Jump to content

Talk:Intensive farming/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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)

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)

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 (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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)


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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

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)
Who renamed industrial agriculture as intensive agriculture? They are not the same thing.Redddbaron (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Major work on a rewrite

Per the request of Jytdog on the need for work on this page found in the recent SignPost, I am attempting to fix major concerns found on this page. I am far from finished, so please be patient. I'll try and get back to it more tomorrow. I read the whole talk section and am attempting to address all of them best I can, plus my own concerns. Any help is appreciated. But it's not going to happen in 1 day. ThanksRedddbaron (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Anyone have ideas on the changing of "growth hormone" to "metabolic modifier"? Not only is it more precise, it also may avoid negative connotations. But I am not sure if anyone will know what I am talking about.Redddbaron (talk) 00:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
thanks for working on this. guess you saw what i meant! Jytdog (talk) 01:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd stick with growth hormone. Metabolic modifier is jargony, which in my mind is worse. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I'll start taking a look at this page a bit more sometime this later this fall, but here are a couple things that could smooth things out. First, try using edit summaries. Even if it's something mundane, it's helpful to sort out what edit did what when someone is looking back even if it's just "Clarifying meaning of X". I'm also seeing a lot of unsourced content (a lot is holdover from before you started editing here). We'll need sources if that content is going to stay. Right now it feels like the article wanders and has no clear direction, plus there's a lot of content that should be condensed and made more concise or just cut all together. Overall though, it would be nice to get a couple good secondary sources that really summarize what intensive farming actually is without the jargony lede we currently have. That would also give us a good general direction to go. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. I did some of that already and I will try to remember edit summaries. In fact I have some citations to add but was going to get the basic structure changed from the total mess it was first. As far as jargon goes..you are probably right there as well, however, I speak think and eat and live as a farmer. Hard for me to know what people understand and what the general public doesn't understand and is too jargony for them. That's why I asked in the case of metabolic modifiers. Technically not all metabolic modifiers are synthetic hormones. In fact most aren't. They can even be something as simple as changing the light cycle to 18 hours cycle in order to get chickens to lay more eggs, Could be steroids. Lots of things. Right now I am working on intensive crops mostly and that section is so bad I am having a difficult time figuring out where to start. How to explain the difference between rotating 3 or four crops in one year as compared to 3 or 4 crops in 5 years with a year or two fallow? It is awkward using an example instead of simply attacking it directly. But there are so many possible combinations and variations depending on so many variablesRedddbaron (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
PS The biggest problem is that the old page was industrial ag, and now it is intensive ag and they are not the same thing. Then people added content without a clue what they were talking about. So the whole article was completely messed up when I started.Redddbaron (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
industrial ag is a form of intensive ag and the dominant form in the world today in terms of ag production. and when I did the merge the articles almost completely overlapped. i agree that there are other ways to intensify, of course. Jytdog (talk) 10:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. That's why I added this: "Thus, particularly in the developed nations, industrial intensive farming grew to become the dominate form of agriculture."Redddbaron (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Commercial agriculture

just discovered this pretty crappy article Commercial agriculture. should we perhaps merge it here and redirect? Jytdog (talk) 12:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Merge is fine. I'll start working content in later. You can too if you have time. Been exceedingly busy as of late. Either way the article is superfluous and since it is almost without any references, it can't stand alone. Either that or just delete it. It does highlight a basic problem throughout the agricultural project though. You can take any adjective and put it in front of agriculture and write an article from that POV that will contain parts of other pages but not precisely the same either. Same thing happened here when the name was changed from industrial ag to intensive ag. Industrial ag is a certain business model that is usually intensive but not always, and intensive ag can be the industrial model but also can use a biomimicry model instead. Even organic ag can actually be industrial..ie industrial organic..and organic can either be intensive or not, up to the farmer...Commercial doesn't always involve intensive but always includes for profit and could be all of the above except subsistence farming. It's incredibly complicated. Anyone trying to use a US or Them...or it is one or the other.....is creating false dichotomies.Redddbaron (talk) 05:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC) PS There is one issue here that reminds me of something I saw earlier. The page intensive animal farming is all about industrial animal farming. That page has nothing on it about sustainable methods of intensive grazing. So in that case the title probably should be changed back to industrial animal farming. Then from this page we can direct to the CAFO/CFO industrial model or the MIRG sustainable model as applicable. That would give some reasonable and understandable structure. Otherwise we keep repeating ourselves on every page.Redddbaron (talk) 05:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 Done The whole thing was cribbed off a high school essay preparation site. Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Intensive farming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Commercial farming

This article is basically the same as intensive farming but shortened and under a different name. "Commercial farm" already redirects to "Intensive farming". – TCMemoire 03:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Intensive farming. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 23:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


Data on population=

I find these data suspect:

Year World Africa Asia Europe Central & South America North America* 1750 791 000 106 000 502 000 163 000 16 000 2 000

-> 2K people living in the whole North American continent? Ditto 16K for South America. Zezen (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I noticed this when I was copy editing the article. I made a recommendation in my queries on improving the table. David Thibault (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Copy editing queries

Lead

  • The second sentence uses the phrase “low fallow ratio”. Some additional information should be included here. What is the ratio referring to?
  • In the third sentence, should the text be changed to read “This contrasts with traditional agriculture, in which the inputs per unit land area are lower”?
  • The word “fiber” is used near the end of the first paragraph (“yields of food and fiber”). It’s unclear what “fiber” is referring to. Some additional information should be included here.

History

  • In the fourth paragraph, I recommend moving the second sentence to the end of the paragraph, so the text discussing NPK isn’t broken up. I have not moved it as I am not sure if a reference is applied to it or not.
  • I have revised the fifth paragraph. Please check the changes:
“The identification of carbon as a critical factor in plant growth and soil health, particularly in the form of humus, led to so-called sustainable agriculture, as well as alternative forms of intensive agriculture that also surpassed traditional agriculture, without side effects or health issues. Farmers adopting this approach were initially referred to as humus farmers, later as organic farmers.”
  • In the ninth paragraph, first sentence. “selectively-bred, high-yielding varieties” of what? Later in the paragraph, I recommend including the year when “24 percent of the American population” was involved in farming. At the very end of the paragraph, some clarifying text should be added to supplement the phrase “produced this way”.

Techniques and technologies

Livestock

Confined animal feeding operations
  • The term “concentrated animal feeding operations” (CAFO) is used in this section, but the term “confined animal feeding operations” (CAFO) also appears in the article (see both the lead and the first subheading of this section). If both are the same, I recommend using only one term throughout the article.
Managed intensive rotational grazing
  • This sentence, appearing near the end of the section, would benefit from some additional information explaining how the parasites are left behind:
“MIRG also leaves parasites behind to die off, minimizing or eliminating the need for de-wormers.”
  • In the last sentence in this section, the term “pasture systems” is used along with “MIRG systems”. Is there a difference between these two systems?

Crops

Seeds
  • The fourth sentence in the first paragraph should be revised for clarity. Below is a possible revision:
Original: “Norin 10 wheat, a variety developed by Orville Vogel from Japanese dwarf wheat varieties, was instrumental in developing wheat cultivars.”
Possible revision: “Orville Vogel was instrumental in developing wheat cultivars. He created Norin 10 wheat, a variety developed from Japanese dwarf wheat varieties.”
  • The first sentence in the second paragraph contains very technical language and is difficult to understand. It will need to be revised so readers understand it, and how it relates to the information stated in the rest of the paragraph.
Crop rotation
  • The following clause, appearing in the middle of this section, may need to be revised. Below is a possible revision.
“…through the use of green manure and the growing of legumes and green manure in sequence with cereals and other crops.”
Weed control
  • “Strains” of what? (third and fourth entries in list)
Rice paddies
  • The last two sentences in the first paragraph will need to be revised for clarity. It’s unclear how they fit in with the rest of the text.
  • The third paragraph should have some introductory text added to it, explaining what “Mumun” is. The word “features” is also unclear. Is it referring to paddies?
  • I edited the beginning of the fourth paragraph. Please review the change:
“Like today’s, Mumun period rice farmers used terracing, bunds, canals, and small reservoirs.”
  • In the fourth paragraph the term “individual paddies” is used. How is an individual paddy different from a paddy field?
  • The date range for the Three Kingdoms of Korea should be given a more accurate beginning year. The Wikipedia article for this period gives the year 57 BC, although a definitive source should be consulted to ensure this year is accurate before making the change.

Sustainable intensive farming

  • In “Further information”, the term “Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture” should only have its first word capitalized. I am unable to do this without breaking the link.
  • The source text for the quote at the beginning of this section (by Dr. Charles Benbrook) will need to be separated as necessary with commas.
  • In the second paragraph, I recommend the following change (but only if the meaning is preserved): “…and smallholder farms in India on practicing SRI.
  • In the second paragraph, last sentence, is the word “reduced” necessary?
  • In the third paragraph, I recommend the following change (but only if the meaning is preserved):
“…and community dynamics (the relationship between organisms in an ecosystem). All of these processes are equal in importance to livestock production and social welfare.
  • Reworded beginning of fourth paragraph. Okay?
  • In the fourth paragraph: “This intensive system yields equivalent farmer profits” (equivalent to what?)
  • In the fourth paragraph, “sequestering” it where?
  • Recommend rewording text at the end of fourth paragraph for clarity. Using full terms instead of abbreviations would be better.
  • In the sixth paragraph, the word “recycled” does not seem to be the correct word. Change the sentence to read “…from one species are used as inputs (fertilizers, food) for another.”?
  • In the seventh paragraph, “per unit area” of what?

Challenges

Benefits (population growth)

Describing population growth as a 'benefit' is heavily biased, and I think many people would disagree. Increased availability of food can indeed cause population growth, but this cannot be described univocally as a benefit. For whom? And at what other (systemic) costs? So, I have taken the liberty of removing the arbitrary subdivision of Challenges between 'benefits' and 'liability' (btw, how can a benefit be a challenge?). Hopefully this would make the text less biased and easy to comprehend. --Gigoachef (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • In the last paragraph, is “output divided by all inputs” okay? Some additional text explaining what this means may need to be added.
  • The quote at the beginning of the last paragraph does not have a source applied to it.

Table: Estimated world population at various dates, in thousands

  • In order for readers to more easily digest all of the numbers in the table (while still keeping the table a manageable size), I recommend the following revisions:
    • The “World” column should present the numbers in their entirety.
    • Each of the remaining columns should have a squib added to the top (“in millions”), and all of the numbers revised as necessary.
  • For consistency, all numbers with four or more digits should have commas applied to them (at present only the number for 1 CE has a comma).
  • In the Europe column, the 2005 number is smaller than the 2000 number. Okay?
  • There is a single asterisk in the North America column and a double asterisk in the bottom Oceania cell but there are no footnotes applied to them.
  • There are no sources applied to any of the numbers from 1000 CE onwards.
  • Recommend arranging columns in alphabetical order to achieve a more ordered appearance.

Liabilities

Environment
  • The quote in this section is two sentences long and has two references applied to it, at separate points. Should the references appear at the end of the quote, or is the end quotation mark misplaced?

References

  • In the third paragraph from the bottom of the History section, references 26 and 29 appear without hyperlinks.
  • Source numbers 5, 17, and 18 have multiple works applied to them. Recommend revising these so only a single work is applied to each reference number.
  • References that use a web source should have an access date applied to them.
  • References 31 and 36 have limited information.
  • Reference 50 is missing page number.

Copy editing completed! It was a pleasure to work on this article. I can be reached at my talk page with any questions or concerns. David Thibault (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Intensive farming. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 16:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed new section for pasture intensification

Hello all, for an assignment of my Advanced Writing course I plan on adding a subsection under 2.1 Livestock for "Pasture Intensification". In brief, this process involved using fertilization and nutrient supplements, improved grasses, and crop-livestock-forest integrated systems to improve the productivity of the pasture itself as a means of improving livestock productivity. Most of my study of this topic as been centered on the Brazilian agricultural frontier, where pasture intensification and restoring degraded pastures seems to be a promising method of increasing beef production while reducing it's carbon footprint. Thanks! Jake bakes (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Intensive and extensive farming listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Intensive and extensive farming. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. BDD (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

This article is biased and is confusing subjects

Looking at why the concept "intensive agriculture" is often used incorrectly in Wikipedia thought I'd take a deeper look at this article... The lede is good, but looking at the history and the sources used it appears as if it was initially written as a hatchet job by people who hate farming and were confusing the politically loaded terms "factory farming" and "industrial farming" with "intensive agriculture" (the opposite of "extensive agriculture"). What about starting the history of intensive agriculture with the Sumerian use of irrigation and the plough (as opposed to broadcasting and using digging sticks)? If you want to whine about how agriculture is bad then you can start with the siltification and salinisation of Mesopotamia. "The identification of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium (NPK) as critical factors in plant growth led to the manufacture of synthetic fertilizers". That's skipping the whole guano island thing, or the kelp harvesting/crofting before that, or the use of dung before that. This article is a confused polemic and would take months to fix. My vote, make another article about "industrial farming" and/or "factory farming" and another about "sustainable agriculture", move practically everything except the lede to these articles. The sources used speak volumes: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals is the most quoted source! Talk about inherit bias against farmers! Respectfully, a student of agriculture, Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

We had an article titled Industrial agriculture until 2013 when it was moved by now-banned editor Jytdog. He also moved Factory farming to Intensive animal farming, which was discussed, after the move, at Talk:Intensive_animal_farming/Archive_13#Merge_into_Industrial_agriculture_(animals).Dialectric (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Hiya Dialectric. Thanks for responding to a person with no standing, hehe. I read through it all. I am of opinion that the initial article on intensive agriculture was so messed up, Jytdog couldn't help but get confused. He's also not exactly wrong, "industrial farming" is "intensive", but the opposite is not true. I think the terms should be split again. The lede is fine and is good enough to explain what "intensive agriculture" means, although I'd add some better/more citations from my library, and round it off with some examples of what is extensive and what is intensive. I note that most archaeology articles on Wikipedia (for example Eridu, Vinča culture or Woodland period) use "intensive agriculture" in the sense that one does in academic agriculture (for example Agriculture in the prehistoric Southwest or History of agriculture), but articles about conservation often use the term incorrectly/differently. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 09:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I thought of another option, but it's the more onerous one; how about incorporating the entire history of intensive agriculture, from the Neolithic: the first irrigated field and the development of ploughs to the modern practices of "factory farming" and mechanised vertical gardening. Then the text could be organised per age or sub-concept as chapters. That would bring more perspective and further explain the gamut of what this concept is about. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I've edited more of the article just now, and think merging these concepts was a terrible idea at the time. It turns out the references on "factory farming" to dictionaries added in the article were false and do not mention "factory farming" at all, Brittanica only mention the terminology it in a section on chicken egg laying operations in a chapter on the "Assembly Line" in the entry on the "History of Work", but doesn't even mention the terms "factory farm" or "industrial farming", in their entry on "Intensive Agriculture". Look, no offence, but talk pages really don't garner much response. Can you just let me do my thing? Or come up with something more to say at talk, because I can quickly improve this article just by vetting if references are kosher, removing POV, deleting unreferenced stuff. I'd like to just provide Further information: links to Animal welfare#Farm_animals and tone down that section. I'd like to add a picture or two; basic field or wheat and some animals behind a fence. I'd like to rearrange the sections so that we go from less (the section on pasture rotational grazing) to higher intensity, that seems more logical/fairer to me than immediately diving into specific US forms of intensive farming some people find unethical. And I see some weird information about Holistic management (agriculture) which looks like someone niche pet project injected into agriculture articles everywhere, which needs alteration. So yes, these are pretty heavy changes all.
I also really think we should split the article. Even if that's tricky. On all these pages on animal welfare there are now links to Factory farming going here, whilst the archaeology and many geography and agriculture pages have links on Intensive agriculture going here.
Look, in the countryside all around me there are smallholder cattle farms, dairy cows rotated between small pastures much of the year and put in stalls the rest of the year. This is also intensive farming. The grass is special high-yielding cultivars of Lolium perenne. The density of stock and high milk yield is only possible on such small parcels land by importing silage from elsewhere and soya from the other side of the world. Cows get milked by machines. EU CAP subsidies and generous municipal spatial planning rules grease the industry. A major problem here is what to do with all the dung, poo is actually taxed with a voucher system in my country so farmers are limited as to how much dumps the environment can absorb. Another problem is milk overproduction depressing pricing. Sustainable in the long run, it is not. But the concept of "factory farming" does not encompass this. Neither can we really call it "industrial farming" without be facetious or polemic.
I will now also add the cartouche thing linking to the agriculture portal. Leo Breman (talk) 11:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Leo, lets discuss the split specifically. It sounds like you are proposing splitting this article into Factory Farming and Intensive Agriculture? Or are you thinking Industrial Farming instead of Factory Farming? I agree with this split, but think you or I should raise the point on the talk page of editors that were involved in the most recent merge discussion in order to get some additional input.Dialectric (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, we need to discuss! Thank you! The only source in this text defining "factory farming" does so only in the context of USA poultry operations. The term "factory farming" appears to be used most often on Wikipedia in the context of Animal welfare, as such it should be defined with separate references than "industrial farming", and not simply equated as identical in the first sentence of the article (see Intensive animal farming). No one means Silicon Valley start ups blowing cash on robotically managed vertical farms in that context. Factory farming is a rather politically charged term, I'd prefer the term to be the more neutral and inclusive Industrial farming, but Wikipedia will continue to attract editors who want to soapbox about it. So:
Dialectric, I actually have a third proposal to organise this stuff= 1. rename Intensive animal farming as factory farming -that whole article is basically about the concept factory farming. 2. Rename Intensive crop farming to industrial farming -that article has exactly the same text from intensive farming, including (until I showed up today) a section on "intensive animal farming"! Wouldn't this be the most expeditious way to split these different concepts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo Breman (talk • contribs) 16:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
This sounds very sensible to me. We should obtain consensus and then request the moves. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Also please take a look at Talk:Managed_intensive_rotational_grazing. Thank you. Leo Breman (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
There is also the issue as to defining what is actually intensive in intensive farming. In some cases intensive means intensive inputs, like imported feeds and fertilizers for crops. In other cases intensive means management/labor intensive. And no, "factory farming" should not be a wiki topic as it is a weighted term. However, factory farming should redirect to the article intensive farming, as the non-weighted term. I am not in favor of a split as a whole lot of work was already done to merge closely related ideas into general topics, and splitting them back into isolated nubs seems to be going backwards. So in this structure "factory farming" would be a type of intensive farming, and so would managed intensive rotational grazing, one intensively managed, and the other with intensive inputs. In a similar way Holistic managed rotational grazing is one form of managed intensive rotational grazing, but not the only form of it. There are also the earlier Voisin systems, as well as a wide variety of closely related systems falling under that general umbrella of "MIRG".Redddbaron (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Good point about "factory farming", though its connotation is usually intensive animal husbandry. I'd have thought that "Rotational grazing" was the main term on its topic, not "MIRG" which is not in wide use. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense to call "intensive farming" a synonym of "factory farming". I'm into horticulture, not livestock, so saying the Sumerians had factory farms because they used irrigation to grow their wheat seems silly to me. There are over a billion farmers around the world practising intensive agriculture, but share-croppers in India are not factory workers! Factory farming is indeed a loaded term, but I notice all the Wikipedia articles on animal welfare use this terminology, so my idea is, if people are going to use it anyway, at least define it properly. You are against splitting Redddbaron? The workload is not a problem.Leo Breman (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
"Factory farming" is not synonymous with intensive farming. It is a weighted term that describes one sort of intensive farming. So by searches it should redirect there, but it is not exclusive to other forms of intensive agriculture. And no, I am not in favor of splits. This is in response to pedantic wordage constructs that actually do not exist "in the field". The reality is that agriculture exists as a spectrum of methods techniques and strategies that exist of a wide spectrum of local climatic, cultural, social, political, market conditions. Trying to split them up is a fruitless endeavor.Redddbaron (talk) 10:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
We agree on much here, Redddbaron. But I don't think searches on "factory farming" should lead here. Example: grindcore is a type of music, but people who want to read up on grindcore do not want to go to a page on music -it would not be appropriate to include references to grindcore in the articles on chords, guitars or musical notation. "pedantic wordage constructs that actually do not exist "in the field"" -exactly, that is why I think terminology such as MIRG, which only exists on Wikipedia, needs to be changed. "Agriculture exists as a spectrum of methods", very true, that is why I am of opinion that concepts should be clearly defined here in these articles, a reader can then decide for himself if a certain system meets the definition or not. "Trying to split them up is a fruitless endeavor" well, differentiating "death metal" from "grindcore" may be difficult for some -but tell that to the grindcore aficionados! Leo Breman (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I was asked to weigh in at this discussion. What I can briefly add is that natural language is often ambiguous and can't help being so. The core principle of "intensive" is high ratio of input to output higher level of input by some relative comparison, in hope of better yield, but there are many ways to arrive at that ratio, both organic and inorganic, both industrial and nonindustrial, both preindustrial and postindustrial. This is just a fact; French intensive gardening and concentrated animal feeding operations are both intensive in their own ways, but for very different reasons. All Wikipedia can do is state those facts clearly at the outset and then explore them further in subsequent sections, with links to main articles—{{main}}. As I view this article in its current version, it seems like it is on the way to achieving that goal. Viewing through this lens, the page name "Intensive farming" needs to remain a Wikipedia:Broad-concept article rather than just a Wikipedia:Disambiguation page. As stated at Wikipedia:Broad-concept article, "if the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it, and not a disambiguation page. " Quercus solaris (talk) 00:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so we have talked about what to do, where do we go from here? Compromise? Redddbaron is against change, I think; Dialectric is okay with change, but I am unsure what exactly; I'm not sure what Quercus solaris is suggesting exactly but I think he is saying he agrees with my proposal (?); me and Chiswick Chap are for renaming the articles Intensive animal farming to factory farming & Intensive crop farming to Industrial farming. Leo Breman (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Leo, I'm not totally sure that 'factory farming' is neutral; it does have a negative connotation in the animal rights world. Perhaps Intensive animal husbandry would be better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
More talk! I agree with you Chiswick Chap, Factory Farming is a loaded term, but it does happen to be a term with some currency. if you look at the Wikipedia articles about animal rights or vegetarianism, they are replete with links to an article on Factory Farming. They all lead here at the moment, which I find less than correct considering the broad use of the term "intensive agriculture". There are many references in this article which could be used to discuss the terminology "factory farming", which makes it notable at least. A loaded term could be discussed in the same impartial manner as loaded terms such as blood libel, no (admittedly, this will be tricky)? Further, in my mind, inventing a new terminology as in Intensive animal husbandry, when the article would actually be about "factory farming" is misleading. Let's just call a spade a spade. I mean, what do we really mean when we talk about "intensive animal husbandry" or "intensive animal farming"? CFAOs really -actually the word "factory farming" is basically an insult to this business model, or at least it connotes animals not being treated in the manner people like to fantasise traditional farming treated animals. Obviously, I am prepared to discuss and compromise! This is just my take. Leo Breman (talk) 10:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Any suitable term is fine for me; we require a term that is
- not pejorative
- in common use if possible
- readily understood if not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Leo you said, "I mean, what do we really mean when we talk about "intensive animal husbandry" or "intensive animal farming"? CFAOs really -actually the word "factory farming" is basically an insult to this business model, or at least it connotes animals not being treated in the manner people like to fantasise traditional farming treated animals. Obviously, I am prepared to discuss and compromise! This is just my take." Your take is wrong. MIRG is also intensive animal husbandry with even higher yields per acre than CAFO's, and doesn't look at all like traditional farming methods except superficially. Unless you think ancient farmers had electric fencing and moved the animals daily lolz. The problem as I see it is you are trying to mold Wiki into your personal view and experience, rather than give information beyond what is in your wheelhouse. Why else push so hard to remove intensive grazing as a topic at all and dumb down a whole page to the fantasise traditional farming "rotational grazing" which is ancient tech long before things like temporary electric fencing was invented, then developed for use by animal farmers. And here again you point out that to you intensive animal farming is actually the same as factory farming, while in the field factory farming is simply a pejoative term for CAFOs, and not the only sort of intensive animal management at all.Redddbaron (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
We haven't ever had an article Intensive grazing but it's a perfectly sensible topic. As far as I can see, Leo is willing to discuss the names for these articles; I basically agree with you that "Factory farming" isn't suitable because it has a strong pejorative connotation, so a suite of articles "Intensive xxx", "Intensive yyy", and "Intensive zzz" would be better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intensive_farming/Archive_1&oldid=1216513899"