance,
  • agroforestry
  • use of nitrogen fixating plants Agricultural
  • improved irrigation (eg drip lines, ...)
  • mulching and/or the use of cover crops

The reduction of presticides and replacement by more ecological methods has also been advocated in the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (http://www.agassessment.org/) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.13.181 (talk) 09:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agroecology

Should Agroecology have the Agriculture template, or not? --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nano-agriculture

The development of nanotechnology is currently having a significant impact on agriculture as well. Perhaps there should be a stub on the topic of nano-agriculture, which is the name given to this sub-field of nano-technology. [6][7][8] ADM (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vertical Farming

Why isn't this mentioned in the sidebar in the section particular? Vertical farming has of course not started yet, but I'm fairly sure that it will soon. It should be put their to bring attention to it, as it is a major solution to loss of biodiversity, land degradation and deforestation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.229.158 (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Energy on farms?

I've put together what is now Electrical energy efficiency on United States farms, but that's only part of the story as gasoline, oil and fertilizer are big energy inputs. Can someone knowledgeable write a Energy on farms article? Simesa (talk) 11:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A plant microbial fuel cell

Besides food, crops can perhaps also be used to generate energy. See image at the right. Perhaps that this can also be included to the article ? KVDP (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, perhaps it's useful to write something about the energy use in respect to the use of the farming equipment employed. Appearantly, this can be easily done 2500% more efficient (see: http://www.springerlink.com/content/0m00576786j8u6u2/ , The Future of Food documentary, http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd13/1/fune131.htm )

Rated_RKO_Rules thought

this hole page should b redone —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rated RKO Rules (talk • contribs) 22:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Agriculture/Archive_2&oldid=589487038"