Talk:Sustainable agriculture/Archive 1

Archive 1

Miscellaneous information

I'm not sure if the Miscellaneous Information, which I've placed in a category, is necessary, because it seems to be a bit of info that is disconnected and rather obscure. What practical application does it have to our lives, for example.

I'm considering deleting the Miscellaneous Information, but I'm awaiting someone else's response as to how to clean up this text.

-Luxdormiens

I agree that this section doesn't add much to the article. I think that anything worth retaining should be incorporated somewhere else. Much of it can be jetisoned IMO. Sunray 06:11, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)

Putting the info I deleted here. Maybe someone else will think this is useful and find a way to make it relevant to Sustainable Agriculture:

The byproducts from the crops are either fed to the livestock, used as bedding or composted with the excreta of livestock and humans, and are tended for two or more years to allow the destruction of soil born disease causing pathogens. They then become a soil amendment available to add biomass to marginal soils, making them more fertile.

Consider a single crop such as Canola, an oilseed bred for human consumption. The oilseed is mechanically expressed and can be used, with simple processing, as a biodiesel to power the processing plant. The byproducts of combustion: heat, motive power and nitrogen oxides can be used for process heat to express the oil, mechanical energy to process the seed, and as a compost amendment as part of the nitrogen cycle (this is an area for further research).

The meal can be used as a high protein source for animal feed. Suggested uses are for high conversion rate meat livestock such as chicken and rabbit. However, Mad-Cow Disease presents an example of the danger of using meat to feed herbivores. The disease, usually found in sheep, was contracted by cows, and later spread to humans.

The canola crop requires a crop rotation cycle of at least four years, with more being considered better. A grain crop is suggested by agonomists as the next crop to be grown in that field.

Disease control is affected by the use of rotation patterns.

Notice to this point, that the entire cycle does not incur extensive transport costs, save that of soil amendments and initial startup capital costs.

The current trend to separate the rural and urban activities is based on cheap oil. Use of petrochemicals as a fuel source, however, adds to the emission of greenhouse gases, which has been determined as causing climate change and influencing weather patterns negatively.

Lux March 2, 2:00 (UTC)

The broadness of the topic makes it so that it stays relevant in terms of big-picture discussion, and I appreciate the wide range of citations. To me, this is a good first article to evaluate because it does a lot of things correctly.SocietySloth (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Chocolate link

The about chocolate link on this page seems rather out of place. Should it be removed?

I couldn't find any connection in the link to sustainable agriculture, so I removed it. Sunray 06:33, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought it was unrelated, but I want to give it some citations. Lux 03:58, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

Ecocities and Soil Food Web

I've created a stub for the soil food web, but I'm thinking that it should be redirected to the food chain, unless someone believes that the soil food web deserves a deeper explanation, such as the relationship between organisms like the nematodes, plants, mycorrhizae, etc.

In that case, a separate article could be created for the marine food web between phytoplanktons, whales, and other marine animals.

The other "stub" I've created is the ecocities, but I've gone through a lengthy explanation, so I don't think it's a stub.

The Ecocities article has some bias I unintentionally create, especially in the "Urban Elitism" section but it's more that I want to include politics and policies into the article, rather than simply describe what ecocities are intended for.

I've redirected Garden Cities and Ecocity to the Ecocities section, which I found from the Smart Growth article.

--lux 03:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

The new land / rain forest issue is quite important, but does it belong in the first paragraph? If so, I will modify to note that any decrease in yield per acre can create a demand for more land, whether this decrease is due to degradation of soil quality (e.g., from unsustainable conventional practices) OR from switching to methods that are more sustainable in the long run but produce less yield. This is a complex issue. See Global Change Biology 11:1-12 and this book "Agricultural technologies and tropical deforestration".

-- I agree, I think the first paragraph should be on what sustainable ag is, rather than what it is not. --Pfafrich 01:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering whether it was appropriate to put in the rain forest issue. I've thought of Descriptions as trying to summarize the entire article rather than as actually describing sustainable agriculture. If the article can have an extra section on destruction of rainforest as another example of unsustainable agriculture already covered, like inorganic pesticides, mono-species cultivation, etc. then I will agree with that. --lux 04:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

-- OK, moved rainforest text to lew section on off-farm impacts. Not all off-farm impacts prevent perpetual production by a farm, but they are still a concern. Symbiont

---

Reorganized description to distinguish between two quite different issues: effects of farming practices on soil productivity (e.g., erosion) vs. long-term availability of inputs. Rather than claiming it's possible to farm without using ANY nonrenewable resources (iron hoes, as an extreme example) rewrote to say sustainable agriculture attempts to minimize such use. Note that farms only use a few percent of US energy use (including energy cost of fertilizer production), so resource scarcity will affect the whole economy, not just agriculture. Deleted destruction of rainforest from resource section, since it doesn't fit there and is covered under off-farm effects. Also deleted vague comment that making fertilizer using hydrogen from electrolysis powered by windmills would "invariably" create problems. Without an explanation of those problems (perhaps a link), the comment doesn't add anything. I have read hundreds of scientific articles on intercropping, but have never seen a comparison of salt accumulation in monocropping versus polyculture. Salt accumulation generally results from improper irrigation practices. If someone wants to restore the claim that monoculture causes salt accumulation, please include an appropriate citation.

Ford Denison

References?

there is something in the text it is not clear, for that reason i am removing it. if someone knows what this means, please put it back but in a more understandable way: (what i'm removing is what is in bold)

Monoculture, a method of growing only one crop at a time in a given field, is a very widespread practice, but there are questions about its sustainability, especially if the same crop is grown every year. Growing a mixture of crops (polyculture) sometimes reduces disease or pest problems (Nature 406:718, Environ. Entomol. 12:625) but polyculture has rarely, if ever, been compared to the more widespread practice of growing different crops in successive years crop rotation with the same overall crop diversity. For example, how does growing a corn-bean mixture every year compare with growing corn and bean in alternate years? Cropping systems that include a variety of crops (polyculture and/or rotation) may also use replenish nitrogen (if legumes are included) and may also use resources such as sunlight, water, or nutrients more efficiently (Field Crops Res. 34:239).

thanks, --Cacuija (my talk) 19:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggested merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I've suggested that Locavore might be a good candidate to merge into this article. Please outline any concerns or objections here. Seraphimblade 23:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm against this merge. "Locavore" describes a person adhering to a specific diet, and I'm not sure I see the connection to sustainable agriculture. This seems like a pretty new concept. If it catches on, there's bound to be plenty to write on it - although the article should then be moved to the inevitable, but as yet Google-scarce, "locavorism". — Itai (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose both mergers different concepts. Anlace 14:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose merger of small-scale agriculture article with this one. While small-scale ag tends to be more sustainable, it isn't necessarily so. Sunray 07:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Result = No merge The tag suggesting a merge of small-scale agriculture with this article has been on the article since May. Only two people have spoken, both opposed. I will therefore remove the tag. Sunray 07:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for "citations needed"

In view of the opinions aired in this article which are generally nothing more than an environmentalist dreamworld, I will do some heavy editing in a week's time unless the marked sentences are not backed up with some serious facts.

Tomcrisp7 14:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Caccuija removed citations, apparently not knowing what they are, but someone put them back. I removed two "citation needed": one immediately followed a citation(??) and the other after a stated saying there were no studies comparing polyculture with rotation of the same crops. If there WERE such studies, I would cite them! I agree with the rest of the "citation needed" statements. Lots of unsupported assertions here.

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) 07:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not surprised at the paucity of information on zero till and conservation at this site. Some individual has taken it upon himself to be a censor here and in doing so is preventing the dissemination of all biomineral references, including those pertaining to new development in sustainable agriculture. Katalyst2

Reproduction/gene issues

Modern agricultural practices pose some risk of introducing novel genes which will spread more widely into nature with possible uncertain/adverse impacts. This deserves mention.

More to the point, Reproduction was formerly considered to be a basic part of the definition of life. But an ever-increasing percentage of current agriculture involves no on-site reproduction. Partly restricted by law, due to patents/licenses. Partly due to use of hybrid-vigor seed crosses etc which are not practical for farmers to do in field. Partly because the organisms are being designed to not reproduce in the field, so companies retain total control.

Part of Sustainable Agriculture would be to track the percentage of agriculture that can/cannot reproduce in the field. To know: what would happen if there were social chaos, if the seed/chemical companies ceased -- what crops would be left?

Seed Saver Friendly and Right to Save Seeds should be mentioned. -69.87.203.188 (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Changing the title to Ecological agriculture

I think ecological agriculture is a more descriptive, professional way to refer to this type of farming. It's not somewhat political in the way this title is, and its still used quite commonly If you oppose this change, please leave a note. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 06:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

They are not the same thing. Write Ecological agriculture with references to sources that use that term, if you want. This article needs to be about agriculture that is sustainable and is called that by the sources we use. Ecological concerns are just one part of addressing the problem of sustainability.WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a real difference. I think it would be neat to have "Ecological agriculture" "Ecological economics" and other ecological stuff. This type of agriculture really is centered around ecology at its root.ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 01:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Read the first sentence of this article. "environmental stewardship, farm profitability, and prosperous farming communities". environmental stewardship = ecological agriculture. The other two componets of Sustainable agriculture do not. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Entomophagy and environmental vegetarianism

Entomophagy and environmental vegetarianism is not described in this article (aldough the title suggests it should). Perhaps the title needs altering as proposed earlier and a different article needs to be made; see vegetarianism#environmental for more info which can be processed herein.

Thanks, KVDP (talk) 07:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Definition

Wouldn't a more honest definition say that it is the "ability of a farm to produce food indefinitely, while maintaining ecosystem health"? (Rather than "without causing severe or irreversible damage to ecosystem health.")

After all, both are ideals, and at present hard to reach. Why not aim for the real thing, so to speak? V.B. (talk) 04:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Not only ecosystem health but economic health. Part of the goal, indeed a main goal, of sustainable agriculture is the economic sustainability of the farm. Gingermint (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

In the introduction, I changed "using principles of ecology" to "based on an understanding of ecosystem services" which should give greater clarity Roy Bateman (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Biomineral management

I'm removed that entire section under off-farm impacts because it isn't referenced in fertilizer or organic fertilizer. A Google search for Geomite company turns up a one page site with a logo and contact information for a sales person. The other listings were the Wikipedia pages none of which were referenced. Disagreeableneutrino (talk) 09:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed it a second time, the Geomite company page is now down, there is still no information that I could find on geomite or "biomineral culture". If you add it back PLEASE put some reference or add something to the talk page Disagreeableneutrino (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

A reference has been included and the Geomite web page is there, and soon to be expanded. Apparently this is new development and based on the paper cited "B Hayes." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katalyst2 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Minor edits

minor edits December 24, 2009 Greenopedia (talk) 16:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Greenopedia

Origin of the term

The article Nicanor Perlas claims he coined the term sustainable agriculture in 1983 but has no citation. Dow e have anything on origin or evolution of the term? RJFJR (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Intl policy section

Just added a section on the incorporation of sustainable agriculture in international policy. Could use some fleshing out, to be sure, but I think it is relevant to this article. Thoughts? New editor, comments appreciated. Thanks! C.peterson32 (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. My only quibble is that you need to review Wikipedia:Citing sources. We generally don't use inline links to external sources. I'll fix it. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Genetically engineering crops inside Sustainabe Agriculture article. Is it a joke?

The article says: "genetically engineering (non-legume) crops to form nitrogen-fixing symbioses or fix nitrogen without microbial symbionts."

It seems to be a joke or worst. GMO's are not only hazardous by themselves for the environment; they also are the main weapon of some huge companies to bleed the farmers and the poor countries, converting them onto captive consumers, stripping them of their rights and engaging them in a loophole from which they should not escape.

Shame on them!

--189.192.124.179 (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Did you even read the rest of that section?

Are you aware of Wikipedia policies that prohibit editorializing or supporting any particular point of view? ~Amatulić (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Aliens

This paragraph looks wrong to me. Has it been hacked?

Several attempts have been made to produce an artificial meat, for example aliens have been known to harvest cows here on planet Earth through extreme methods of chicken torture, using isolated tissues to produce it in vitro; Jason Matheny's work on this topic, which in the New Harvest project, is one of the most commented.[22]"

Susan Chambless (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism, now reverted. Thanks for drawing attention to it. Keri (talk) 09:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

A new area of ecological agriculture

Hello, I wanted to direct the attention of the Wikipedia editors to a method of gardening that may warrant inclusion under another area of agriculture and gardening, or perhaps its own article. It's called PASSIVE gardening. PASSIVE is an acronym for Permanent Agriculture Systems Sustaining Intensive Vegetable Ecology. "Permanent Agriculture Systems" refers to its association with permaculture, of which it may be called an off branch. The end, "Vegetable Ecology" could use definition because it refers to annual vegetables, which for those unfamilar with gardening is quite significant. This method contrives a modified ecology using windbreaks, special pairings of plants and the like which suits the needs of annual plants in a relatively permanent system. It credits its roots to such figures as Robert Hart and his forest gardens as well as Ruth Stouts gardening method of mulch, but is very clear on using material grown within the garden to maintain and build its fertility, control weeds, and most importantly, recognizes itself as a modification of ecology rather than just another garden. I find this attribute quite notable among the gardening and farming methods, in addition to its science of on-site fertility, and the specific interest in annuals. Many methods and writers in that area of agriculture are trying to research perennials to deliver the same kind of efficiency, but this one uses perennials to sustain annuals. I think it deserves a careful look. AgriAmadeus (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing it to our attention. At the moment it seems to be rather little used, apart from one book, so it's not clear that it would be "notable" as a separate subject in Wikipedia terms. If it becomes more widely used then reliable sources such as newspapers, journal articles and textbooks will start to discuss it, and we'll then certainly cover it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Sustainable agriculture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130606220152/http://agbu.une.edu.au/~aaabg/rsga/im.html to http://agbu.une.edu.au/~aaabg/rsga/im.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070421034222/http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/concept.htm to http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/concept.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130213002938/http://www.sardc.net/imercsa/Programs/CEP/Pubs/CEPFS/CEPFS01.htm to http://www.sardc.net/imercsa/Programs/CEP/Pubs/CEPFS/CEPFS01.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050914193229/http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/AFSIC_pubs/srb9902.htm to http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/AFSIC_pubs/srb9902.htm

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Off farm impacts section

This section has been copy-pasted in its entirety from 21st Century Homestead: Agroecology By Rob Koogler, and as such has copied verbatim a weird non-sequitur:

"In Asia, specific land for sustainable farming is about 12.5 acres which includes land for animal fodder, cereals productions lands for some cash crops and even recycling of related food crops.In some cases even a small unit of aquaculture is also included in this number"

On further inspection, almost the entire Wiki entry seems to be a copy of part of this publication. Is this even permissible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimonic (talk • contribs) 01:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

It would be a serious problem if true but I have just checked with Turnitin and been unable to verify it. However I found a definite WP:COPYVIO of part of the Water section from fao.org/docrep/w4745e/w4745e0d.htm, so I've removed it. The Soil section either contains a similar copyvio from http://www.blue-growth.org/Agriculture.htm, or that site has copied Wikipedia (or both have copied a third party): I'm not sure which. The whole article is very scrappy and poorly cited; perhaps we are near to having to delete it and start over cleanly rather than trying to patch and mend the already much-patched mess that we have here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Excess stuff

This reference totally didn't support the text. Leaving it here for now, until I determine it has any use for this article at all. Leo Breman (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Text which I cannot place anywhere at first glance: There is debate on the safety levels of nitrates, it is possible the risks are exaggerated and there is sufficient evidence for increasing the permitted concentration of nitrates in drinking water, there is evidence this is actually beneficial for human health.

Interesting, but not specific to topic: However, only 0.1% of that phosphorus present can be absorbed by plants. This is due to poor solubility and phosphorus' high reactivity with elements in the soil such as aluminum, calcium, and iron, causing the phosphorus to be fixed. Leo Breman (talk) 11:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

This likely belongs somewhere in organic agriculture, but note it might be controversial to call rock phosphate "organic". The transport costs of lugging 99% filler around instead of the refined product certainly doesn't make it any more sustainable.

An oddity. It's "organic" as in farming, but inorganic as in chemistry. And certainly not sustainable if it involves quarrying finite supplies of phosphate rock. And carting it about. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, a bit confusing. But when I typed "rock phosphate inorganic" to check, there were a couple of organic gardening websites and vendors which took the opposite view. I'm sure it's controversial in the world of organics, but I suppose it all depends different on certification standards. So I don't want to just add it somewhere over there. The debate doesn't belong here in this article in any case. Leo Breman (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, read more on the subject, seems I've made some false assumptions. Corrections: 1. It is refined at location to 30%, so it is not pure ore and the transport costs are not that much more. 2. It seems pretty "conventional" in organic ag., so to say. 3. FAO claims it might be more sustainable than conventional superphosphates in certain circumstances because of less manufacturing costs. I think I should move/write it up at rock phosphate, what do you think? I once visited a phosphate mine in Togo, this info makes me wonder if they export the RP or make the superphosphate locally -if it must first be exported and then re-imported I understand the sustainability angle, but I would prefer only a few sentences in this article, in "methods". Leo Breman (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Polyculture

Leo Breman There is an obvious relevance of polyculture as a method in sustainable agriculture. The section Polyculture#Sustainability is properly cited and could form the basis of a replacement section over here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I deleted bad prose unsupported by a citation about rice cultivars. I am hesitant with your suggestion Chiswick. I see polyculture just as relevant to this subject as neonicotinoids.

I don't doubt your view of the previous prose. I was asking about the section Polyculture#Sustainability which seems to me to make intelligible and relevant arguments supported by solid citations. That suggests to me three ways ahead:

1. We copy that section into this article (and say so in an edit comment) as a simple start on the topic.
2. You explain why each of the section's arguments are invalid, citing more recent sources.
3. We develop the ideas of that section using new sources. There appear to be plenty of sources including some good secondary analyses by major institutions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I have read through everything and here I severely disagree with you:

• text may be "intelligible and relevant arguments", but it is not supported by the citations and is making controversial assumptions/confusing issues. The only reference in that text to discuss the assertion that polyculture is more sustainable is that meta-analysis, but it 1. doesn't mention sustainability, 2. uses a different definition of polyculture than used on wikipedia (what we are calling inter-cropping here), 3. doesn't actually support the statements about pesticide use, 4. the journal which published it is not amazing.
• Fairness. If you want it in, I'm going to need to add giant sections on the sustainability of pesticides, tractors, piping, greenhouses, irrigation, the list of potential things with may affect sustainability is endless, why give such a controversial, non-commercial and unconventional method pride of place? Is Wikipedia here to educate the world, or is it for a bunch of California Berkeley students to circle-jerk each other with impractical fads? The methods section should only contain examples which advance understanding of the topic, polyculture doesn't do that very well.
• Total confusion. The meta-analysis considers polyculture to be a cropping system using two or more crops simultaneously, Wikipedia is conflating this concept with organic agriculture, local food, farmers markets, the familiar alternative scene.

Now watch me reduce that text to make it accurate. Leo Breman (talk) 10:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Please try to be more collegial: the text there was just a starting suggestion. I'll read some of the secondary reviews and write a summary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't realise I was being uncollegial. Okay, one more edit and I will await your summary. But still, why mention it at all? Leo Breman (talk) 11:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Because multiple reliable sources do so? There's easily enough out there for an article on Sustainable polyculture but I think starting small here may be wise. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I have seen a single reliable source so far, and the text is not supported by it. It may be more sustainable or produce higher yields in some settings, but so may a tractor using ethanol or geothermal greenhouses. If you don't mind, I'm moving a sentence from "polyculture" to "definition" as it is about sustainable agriculture and not polyculture anyway. I just had a look at the polyculture article -sorry, man, but that stinks. The third sentence of the lede is already controversial, if not false, and is supported by a false ref in the body. I'll bet if I check, Pretty and that other ref will be used throughout to bolster someone's opinion, without supporting it. There is again a major problem with editors conflating disparate concepts from alternative agriculture with the simple meaning of using multiple crops together in a field at one time. There is no reason polyculture need be organic or sold at farmers markets. Leo Breman (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm talking about the many sources found by search, and I'm not much enamoured of the current article text (or Polyculture's, for that matter). We are close to finding that it will be easier to start over, whether with a section or the whole article, than to try to work with a lot of broken fragments combined with WP:OR and misuse of sources. I'm finding a wide range of sources that discuss the interaction of polyculture, perennial crops, permaculture, and sustainability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not disputing these concepts may be inter-related in some instances. But let's not confuse issues. If we are discussing a simple two crop intercropping of cassava and groundnuts, this is polyculture as a broad concept, but it is not perennial or permaculture, nor is it necessarily more or less sustainable, or organic. Leo Breman (talk) 12:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

We are spilling much ink unproductively on this page. It will be far better if we work on the article. There are dozens of reliable sources. I will start to add material shortly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Cool. I see your edits. I'm sure you won't mind if I vet them in a bit -the initial text, not yours, was not good, for one. Look, I initially wanted to reduce that entire section "methods". We mention greenhouses somewhere in the article in a short paragraph with a single example. If polyculture gets a section, why not tractors? Can't we switch this text out with that at Polyculture (after more vetting)? Then let me summarize this and seek to incorporate it better in the article as a method which might increase sustainability among very many methods? How's that? Leo Breman (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Very doubtful, in fact no, not really. It's plainly sensible and highly relevant (one might say "core") to cover methods of achieving sustainable agriculture here. "Tractors" hardly fits for multiple reasons, not least that they have a high cost in materials and carbon, and are used in non-sustainable agriculture also; though research into more sustainable, recyclable, no-carbon tractors would be relevant. The new materials I've added on Polyculture, also plainly relevant, are better than the materials in the Polyculture article which could do with much stronger examples and sources chosen from the abundant literature. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I am operating under the paradigm that sustainable agriculture is agriculture which attempts to be as sustainable as possible by sourcing its inputs from renewable sources, or reducing its sources of inputs relative to outputs so as to be more efficient with resources, and is also sustainable economically. A thing can be more sustainable and less, like a LED compared to a lightbulb. Under this paradigm pesticide use may be more sustainable than organic, and monoculture more than polyculture, depending on inputs and yield. I thought people around here were just confused, but when I typed "sustainable agriculture debate" I do see that some people out there claim that organic is always sustainable, and this is a contested thing, although I would argue that the viewpoint sustainable = organic needs only be mentioned, as if one believed it to be true one might as well read that article. I will introduce this controversy in the new section "Definition".

Regarding techniques, technology and etcetera, I am loath to add stuff, especially controversial stuff. We could also go on about relative sustainability of tractor models or barn building techniques. Frankly polyculture as described here on Wikipedia seems patently unsustainable to me due to yield and marketability factors, although I'm sure it would love to be called sustainable. I'll be harsh, the most profit from running a polyculture farm after the book tour will be the speaking engagements and guided tours. Polyculture works fine when you're a tribe in the open wilds of the Amazon practising slash-and-burn, but if you're a tenant farmer in Bangladesh and your rent is due and your landlord won't accept a mixed bowl of seasonal permaculture fruit and you had actually hoped to send your kid to school to go on internet and learn about dumb things like... different circumstances, different considerations apply. If you have a source for this, let it be a nice journal article, something with math ...profit comparisons, yields and input calculations. If you ask me, it'd be less controversial to mention inter-cropping or agroforestry.

Other things: We need to mention intensification of agriculture is considered important to increasing sustainability by some -I have good sources. Stuff about pesticides, just mention IPM, controversy and leave it at that. The lede is really bad. We need a clear and concise definition of the subject. We need more on certification, more focus on business aspects, marketing, laws, less rainbow warrior. We need to stress that sustainable agriculture needs to be profitable enough. The stuff on development needs to be moved and rewritten -it's very pertinent to economic sustainability, the link is dead but I have the original UN report. Something more general needs to go in the social section (ref2 from Ottawa has something). Some references can be re-purposed. The prose needs work everywhere: clarity, tone and dumb things down just a bit. Stuff prominent here is not in my textbooks on the subject, possibly not notable -ecosystem services for example is barely mentioned in the textbooks; I think the concept is pertinent and can be mentioned here, but it is in here a lot. That accounting thing with three bottom lines is sourced to a primary article and is not in my textbooks, epistemologically how do we know it is used in practice/notable? Some sections near the back can be reduced and moved elsewhere. Some bits are good though, and I like that little ethics part with Aristotle -it's quite pertinent. Leo Breman (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Image of organic milk

An editor Jnyssen has introduced an image of organic milk on a supermarket shelf, in the hope of illustrating Sustainable agriculture. I reverted the image as largely off-topic (it's organic, which isn't the same as sustainable), and the editor immediately reintroduced it without discussion, so here we are. The image is in my view not suitable, since:

1) It's not of agriculture at all, not on a farm, and not of any farm activity, but of a packaged food product sitting on a supermarket shelf.

2) The copyright status of the packaging is very doubtful, as the design must be part of the displayed brand, which will be trademarked and is the property of the company. The image should therefore not be on Commons and may be deleted at any time.

I suggest we remove the image. I have asked for it to be deleted from Commons. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree on both counts. Also, taking the unpopular conventional view here, in response to Jnyssen edit comment, respectfully: it is important to carefully distinguish between the issues of organic agriculture and sustainable agriculture. Conflating concepts confuses the discussion. Any conventional farmer in the world can implement measures to increase sustainability. Organic agriculture would like to call itself sustainable, but the problem of organic agriculture regarding sustainability is the lower yields, usually reflected in the higher prices of organic products in the supermarket. Production is achieved with many of the same non-renewable inputs; think land, fuel for tractors, phosphates. Lower yields mean more land and more inputs are needed for the same unit of food. The point is, this assertion by the organic industry is contentious, and potentially confusing to the reader. Leo Breman (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

That seems sufficient reason to cut it then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with removal. The image doesn't really have a place here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Copy from other page

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Ethics Section

This portion of the article does not give the reader enough information. There is also only one citation (the second/last sentence isn't even cited). This could be fixed by further research and more citing. --HannahLH (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wags1234.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Joshsminer. Peer reviewers: Madeleinemoyer.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 9 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jlee4199.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2021 and 14 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HannahLH. Peer reviewers: Savannahmaria, Lin.jaide.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 September 2021 and 3 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Egonz102. Peer reviewers: EKingery, Syared, Blue.Slip16.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 November 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Swastikdevgan. Peer reviewers: Tiafrancoiseditor.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Ecological farming into Sustainable agriculture

Article basically summarizes ecological farming as a goal of the larger sustainable agriculture movement -- I am not aware of a significant meaning-level difference of this turn of phrase -- and I don't think it bears itself out in the scholarship as a distinct and different concept. Sadads (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Maybe ecological is a slightly more concrete term, and sustainable agriculture is more of a buzzword, but this seems to be what would work best here since there really isn't anything particularly unique at the ecological article. KoA (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  @KoA Ecological farming is not very common in English -- I would suspect that its much more common in French and Spanish -- where ecology as an active, intervention on the society, rather than just a field of study is a more common term. 18:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC) Sadads (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh I agree that the term itself isn't commonplace, just that it maybe actually conveys ideas slightly better than sustainable farming. Probably too much personal musing rather than sticking to what sources use on my part though, so definitely best to just stick with sustainable. KoA (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Undecided. sadads I am undecided because theoretically, sustainable agriculture should be about more than just the environmental dimension. It should also include the financial and social dimension. Same discussion about sustainable energy and renewable energy which overlap a lot but are not the same. Perhaps ecological farming should be re-arranged so it's like a sub-article of sustainable agriculture? Or the ecological part of "sustainable agriculture" should be moved to "ecological farming" and the excerpt tool be used. Either way we should avoid that very similar content is spread over two articles. By the way, I am currently reworking sustainability and will do sustainable development next; any helpers are appreciated. EMsmile (talk) 04:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  So what you appear to be talking about @EMsmile is Agroecology -- maybe the merge is in that direction and connected to sustainable farming? -- the "study of" the systems around the farming, is much more common in my experience -- that talking about a separate farming practice. Sadads (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support because Sustainable agriculture article has enough details about Ecological farming. This page can appropriately describe in case any info is missed. We don't need a separate page per WP:NOPAGE. Otinflewer (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Klbrain, I've moved the "Ecological farming" section to lower down in the article but I think it's still not great where it is located in this article. Should it be moved into a heading called "examples"? Or "related concepts"? How should this be framed, i.e. do we see "Ecological farming" as a subset of sustainable agriculture, namely one that focuses specifically on the environmental sustainability? EMsmile (talk) 10:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Very happy with the move down the page; perhaps 'related concepts' might work, and I agree with the framing of it as "as a subset of sustainable agriculture, namely one that focuses specifically on the environmental sustainability". Klbrain (talk) 09:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I've made this change, along with some other restructuring changes. EMsmile (talk) 11:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Find better images for the lead?

I propose that we should set up an image collage for the lead, similar to the ones we have at sustainable energy and climate change adaptation. Does anyone have time to propose four suitable images that show different aspects of sustainable agriculture from different parts of the world? Keep in mind that sustainable refers to balancing environmental, economic and social facts, not just the environmental/eco/green aspects. EMsmile (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Tech Writing for Agriculture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2023 and 19 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Leonardo Lomeli (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Leonardo Lomeli (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ERTH 4303 Resources of the Earth

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2023 and 15 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Apirah.n (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Mymywg, Macwilliams3.

— Assignment last updated by ChloejWard (talk) 03:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)