Talk:Intensive animal farming/Archive 1

new article
started this article, by changing a redirect to agriculture and moving in sections from the article factory farming. i hope this slightly more neutral name will help to make the article more neutral. i had at first moved section to the article intensive farming but decided that it is not the right place. i could not see a particular reason for the redirect. first thing one sees at the agriculture article is a man plowing with horses. trueblood 09:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ecoli
this discussion was moved from factory farming article

I don't understand what the recent addition of a section on ecoli has to do with factory farming. Seems like it should be in a foodborne illness article, if anything, not a factory farming one. 65.246.216.100 00:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC) i think the section could be deleted or condensed into one sentence or two.trueblood 13:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely. The area seems to serve as just another focal point for criticisms of factory farming and lacks the NPOV that should be maintained throughout the article. --Vpivet 16:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want to see why the e. coli section relates to intensive farming
 * check out the articles the section cites. From the New York Times:


 * Basically, grain is a common diet on intensive farms, but not a natural diet of free-range cattle. Research, as mentioned in the New York Times article, as well as cited in the section:
 * points out that it is this grain diet that increases the acidity of the stomach of cattle and increases the abundance of the 0157 strain of E. coli. The research suggests a solution: stop feeding cattle grain. JabberWok 01:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That isn't related to factory farms, though, as I'd understand the definition. I believe a factory farm is one that has a large number of animals... but nearly all farms (working farms, not "I have a pet cow" places), regardless of size, feed grain.  As such, I still don't see the relevance to this article.  I believe this ecoli discussion would fit better elsewhere.  65.246.216.100 02:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That isn't related to factory farms, though, as I'd understand the definition. I believe a factory farm is one that has a large number of animals... but nearly all farms (working farms, not "I have a pet cow" places), regardless of size, feed grain.  As such, I still don't see the relevance to this article.  I believe this ecoli discussion would fit better elsewhere.  65.246.216.100 02:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The New York Time article references industrial farms:
 * "Where does this particularly virulent strain come from? It’s not found in the intestinal tracts of cattle raised on their natural diet of grass, hay and other fibrous forage. No, O157 thrives in a new — that is, recent in the history of animal diets — biological niche: the unnaturally acidic stomachs of beef and dairy cattle fed on grain, the typical ration on most industrial farms."


 * So, while you might be right that grain is a typical diet for cattle on most farms - on industrial farms it's standard to feed grain to drive up production levels of the dairy cattle.
 * I guess this falls under a critisim of industrial farms. Although, I agree the section could be made shorter or more clear and to the point. JabberWok 02:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Citing the Nina Plank article from the NY Times op-ed page by definition does not constitute unbiased information. This is definitely a POV citation. A scientific journal article is more appropriate here that a newspaper opinion piece. This reference should be improved or the reference and associated text should be deleted.--NDM 07:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You are probably refering to a statement made in that section similar to what is said in the Nina Plank piece:
 * "In 2003, The Journal of Dairy Science noted that up to 80 percent of dairy cattle carry O157."


 * So I did as you suggested, and simply linked strait to the scientific journal article rather than the newspaper piece.JabberWok 23:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * i started moving sections to intensive farming. this passage should go, too. i haven't done so because i am not sure whether it could not go to somewhere else (is there an article on ecoli?) but with the other stuff gone it cannot stay here

trueblood 11:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There is an article about the the the E coli outbreak. It is linked to from the E coli section in this article. But I believe this section belongs in both places as it is very much related to factory farming. JabberWok 23:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

i would like to move everything out that is not about the usage of the term. factory farming is not a specific agriculture system, it is a term that is used by opponents of intensive agriculture. sometimes in the article it seems to be used to mark everything that is not organic.trueblood 11:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't understand. What do you mean by "everything"?  Everything in the E coli section, or everything in the entire article?  And what do you mean by "not about usage of the term."? You want the article to be about how a term is used?


 * Also, the phrase "Factory Farm" is fairly commonplace, not just used by "opponents", no? Personally I've never heard a person use the phrase "intensive farm," but I have heard regular people use the phrase "factory farm."  JabberWok 20:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * i am not sure that if it is used in everyday language is already an argument. show me an article in a normal magazine or newspaper or encyclopedia that uses the term, i just went through the first 50 links for a google search for factory farming and did not find a single one that was noncritical. same goes for the google book search that someone mentioned in an earlier discussion. maybe it is difficult to find noncritical about factory farms ;-), but i don't think there are many farmers that say, 'i run a factory farm'.

but yes originally i wanted to move everything away that was about intensive farming and just leave stuff about where the term comes from and who uses it. trueblood 13:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC) i moved further sections to the article industrial agriculture rather than intensive farming. also moved sections that i first moved to intensive farming to industrial agriculture. this section even refers to industrial agriculture. i suppose i should also move this discussion to industrial agriculture?trueblood 15:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved titles
This page and Factory farming seemed to be getting mixed up, with material being copied back and forth, and the criticism section of FF being moved to here. I've therefore moved anything to do with animals to FF and called it Factory farming (animals), and anything to do with crops here and called it Industrial agriculture (crops). That division seems to make most sense because when most people think of FF, they think of animals, and when they think of agriculture, they think of crops. In this way, we can avoid repetition or forks. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Trueblood has objected. TB, can we discuss it here rather than on user talk? SlimVirgin (talk) 07:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

i said before that i find the term factory farming not neutral, and that was mirrored in the article. to talk of factory farming of crops even seems clumsy. nevertheless it makes sense to have one article about a certain kind intensive agriculture not two.trueblood 07:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You said on my talk page that farmers wouldn't use the term, but we can't write from the point of view of farmers (and organic farmers might use it). "Factory farming" is a very common term, which everyone understands more or less, and it tends to be used in relation to animals. People tend not to worry about factory-farmed carrots.


 * I see what you mean about the possibility of making the article about the term only, but with a term that's in such widespread use, I'm not sure about the validity of that. Also, we would have to actually write it, but it's not clear what we could use as sources (about the use of the term, as opposed to the phenomenon). SlimVirgin (talk) 07:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't Intensive farming cover what you want to say about crops, or do you think both articles (FF and IA) should be moved to that title? SlimVirgin (talk) 07:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * no intensive farming would not do, intensive farming also means high input relative to used surface, as opposed to extensive farming. there are farms in australia for example that you could describe as industrial but because the land is so bad they farm say 10000 ha but only extensively. on the other hand you could say a small market garden is intensively farmed. an organic farm can be intensive (also industrial come to think of it). i think both articles should be together (on crops and animals). but yes there should be an article on factory farming, since it is obviously a term that is used a lot. the parts that i left in the article factory farming are actually about the usage of the term. i don't want to write from the point of view of a farmer but also not from a animals rights point of view. but i would like to use that is less charged. earlier in the discussion at factory farming (people criticised the name of the article before) someone mentioned a google book search factory farming as an argument for the title. i looked at that and found that most books seemed to be written from a very critical point of view. someone who says factory farming is usually critical of it. i don't have a problem with being critical but i find the term polemical.trueblood 08:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What would you say is a neutral title, then? The problem with "industrial agriculture" is that it doesn't sound as though it includes animals. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

it does, the first line from the article agriculture is:Agriculture (a term which encompasses farming) is the process of producing food, feed, fiber and other goods by the systematic raising of plants and animals. farming redirects to agriculture. trueblood 08:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, then I suggest we move everything to that one title "Industrial agriculture" and have "factory farming" as a redirect. Would that work for you? SlimVirgin (talk) 08:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * that would mean to maybe include a section about the term factory farming, but yes that would work for me.trueblood 08:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We can say in the lead "also referred to as factory farming." That would cover it. I'll make the moves now if that's okay with you. SlimVirgin (talk)  08:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, done. I'm not keen on the arguments for and against format, but at least it's now all on one page with a neutral title. Hope that works for everyone. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

deletion from alternatives
''While organic food represents only about 2% of food sales worldwide, some surveys indicate a disproportionately high degree of participation. For example, in the U.S., some recent surveys indicate that upwards of 50% of consumers say they purchase some organic food products on a regular basis. '' i deleted this section, if someone wants it back please provide a reference.trueblood 10:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Image
Trueblood, please stop removing the image. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * someone else removed it and at least left a message here (at the top), this helga person reverted carelessly (and another change by salix alba) and called it vandalism. i don't particulary object to the image, but i think whoever objected had a point, that could be discussed. the picture and the text that claims that these sows are confined to this space most of their lives are from an animal rights site, that shows a drawing of sheep behind barbed wire with a watchtower that makes one think of concentration camps. in my book that disqualifies it already as a source for information. how representative is this picture for modern farming and is the text true. people have objected to the picture before. of course with photos it is difficult to argue if they represent reality. you seem very fund of this one. is this because you know it represents modern farming well or is it because you feel it represents it well?trueblood 12:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * no answer hu.. someone else removed the image again, so i resurrected another image that was in the article earlier and might be less controversial

regulations
i deleted a rather specific passage about regulations in two us states, article should be a little bit more general.

also deleted claim that organic regulations outlaw industrial agriculture, that would be up to discussion, since i.a. is a rather vague term.trueblood 20:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Controversies
Perhaps the section on arguments in favor and against should be rewritten under the title controversies. Even the pros and cons of factory farming are contentious. Neither side is willing to concede on issues such as cost ( including hidden costs ), efficiency, environmental concerns or safety. Cayte 04:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Cayte

Egg Image
I don't understand the image of the eggs. Is it supposed to show some quality difference between eggs grown in different ways? By the way, is the egg on the left fertilized? I think this image should go. Jav43 19:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Egg Image
The image is just a visual comparison between the eggs, and nothing else, the egg on the left was bought a local organics store and is not fertilized. Samuel 13:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Since the article is not a comparison between organic agriculture and industrial agriculture why do we have a comparison of the two eggs? --Agrofe 20:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * i also agree, the image should go, for above reasons, also these two eggs may or may not be representative for organic and nonorganic eggs. if you were to quote a scientific study about the differences, that would be something else, but still rather belong into an article on organic farming.trueblood 06:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

from intro
from the intro:"According to the United States Department of Agriculture, ninety-eight percent of all farms in the United States are "family farms". Two percent of farms are not family farms, and those two percent make up fourteen percent of total agricultural output in the United States, although half of them have total sales of less than $50,000 per year.  Overall, ninety-one percent of farms in the United States are considered small family farms.  Depending on other factors, nine percent of the farms in the United States may qualify as industrial agriculture. "

i find this to us specific to be in the introduction. we need to find another place. also the conclusion is OR and should not be there at all. trueblood 06:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think the problem is that we still don't have a clear definition of what factory farming/industrial agriculture is. Since it's a perjorative term that in my biased opinion is improperly often considered synonymous with non-organic agriculture, I'm not sure of the answer.  Perhaps the definition eludes me because it's as simple as you wrote in the intro:  that industrial agriculture is producing food products as a business, while non-industrial agriculture is hobby farming. Jav43 02:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * woa, although i agree with often considered synonymous with non-organic agriculture, i don't agree with non-industrial agriculture is hobby farming. nonsense. it lot of people make their living out of non-industrial agriculture. me included.trueblood 23:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Current article is poorly structured, missing a central section
The entire basic description of what exactly industrial agriculture/factory farming refers to for animals is currently filed under, "Arguments against", which is kind of...ridiculous. Overall, the article represents a poorly structured pro-industrial ag POV. --Tsavage 03:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Accordance. This whole "Argument in Favor" and "Arguments in Opposition" does not seem encyclopedic and diminishes the article. Needs to be reworked. I will tackle it.--Agrofe 04:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I have taken an initial shot at reworking the article. I deleted quite a bit (mostly POV and irrelevance. I tried to be as objective as possible. I think the structure is much better but contenct and references will need a lot of work. Any thoughts?--Agrofe 19:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you mostly did a good job. I do think you neglected the entirety of the "arguments in favor" section, though, probably by accident.  This might be because the current "arguments in favor" section is set up as a mere rebuttal of the "arguments against" section.  I might suggest reposting your edits in a new (temporary) article (or something) so that we can work on them while retaining the current look of this article.  Jav43 08:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jav43, thanks for taking a look. Acutally I made some significant edits (including a few mistakes). Check out my version of "18:25, 16 March 2007 Agrofe" in the history section. SlimVirgin reverted everything I did saying I was trying to whitewash. Many of SV edits on my changes were welcome but I have not had time to open a discussion regarding what I feel was a much better approach to the article. I did make some changes that were worng for sure. If you get a chance please take a look at the version I mention about and let me know what you think.--Agrofe 13:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Tsavage edit to Alternatives
Hi Tsavage, Thanks for your additions to this article. We need good editors. I wanted to see what you thought about my thoughts on your recent revision. You talked about organic certifications are those, "...which preclude most of the practices that characterize industrialized agriculture." I would argue that the major components of all agriculture are the anthropomorphic production of crops that inlcude the amelioration of germplasm to better suit human and environmental requirments. Next I would say tillage and (in most cases) irrigation of the planted ground are part of most practices. What do you think? --Agrofe 19:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps my small addition could be worded more clearly. Feel free! Its point is straightforward, it isn't very deep. Here in WP, we've made industrial agriculture synonymous with factory farming, and what characterizes IA/FF for general discussion purposes are a few basic practices like crowding, drugs, GE, monoculture, synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. These are the things that put the "factory" in farming as defined by this article. Organic certification standards don't allow any of these practices. You can still have massive farms and quite factory-like production under organic certification, but you can't do it as described here. --Tsavage 22:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tsavage, Sorry for the delay. The FF and IA synonym works fine for me too! That part of the article reads fine to me now as well. Just a note, discussion could be had on wether organic certification alloow crowding and monoculture or not. Anyway, I am going to post some edits I would like to make to the central "Pros vs Cons" section. I will put it on the bottom and would really appreciate your (as well as everyone else's) input/comments.--Agrofe 15:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Dairy cow image
Would whoever keeps adding this please stop? It's a photograph of a family farm, which you'll see if you look it up on Google. That's not what's meant by "factory farm" or "industrial agriculture." SlimVirgin (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I was not the person adding the dairy farm photo but I do like the photo. For all intents and purposes this farm does seem to meet the criteria of Industrial Agriculture (regardless of it's familiality or not); i.e., concentrated population, lack of grazing (living in an enclosed environment), supplemented feeding, antibiotics, vitamins, mechanized milking, the list goes on. My opinion only, but this photo seems more a standard of industrial agriculture than does the swine photo that replaces it. Again, those are my feelings only based on my experiences and objectivity (or lack thereof). What do others think?--Agrofe 19:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it's a family farm. I've reverted your edits, because you seem to be trying to whitewash this. In future, could you please add material, but without deleting what's already there without discussion? In that way, we can make progress rather than going back and forth. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi SV, I am not sure where we contradict on the "family farm" or not piece. Regardless of if a family owned the farm or not it is certainly factory farming or industrial agriculture any way you slice it.

I was not trying to whitewash the article but to add clarity. My bad for not opening up discussion prior to the dramitic changes. If it appeared I was eraseing content to paint a prettier picture of industrial ag then I made a mistake. My bad again. Moreover, if the edits I made are viewed by you as incorrect or biased I would benefit by hearing where you think they are off. Thanks again.--Agrofe 00:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could add, rather than delete. Your edits even changed what a source had said. If you want to remove something, perhaps you could post about it first? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Definately I will do this moving forward. I did try to include eveything that was in the content but tried to make it flow better. I also attempted to remove what I felt was irrelevent. I should not have removed "what the source said". Thanks for the tip.

In the meantime; what about the photo?--Agrofe 00:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The cows are a family farm, which is not what we're discussing here. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi SV, I do not follow you but that's ok. I am not the smartest person around :-) Anyway, what about looking for a more objective photo?--Agrofe 18:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the picture IS of, I don't think. What matters is what the picture looks like. And the picture looks like industrial agriculture. Oh, and that picture of sows is ridiculous, not the standard, and actually against the law in the US. Jav43 08:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course it matters what the picture is of, and the cow image is one of a family farm, so to use it here would be dishonest. Do you have a source that says gestation crates are against the law in the U.S.? So far as I know, they're still widely used. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, no. People see the picture and use it as part of drawing conclusions.  Also, you neglect the fact that family farms can be industrial agriculture - the two are not mutually exclusive, although they are often considered such.  It doesn't matter what this is a picture of - what matters is what the picture portrays to visitors to the site, and the picture portrays industrial agriculture.


 * It doesn't. It shows a family farm, which is not what's meant by industrial agriculture. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Basically, your picture is prejudicial and fails to show industrial agriculture. (By the way, see http://www.factoryfarming.com/fl_amendment.htm.  No federal law, but other states have done the same thing as Florida, if I understand correctly.)


 * Can you provide sources, please, showing it's illegal in the U.S.; and also bear in mind that this is not about the U.S. anyway. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would also like to note that the hog picture has been repeatedly criticized and stricken - by others as well as myself. See the first category in this discussion page, for example, and the sixth.  Anyway, if you truly object to the dairy farm photo, I suggest you do as Agrofe suggested and look for a more objective photo.  Jav43 05:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have found a very representative one. If you don't like it, why don't you look for a better one? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 07:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * With respect to the "hog picture," what does your objection consist of? El_C 06:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) It's not representative of most "industrial agriculture" operations [including hog farms] 2) it draws emotional responses due to lack of explanation/facts (hog crates are used during the week before and 3 weeks [or so] after farrowing because if they are not used, the sow crushes the piglets [by laying on them]) (which, oddly, isn't what the picture even shows) and 3) it is intentionally inflammatory [see category six on this page]. Jav43 06:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What is your evidence for saying it's not representative? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 07:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh section 6, I was wandering what you were talking about ("categories"). I don't quite follow your explanation: unless the caption is inaccurate, it makes sense that it'd be featured in the arguments against. Otherwise, intentionality aside, the truth is often "inflammatory." At this point, I'm inclined to retain it unless you can offer more convincing and details reasons. El_C 06:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is a description from an industry source. These crates are widely used. As for the argument that they're only used for a week before and three weeks after birth, that misses the point that the sows are kept almost perpetually pregnant, so they end up spending a good deal of their lives in these crates. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  07:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Currently only Arizona & Florida (both relatively small swine producing states) outlaw 2 ft x 6.5 ft gestations stalls. In larger swine producing states like Iowa, North Carolina, Minnesota and Oklahoma legislation has been proposed but none passed. In these larger swine producing states many large factory farms (many of them family owned) gestate in group stalls. By the way, Smithfield Foods & Maple Leaf Foods both recently anounced they would replace gestation systems with group pens. I guess the question is what percentage of commercial/industrial swine industry uses gestation stalls instead of group stalls? Maybe this info is not readily available and could only be put together going company by company and looking at their practices.


 * SlimVirgin, by the way, the second largest vegetable producer in the world (after Dole) is family owned. Is that a famly farm or industrial ag/factory farm?--Agrofe 14:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * SV, this is like saying that the Organic Farming page should start with a picture of a gun shooting manure into the air. It shouldn't, because that is an inflammatory image that makes the reader jump to conclusions - although it is completely accurate.  You are creating the same problem here - the image is inserting your point of view.  It doesn't belong.  Wikipedia is supposed to be about showing an unbiased factual article to inform readers - not about arguing someone's opinions.  Jav43 17:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Animals/Crops Sections
'I would like to open a discussion on my proposing the following to replace entirely the Animal Ag & Crop sections. This of course would be a "rough draft offering" as many would have additional and improved content to add;'

Factory Farm Livestock Production

Intensive, large scale animal agriculture can produce food that can be sold at lower cost to consumers. Animals in confinement can be supervised more closely than free-ranging animals, and diseased animals can be treated faster. This concentrated form of agriculture produces higher yields of the final products in smaller populations. However, long-term costs for petrochemically derived compounds and their environmental effects is just becoming better understood. Also, the net loss of organic niomass due to their removal from the food chain is fundamentally incongruent with the production of livestock and crops.

The high input costs of industrial agriculture operations result in a large influx and distribution of capital to a rural area from distant buyers rather than simply recirculating existing capital. A single dairy cow contributes over $1300 US to a local rural economy each year, each beef cow over $800, meat turkey $14, and so on. As Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture Dennis Wolff states, “Research estimates that the annual economic impact per cow is $13,737. In addition, each $1 million increase in PA milk sales creates 23 new jobs. This tells us that dairy farms are good for Pennsylvania's economy.” [4] Organizations representing factory farm operators claim to be proactive and self-policing when it comes to improving practices according to the latest food safety and environmental findings. A 2002 article by a representative of the U.S. Poultry & Egg Association, arguing against increased Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) regulation, stated, "Poultry growers, largely free of regulatory controls, are managing their litter in an environmentally sound, agronomically beneficial manner."[5]

Agricultural reformists say factory farming can be cruel to animals and legislation should be passed to regulate how livestock should be treated.[6][7][8] For example, in industrial poultry production newborn chicks are commonly debeaked using a hot blade. The confinement of animals for purposes of breeding, concentrated feeding and gestation can leads to physiologial problems such as osteoporosis, open sores and joint pain. Animal neurosis from monotony and frustration can lead to repetitive or self-destructive behaviour known as stereotypes.[9] The highly concentrated populations of livestock is an unatural form of overpopulation and may lead to disease. In natural environments, animals are seldom crowded into as high a population density. In factory farming environments animals a exposed to concentrated levels of fecal matter. Disease spreads rapidly in densely populated areas and antibiotics are commonly used to battle the spread of disease. In this form of livestock production there have been instances antibiotic resistance to various strains bacteria ("superbugs")[3].[citation needed].

In industrial livestock production large quantities and concentrations of waste are produced [10] and must be handled and recycled properly to avoid potential lake, river, and groundwater contamination. In concentrated animal agriculture situations there are higher concentrations of volatile gases (particlularly sulfur and ammonia compounds). There are also dust, insect, and odor problems that can be created.

Factory Farm Cropping Systems

Industrially produced agricultural crop are mass acreages of a unique crops (monocultures)in the same localities. This creates a requirement for a large infrastructure to process and translocate the final product.

Monoculture is the production of large areas of a single crop, often raised from cropping cycle to the next with out crop rotation. This in done in order to meet the economic requirements exerted on them because of the costly and specific infrastructures.

The application of petro-chemically derived fertilizers and crop protection compounds is standard to industrial agriculture. The uniformity of application over the compound over large areas enables a highly mechanized form of agriculture with very little hand labor involved.

The use of specialized hybrids is also an aspect of factory farming. Also, many of these varieties are developed to withstand the rigors of a large and disparate supply chain, thus further our reliance on pertochemicals and costly infrastruture that only large scale producers can afford to economically take advantage of. Genetically engineered or modified germplasm have been developed to be resitant to certain crop protection compounds.

Large scale irrigation and water management is also a facet of industrial agriculture.

Hydroponic greenhouse production of different crops is also considered and industrialized form of agriculture.

Food Safety, Food Security

In Factory Farming Food Saftey and Food Security becomes more cumbersome. When large quantities of meat or a wholefood product from disparate locations are comingled it is difficult to track the sources of all the constituents in a timely manner. Also, contaminated prostions of a small part of the batch might contain a food borne that contaminates the entire batch. Traceability is limited and the likely hood of mass contamination and illness is increased. Portions of ground beef may contain the flesh of as many as 1000 cows.[11] [12] [13]. This causes concern among consumers concerning the origin of foods and among government officials concerning the origin of disease. The National Animal Identification System is one proposed way the USDA is attempting to remedy this problem. Another proposed solution is the amelioration of irradiation technology for food sterilization.

--Agrofe 15:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry it's taken me so long to respond. I have no objection to most of this, though I'd like to see more sources and perhaps a little less jargon, if possible. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I like generally the first part, although I would change factory farming to industrial agriculture in all instances. As for the food safety/food security section, I'm not sure it makes sense.  You'll note that the current article text on this topic is full of argument.  As such, I'm not sure that your conclusion that food safety/food security becomes more cumbersome with industrial agriculture is accurate.  Specifically, the proposed purchasing direct from producer *avoids* FDA food safety/security checks, while processing foods through various mechanisms makes for a more carefully scrutinized (and thus safer) product.  Jav43 20:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Guys, thanks for the feedback. I would definately try to get more sources (and we can use some of the existing ones from earlier edits). And with regards to what SV refers to as "jargon" I am using language that agriculturalists would be accustomed to. I have no isses with changing it make easier reading but don't know the proper protocol. When I read an encyclopedia I like to learn technical jargon. I am still learning Wkipedia though for sure.


 * Jav43, I have no aversion to either Factory Farming or Industrial Agriculture and this issue has been discussed in detail by SlimV, Trueblood and others and a good consensus was reached. Review this discussion above and let us know what you think.


 * With regards to the food saftey/security piece let's definately discuss. I know what I have is very rough. I think some of the arguments about the problems with lot consolidation, cross contamination, pesticide management, water management, in the larger production and handling systems that Industrial Agricluture implies, are valid. Thanks again for any and all feedback. I think we are going to come up with a pretty good article here.


 * PS, can someone point me to a good place to learn how to post citations/references?--Agrofe 14:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As I understood it, people agreed to use the less inflammatory yet accurate term "industrial agriculture". That's what I see in the discussion earlier.  (I don't object to talking about the term "factory farming", but that term shouldn't be the term most frequently used in the article.)Jav43 17:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

animal rights
i fail to see the connection here with animal rights. this article is about agriculture, bringing in to much of an animal rights focus is just going move away from being npov.trueblood 09:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC) removed tag, this is not the place to "to educate readers and editors about the concept of animal rights, the animal liberation movement"

take it elsewhere. trueblood 21:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it atleast merits a link to the animal rights page, as it is the source of much scrutiny from animal rights activist. Its a fact that is relevantto the topic, I don't see why it shound't be there. - Sye


 * I don't see any issue with putting a link to animal rights here. Just as a link to Soil Erosion or Soil Conservation or Drip Irrigation could be here.


 * It took me a little while of working on this article to see that there was an animal rights slant to it. Industrial ag relates as much to crop ag as it does to animal ag. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Agrofe (talk • contribs) 13:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC). --Agrofe 13:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Awful!
I have to say, I just found this article and got very confused with regards the title (with Factory Farming being the most common term as far as I can see) but I can let that slide as it is redirected here anyway.

My problem is this: The article is polarised into a 'pro' vs 'anti' debate which makes it difficult to follow information if someone has to check 2 places for every piece of info. Why is the 'for' stuff first and not the 'against' - this is a minor problem (I don't care which comes first) but it does give prominence to one side of the story over the other.

Next there is the lack of souces for many things (such as the entire history section and a lot of the arguments, both for and against). There are 2 citations in the 'for' section and 9 in the 'against'... Seems a bit unbalanced to me. Moving on there is only a single citation in the crop section (none at all for the criticism bit, which is again a bad way of presenting the arguments) - with the criticism section be a single paragraph which is a simple list compared with a detailed and explained bulletted list for the features section.

The 'alternatives' section makes sweeping claims such as 'In general, critics of industrial agriculture advocate decentralized approaches to food production' and 'Some have proposed genetically modified foods as a solution in alleviating some of the issues of industrial agriculture, particularly excess use of pesticides and fertilizers.' which are unsourced and use weasel words with abandon.

Finally, we come to a long list of see also's - and not a single link to animal rights or veganism and an external links section that could rival the open directory project.

So, from this, I am going to go through and do a bit of work (starting with the easiest bits of course - such as the links and unsourced statements).-Localzuk(talk) 18:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * this article used to be called factory farming and was hopelessly biased against modern agriculture from a very animal rights point of view. it was changed to make it more objective (factory farming being a very suggestive title and in my opinion not the most common term).


 * Google test: "factory farming" 577,000, "industrial agriculture" 472,000. --Tsavage 00:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

it still is not very balanced, feel free to improve it, but it is not the place to preach about animal rights. in fact i don't see why their should be any mention of animal rights. trueblood 06:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see any preeching at all, but its not a ridiculous notion to have a link to the animal rights section on policies or something, to beter inform the user that there are contraversies with this subject, if not then you'll only be putting a blanket over thier head, and I didn't think that was what wiki was about - Magwitch 09:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Biased primary image
The start image is so one-sided it's a farce to use it on a supposedly impartial article. Does anyone else feel similar outrage? Vaarok 19:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you mean the one with the dirty and skinny cows? It is a little ridiculous for an impartial article. Also, a bunch of stuff needs citations on the "Against" side, why is it there if no one can prove it? --207.118.7.99 12:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * no, the image in question has been replaced. if you have any references for this article please do bring them in.trueblood 12:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What image would you expect exactly? maybe a crop field? it makes no difference whether you show the animal or crop side of industrial agriculture, it's just an example image. The image is has now is of an industrial battery farm I assume, which is obviously on topic. - Sye I agree there is no contrast in the article. Take your hippie crap somewhere else. Like hahhahaha--Rossmacleod1992 10:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization error in article name
Has anyone else noticed that the capitalization in "Farming" in the article's title is ungrammatical, and against WP:TITLE? I plan to move this page back to Factory farming - I just wanted to give some advance notice to avoid alarming anyone, since this article's title has been debated before. --G Rose (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've just done it, though I see we now have two talk pages that will need to be merged. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 19:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also done. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 19:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Cow image
Jav, please stop adding those cow images to the lead. You spent weeks reverting to an image that stated explicitly it was a family farm. Now you're adding one where we have no idea what it is. Do not add images of factory farms unless there is a source saying it's an image of a factory farm/industrial agriculture. Not your own POV. See WP:NOR. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 19:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

And who is to say something is/isn't a factory farm? The ONLY organizations that will certify farms as "factory farms" are those who are opposed to industrial agriculture, which is some insane POV. A family farm can very well also be a factory farm - a family run farm can be industrial agriculture. Why don't you actually look at the image and see what it portrays rather than blindly following the guidelines of biased activist organizations? Jav43 22:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As we have this dispute, you need to supply a reliable source showing that the cow image is of a factory farm, or some equivalent expression. Otherwise this is your guess, and that's OR. Or find another image of a factory farm, but you can't keep adding this disputed one that could be of anything. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just how can you say that the image of a number of cows in a barn doesn't meet common qualifications for a "factory farm"? That's what people mean when they say "factory farm."Jav43 22:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Where's your proof that the images of the sows is a factory farm? What if I say the hogs were just placed there for a moment while their usual homes were cleaned? Jav43 22:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the sows might have been paid to model for that photograph! Once the lights were off and the cameras had stopped rolling, it was out of the crate and back to the hotel for a quick snort of cocaine. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You obviously have never been to a hog farm - or even a fair :P. Crates of that type are exactly what are used to sort hogs for cleaning/medication/etc.  Jav43 23:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We have a source that says that's what it is; see the image page. You must supply a source showing that yours is, or find another one that definitely is. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Re-read the image page. It doesn't say it's a factory farm.  It just says SOME hogs are confined in gestation crates.  It doesn't even say that the depicted hogs are confined in gestation crates.  Per your fallacious argument, I'm removing the image of the sows.  Jav43 22:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You're being disruptive now. It's from a website that publishes photographs of factory farming. It is clearly a photograph of it. What do you mean by "It doesn't even say that the depicted hogs are confined in gestation crates." Are you saying these are not gestation crates? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I'm saying that the image of the sows does not have authority stating that those sows are on a factory farm - which is EXACTLY what you're saying about the image of the cows.Jav43 22:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The source is one that collects images of animals in factory farms. That is all they do. You're engaged in a WP:POINT here. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right that I believe both images can be included. But in accordance with your interpretation of policy, neither can.  If your interpretation is to stand, then it must be applied universally.  That's all I'm doing:  applying your interpretation universally.  As for whether the website collects images of animals in factory farms... you are violating WP:NOR to reach that conclusion.  That isn't what the website says about the image.  Additionally, the website is questionable, as it exists only to argue a specific activist agenda, rather than to describe the scientific or social status quo.Jav43 22:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I must admit that the real problem is that there are two articles here, not one: there is one article on industrial agriculture and one on the term "factory farming". These articles should be separated. They don't work merged like this. Jav43 22:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * They're about the same issue, which is the industralized production of meat. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No, one is about a perjorative term, while the other is about a production method. Jav43 22:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Read Tsavage's discussion earlier on this page.Jav43 22:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts: That image and associated material from a site called factoryfarming.com which I would say should not be allowable for a number of reasons as it is a private site/run by an anti-factory farming/pro-vegetarian group (see the bottom of the page) and is not necessarily indicative of factory farming (what's to say they aren't used by a farm that the only cages are those which are used when the pigs are fighting?). I ended up here off the PETA page as was discussing farming and I asked my flatmate who had parents who own a "family farm" and about the picture: "Gestation pens" (not the name used in Australia), he said they are used when sows are pregnantso there are less fights/territorial issues (this is all sourced verbally, not from an internet reference.. So I'm not expecting it to be added by the way). They are not kept in them for any significant length of time except when they're likely to be fighting. So to claim that these pens are the standard practice is very much POV (point of view) from a site created in opposition to certain farming practices (would that qualify as a "hate site"?). I would not regard an anti-factory farm lobby group site as a reliable, independent, NPOV resource for this page as per the wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources.. What are people's views on this?

If you look at the referenced article (if you exclude the biased source of the factoryfarming.com site) it talks about the reasons why those gestation pens are used (there's no mention that they're exclusively used by "factory farms") but the humane society's site talks about a number of issues with them.. But given they are widely used throughout the pig industry: I'm not sure whether that would constitute just industrial farms..

quote from the Washington post article: "The American Veterinary Medical Association and other organizations recognize gestation stalls and group housing systems as appropriate for providing for the well-being of sows during pregnancy," he said. "We support the right of all producers to choose housing that ensures the well-being of their animals and that is appropriate for their operations."

So at very least there should be a mention of the views of the vet society as having some benefits.

So I'd propose a different source be found that's not from a private/lobby site that backs up: a) gestation pens/cages are a factory farm only practice (the article mentions that animal rights groups regard it as a feature, but that isn't the same as factually being a feature of factory farms. Fact is that sows fight while pregnant or with litter. b) the claim in the note is correct for the picture involved. As it is the picture may not depict the size of cages mentioned (the joining of two separate sources one for size and the other for a picture from a lobby site) is original research and cannot be verified. Caption should relate to the image, not original research. I'm not saying we need a scale on every picture: but an image caption that states something about the picture that can't be found in the original source of the image and could possibly be wrong is worth deleting.

I also dispute the idea that factory farm and family farm are two mutually exclusive concepts. I'm with Jav43 on this point also. "factory farm" vs "family farm" is a constructed "choice" from anti-farming lobby groups, not anything factual or verifiable..NathanLee 17:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

See also list
I would question why there are companies listed in the "see also" list that appear to not be mentioned in any way in the article. Maple foods for instance has nothing on its page.. I would say this list should not be used as an unreferenced implication that these companies are factory farming organisations. This is about the concept of industrial practice in factory farming, not related to implementations thereof. I'd suggest a tidy up. Anyone got thoughts on this? NathanLee 17:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The two I added (Maple and Smithfields) are in the WPost article about gestation crates and I'm intending to add something about it. There's already something in the cutline of the first image. Secondly, the names on the list are huge well-known operators of factory farms. It's not clear what you mean by the distinction between concept and implementation in terms of this article. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 18:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, by "implementation" I mean "individual instance of" factory farming e.g. "Farm number 27315 that does pig raising" versus "this is what factory farming is". While the two may be mentioned in the linked article: that article is not fixed in stone as integral to the wikipedia article. So as the link dies or is replaced by a newer/more up to date one the reason for it being in the article is lost.
 * I'd be a little cautious about the concept of "well known" without references (and the Maple page has no mention of it.. and even then: do we want references to run-of-the-mill practitioners of it on this page as "see also"?
 * Given "factory farm" is a bit of a loaded term (e.g. contentious because of political pressures) I wouldn't like to see the page used as a "name and shame" at the expense of referring to significant companies e.g. if there's no specific mention of the company in the body article.
 * E.g. if we have the page on industrial manufacture, I'd question whether it was good article design to name practitioners of the process unless they were a significant force in pioneering the practice. E.g. Ford motor company might be a good one for "modern automotive manufacture process" as they contributed significantly to it (e.g. the first).. I think the list would get out of control and doesn't really add to the content.. Now if we can get some references to how they've contributed to the concept: then I think they'd be worthy of mention in the body and in the see also.. Your thoughts? NathanLee 18:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * First about use of the see also list:To some extent it is a place to park stuff that should be incorporated into the article but hasn't yet for one reason or another. Under this concept a finished article will have no see also list. Yet a fully complete article often is very long and some people like to have a ready list of related items. Most of these best go into one or more navigation boxes. Yet still sometimes some other related items are felt worth linking to. WAS 4.250 19:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Next:You ask about adding the links to wikipedia articles that give information on the nature and history of corporations whose behavior is identified by some as being described in this article. I thought it would be useful to include in this article some actual examples, so I looked up what wikipedia already has in this area, read the articles to make sure they had data that was relevant to this subject and put them in this see also list. Ideally, we will eventually be able to have a subsection dealing with these companies' behavior as it relates to this topic. Suppose it turns out that one of these companies is an example of a huge food multinational corp that does not match the claimed qualities and behavior and characteristics identified in this article (other than being a huge food multinational corp that is identified by some as being described in this article). I think that would be very relevant to this article, even more than if it did match. WAS 4.250 19:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So in conclusion, the point isn't to create a list, the point is to flesh out some relevant examples that illuminate the claims. Adding the items to see also is just a tiny useful first step towards that. WAS 4.250 19:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * On your first point: there is no "finished article" in wikipedia is there? New information can always appear that could require a page to be edited. Using a section on the "live" portion is not what it is for I don't think. That's the talk area. I'm happy to move this stuff to the talk area as it will firstly clean up the article of the irrelevant see alsos and secondly put them in the appropriate spot for "work in progress".
 * I see no reason to link those companies as looking at those companies reveals no contributions to the concept of industrialising the farming process in any significant way. They weren't the first, nor the last, nor do they appear to have developed any specific processes related to this article's topic.
 * If a company has not contributed to the practices of Industrial Agriculture (factory farming) in some way: they're not really relevant to the ongoing life-cycle of an encyclopaedic article. I don't see how listing out piecemeal bits and pieces of companies that do industrial agriculture is at all relevant unless this happens to be the idea of using wikipedia as a soapbox for "name and shame". Particularly while this article is misnamed as it is (see other talk) to be the activist pet name for the process of "Industrial Agriculture". This is a subset of agriculture.. NathanLee 19:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * These are links to articles about companies and not links to companies. The articles I linked have content relevant to this article and are thus useful links for our readers as is without being incorporated into another section and so it would be inappropriate to censor them into the talk page under the excuse that they were works in progress as all wikipedia is forever a work in progress as you noted. WAS 4.250 20:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course I understand they are links to the wikipedia pages :) the point I'm making remains the same. It's associating this article with those company articles for no real purpose. It's not "censoring" anything other than someone's vague concept of something they may possibly-somehow-one-day-potentially work into the article. The talk page is most certainly the best spot to put things if they are of no immediate relevance and some content is to be created for it. Stuff shouldn't disappear out of discussion pages even if archived the archiver should retain open topics into the new page I'd say. Placing them in there if they have no immediate (or discernible future) relevance is just cluttering up and can be (as I hinted) a POV as a "name and shame" list). There are countless activist sites that have lists of companies they regard as immoral or worthy of protest for various reasons.. But this page shouldn't seek to mirror those. If you can suggest how all those company names are involved in this page on a farming/agricultural technique/process then that'd justify their existence. But otherwise we either need a rather massive list that really doesn't add much useful encyclopaedic information to wikipedia or to this. NathanLee 20:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I fear we're still missing the point
In an effort to "satisfy everyone" and avoid NPOV tagging and acrimonious exchanges and whatnot, this article is steadily losing focus. Earlier versions needed better writing, less point form, but they did get to the point.


 * "Factory farming" is the common term, likely what most in a general audience will look up, not "industrial agriculture". Although not such a big deal, making IA the primary title seems more political to WP editors than reflecting the real world.


 * FF/IA is not a method of agriculture, it is a fairly mainstream view of certain large-scale, intensive ag practices, seen as a group, and disfavored by its opponents (the ones who use the term!) for a set of central concerns. An IA?FF article must make this plain and clear. As it evolves, this is becoming more and more an argument, pros and cons.

As I see it, a useful general encyclopedia article on FF/IA should plainly set forth:


 * what the term refers to
 * why it exists (ie, some people think FF is a bad thing)
 * some detail on what supposedly makes it bad, appropriately written so there is no confusing claims with absolute facts

Britannica has no problem doing this (while limiting the term to the animal aspect):


 * System of modern animal farming designed to yield the most meat, milk, and eggs in the least amount of time and space possible.


 * The term, descriptive of standard farming practice in the U.S., is frequently used by animal-rights activists, who maintain that animal-protection measures routinely ignore farm animals. Animals are often fed growth hormones, sprayed with pesticides, and fed antibiotics to mitigate the problems of infestation and disease that are exacerbated by crowded living conditions. Chickens spend their lives crowded into small cages, often so tightly that they cannot turn around; the cages are stacked in high batteries, and the length of “day” and “night” are artificially controlled to maximize egg laying. Veal calves are virtually immobilized in narrow stalls for their entire lives. These and numerous other practices have long been decried by critics.

Right now, I get bogged down in what should be the most informative, central sections, "Animals" and "Crops", it's kind of a DIY list where you're can argue factory farming for yourself. The rewrite reads better, but it's still a debate, not an explanation. Simply saying "factory farming says doing this, this and this is bad" is not the same as telling people that factory farming is bad. --Tsavage 00:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I found this essentially identical opinion to mine in Talk:factory farming:


 * I think you shouldn't merge the articles. The article about Intensive farming should go about a agricultural production system. The article about Factory Farming should describe where the name come from how it came in commen use and how it used. It shouldn't describe a argicultural production system.195.193.60.45 10:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

FF/IA is not a unified, formal agricultural production system, it's a descriptive term for a loose set of practices, characterized by "unnatural", assembly-line/factory-like conditions. It's as much a perceived ag philosophy as a method. --Tsavage 14:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

And the primary title should be "factory farming"
Really, appeasing some WP editors (ie certain segments of the general audience) by using the "less inflammatory" industrial agriculture as the title is as POV as it gets. The terms FF and IA may be synonymous, but common usage isn't. "Factory farming" is the popularly used, familiar term, not "industrial agriculture". This is reflected in several dictionaries, where "factory farm(ing)" is defined and "industrial agriculture" is not. --Tsavage 15:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The question is: What is the article about? It's about industrial agriculture (or intensive farming). "Factory farming" is a perjorative term... and the article isn't about the nature of the term (although it has a paragraph on that topic). The article is about the nature of industrial agriculture. It's not a question of being "inflammatory" - it's a question of being accurate. Jav43 22:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My 2c on the matter: "factory farming" is indeed a popular term for the process of "Industrialised Agriculture" typically associated with view presented by groups against farming. If you look at the body it even states that opponents call it "factory farming". So if one term is less inflammatory without being overly euphemistic for no point then I'd say we use that term, expecially as one of the terms has a longer historical use (factory farming is really just a popular activist title). some people might call milking "cow rape". I'd suggest the article be called "Industrial agriculture" as per the more popular use for non-activist/research description of the practice (Industrial agriculture is far far more referenced by a LARGE amount check out amazon and you'll find just 15 books for "factory farming" and 3,700 for "Industrial Agriculture"). "Industrial Agriculture" is an acceptable term to both POV and NPOV, whereas "factory farming" fails that test. Also: "factory farming" is a less descriptive word. Industrialisation is greater than just "factories". Industrialisation process is wider and describes more things without the connotations of a shed with chimneys, sad workers doing repetitious chores and smoke belching out.. NathanLee 19:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If we use this source as a reference, it uses the term FF as their primary title, and equates it to "intensive agriculture". I think we should rely on reliable widely published sources for deciding terminology, not our own perceptions. Crum375 19:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I mentioned amazon's book list as an example. 3,700 references to 15 seems like it is "widely published" don't you think? Titles for news articles specifically written to catch attention or invoke emotion aren't really a good reference on whether a term is correct, more so the opposite (e.g. confirmation that it is indeed a sensationalist term). NathanLee 20:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't checked the book titles, but I notice that Google comes up with 454,000, 500,000 and 530,000 hits respectively for "Factory Farming", "Industrial Agriculture" and "Intensive Agriculture". Clearly all terms are in 'vogue', but that and the book titles don't really tell us which is more prevalent or apt today. I also noticed Intensive farming which seems to be on its own (oddly using the bolded term "Intensive Agriculture" in its lead), and I am not quite clear about its distinctions from the above, if any. I think FF makes sense for this article in light of the sources we have regarding the gestation crates and Mad Cow disease, but I am not sure how to resolve the stand-alone Intensive farming article. Crum375 20:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Although google might have a roughly equal view of internet sites, I think the published references would seem to be a more reliable source on the longer term and more widely used professional terminology (publishing a book of any sort is a pretty involved process.. any dummy can throw up a webpage or blog). Certainly I think it is a more encompassing term and you'd have to agree it isn't loaded with any activist leanings? I mean you can call people who don't believe in god "godless heretics" or you can say they're atheists.. One's loaded, the other less so. Both describe the current name applicable to non-believers-in-god under many religions.. But one's obviously a term used almost exclusively by one side. As is the case with this: not many farmers would say they're "factory farmers", but they might attend a conference on "Industrialised agriculture". And activists against them will also understand "Industrial Agriculture" as well.. NathanLee 20:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying, but it seems to me that if a major news outlet like CNN refers to it as 'Factory Farming', and that's an important source for us in the article, we should also use that term. I have no problem in redirecting "Industrial Agriculture" and "Intensive Agriculture" to it, but we need to resolve the status of the Intensive farming article. Crum375 21:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well that's where we're not agreeing. Factory farm does have an "angle" to it that Industrial Agriculture does not. Therefore it should be the primary article with the factory farm as a redirect. If the concept of calling something factory farm has enough meat in it (pardon the pun) then perhaps it can be a split article. But at the moment we've got issues trying to sort out Industrialised Farming/Agriculture (a term used by both "sides") and "factory farming" used almost exclusively by one side and not as descriptive. The process is that of Industrialising agriculture, not factory-ing farms.. It's like the change from hand made goods to mass produced products. Factory farming is a nickname only and not a very descriptive one. Just as the industrialised nations continue to evolve past the notion of countries with factories: as does the notion of industrialising the rural/fishing/etc industries.. Industrialised agriculture will continue to progress beyond the simple name of "factory farms". NathanLee 21:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh and intensive farming/Intensive Agriculture is definitely NOT the same as factory farming. Intensive farming for vegetable/crop production is NOT factory farming.. This factory farming article is the least descriptive title of all. The terms Industrialised Agriculture is different to Intensive farming is different to factory farming. With factory farming being the only one which holds an implicit POV and used almost exclusively by activist groups. NathanLee 21:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as FF title, I prefer to use the news organization's title, as that to me indicates what they believe the current public terminology is. It seems to me that our mission and their mission are similar as we'd like the public to recognize our terminology, and if there is an issue of offensiveness, they would be very sensitive to it. To me personally, a factory means a place where things are produced in an efficient, organized and and mechanized fashion, and I see no problem with the term. My concern is that the terms seem to blur each other out. As I noted, we have "Industrial Agriculture", "Intensive Agriculture" and Intensive farming. The CNN article seems to equate FF with "Intensive Agriculture", and the separate Intensive farming article equates IF with Intensive Agriculture. So before we start moving things around, we need to nail down these confusing terminologies. Right now, the sources we use match the main title, so it's a good starting point, but the confusion with the others needs to be resolved if possible. Crum375 22:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ONE article's description versus 3,700 books on amazon (versus just 15 on "factory farming")? Where are your priorities in this Crum375? I've said why a term used by popular media is not a good one to base an article on. Let's set the bar a bit higher than cheap "read me! Sensation here!" type article blurbs. How about what scientists would refer to it? Here's a link [url]http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/sustainable_food/a-new-agenda-for-agriculture-research.html[/url] as an example. The public terminology as you call it is neither correct (it describes just one nickname given to certain practices), nor broad enough, nor a recognised term by those who actually are in the farming industry. You CANNOT use an activist term to describe a field of agriculture.
 * That's like having an article on nuclear weapon fabrication called "Baby killing mass murdering doomsday devices creation". Sure, anti-nuclear protesters might term it that, but I'd defy you to find any conferences, publications or scientific journals on that topic.
 * I think some are trying to turn this area of AGRICULTURE into a sounding board for animal rights concepts, which is most definitely POV. Whether you agree or disagree with the principles that doesn't make wikipedia a place to have all references to anything relating to intensive farming, industrial agriculture muddied and turned into "evil factory farming". Not all intensive farming OR industrial agriculture is able to be described as "factory farms" (which is such an ill defined concept.. as opposed to the concept of Industrial agriculture or intensive farming). Square peg, round hole: ain't going to go no matter how hard you hit it with the edit button hammer.. NathanLee 00:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I am not sure that the title we use should necessarily be the one used by the most books or scientific papers published. I think the topics that we are addressing here are the pros and cons of modern large-scale mass production high efficiency mechanized farming that is used to produce much of the food on western supermarket shelves. Given this topic, we are trying to present the pros and cons of these techniques, as seen by their proponents and opponents. Since we are required to use reliable sources, the most notable and reliable sources we have for this topic and its controversies are the big news outlets, like CNN, Reuters, Washingon Post, BBC, etc. They all seem to be calling this 'Factory Farming' as a primary name, with 'Intensive Farming' or 'Intensive Agriculture' as a secondary synonymous name. I think it makes sense for us to pattern ourselves after these big news media, since they are the most reliable and notable. Crum375 00:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've yet to see one that shows that the set of all things that are "Factory farms" is the same as the set of all things that is "Industrial agriculture" which is the same as the set of all things that is "intensive farming". Factory farming appears to mean "any big farm", or "any high density of livestock farm". That doesn't fit intensive farming process as applied to crops, or to fish.. Or to the concept of any non traditional type of farming (e.g. you could regard the ova/egg donor concept as "intensive farming" as related to human reproduction.. It's got nothing whatsoever to do with factory anything, just high inputs to maximise outputs).. NathanLee 02:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned to you elsewhere, the wiki process is very straightforward - find relevant and notable reliable sources. In this case, we have very reliable and notable sources (i.e. the big news media) using the term Factory Farming, showing us it's equivalent to intensive farming, intensive agriculture, etc. Additionally, they tell us that there is controversy - that opponents believe it has all kinds of drawbacks, while proponents have counter arguments. This is what this article is about. If you can find good sources, for either side, please let us have them. Just discussing a lot of your own ideas and personal knowledge on the Talk page is not productive or efficient. Thanks, Crum375 03:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I'm being cautious to respect other's contributions and avoid an edit war with an editor particularly when they have in the past tag team reverts they don't like with yourself. "Efficient" is not the same as someone merging articles and ploughing on ahead with no regard to the discussion on here. I would be in my rights to restore things to the pre-massive update frenzy by SV and rename the page: but I'm attempting to not be a wanker and follow that practice.
 * I posted on SV's page a suggestion that in a sign of good faith she should revert the changes and take this up in the discussion page as per polite/decent/respectful process. She's then doubled her efforts and just gone ahead and continued. I'll be renaming the page to the less POV term "Industrial Agriculture" shortly in the abscence of any argument why a term's popular use should outweigh choosing a Neutral name. As I've given the example of anti-names not getting picked over names used by the industry itself. If you can show me where the primary title for an industry is that of a term used by their opponents and not themselves then I'll be happier. But if that was the case: then the PETA page should be named "People for Eating Tasty Animals" given the number of casual users who attempt to change it that way.
 * I still cannot see why such a massive rewrite of the page had to take place at speed and at the expense of the discussion process on here. You also have no sources that say that the term is " showing us it's equivalent to intensive farming". I've posted up the point that in legal terms "factory farm" may merely mean "big", but as I'm not the one making the original research that these terms are exactly equivalent. The use of the term factory farm does not apply to fish or vegetable crops that I can see. Nor does it replace the term "intensive farming" that I can see. The only original research going on appears to be the attempt to use wikipedia to turn an activist assumption into a somehow valid and most suitable term.
 * Now I've been rather polite and restrained my editing/renaming efforts and asked for some degree of courtesy by SV to stop just steamrolling her POV forward. I think these actions are showing that SV has a significant agenda/desire to muddy the waters as per activist definitions of something. There is no urgency unless you have an agenda to push though. What I should just do is revert all the changes and restore the pages until you have evidence of the equivalency of the terms IN THEIR ENTIRETY and a reason for picking an inflammatory term over a non inflammatory more broad term. NathanLee 09:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from attacking other editors. Try instead to address the merits, such as the reliability or relevance of sources, or the neutrality (or lack thereof) of their presentation in the article &mdash; this is what Wikipedia is all about. I also suggest that we move from this thread to the bottom, to avoid repeating ourselves. Crum375 12:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

origin of the term?
I see a whole section on the origin of the term "factory farm," but it seems the term is self-explanatory; what I would like is an explanation of the term "battery farm." 69.140.164.142 07:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Chickens
In the United States, chickens were raised primarily on family farms until roughly 1960. Originally, the primary value in poultry keeping was eggs, and meat was considered a byproduct of egg production. Its supply was less than the demand, and poultry was expensive. Except in hot weather, eggs can be shipped and stored without refrigeration for some time before going bad; this was important in the days before widespread refrigeration.

Farm flocks tended to be small because the hens largely fed themselves through foraging, with some supplementation of grain, scraps, and waste products from other farm ventures. Such feedstuffs were in limited supply, especially in the winter, and this tended to regulate the size of the farm flocks. Soon after poultry keeping gained the attention of agricultural researchers (around 1896), improvements in nutrition and management made poultry keeping more profitable and businesslike.

Prior to about 1910, chicken was served primarily on special occasions or Sunday dinner. Poultry was shipped live or killed, plucked, and packed on ice (but not eviscerated). The "whole, ready-to-cook broiler" wasn't popular until the Fifties, when end-to-end refrigeration and sanitary practices gave consumers more confidence. Before this, poultry were often cleaned by the neighborhood butcher, though cleaning poultry at home was a commonplace kitchen skill.

Two kinds of poultry were generally used: broilers or "spring chickens;" young male chickens, a byproduct of the egg industry, which were sold when still young and tender (generally under 3 pounds live weight), and "stewing hens," also a byproduct of the egg industry, which were old hens past their prime for laying.

The major milestone in 20th century poultry production was the discovery of vitamin D, which made it possible to keep chickens in confinement year-round. Before this, chickens did not thrive during the winter (due to lack of sunlight), and egg production, incubation, and meat production in the off-season were all very difficult, making poultry a seasonal and expensive proposition. Year-round production lowered costs, especially for broilers.

At the same time, egg production was increased by scientific breeding. After a few false starts (such as the Maine Experiment Station's failure at improving egg production, success was shown by Professor Dryden at the Oregon Experiment Station.

Improvements in production and quality were accompanied by lower labor requirements. In the Thirties through the early Fifties, 1,500 hens was considered to be a full-time job for a farm family. In the late Fifties, egg prices had fallen so dramatically that farmers typically tripled the number of hens they kept, putting three hens into what had been a single-bird cage or converting their floor-confinement houses from a single deck of roosts to triple-decker roosts. Not long after this, prices fell still further and large numbers of egg farmers left the business.

Robert Plamondon reports that the last family chicken farm in his part of Oregon, Rex Farms, had 30,000 layers and survived into the Nineties. But the standard laying house of the current operators is around 125,000 hens.

This fall in profitability was accompanied by a general fall in prices to the consumer, allowing poultry and eggs to lose their status as luxury foods.

The vertical integration of the egg and poultry industries was a late development, occurring after all the major technological changes had been in place for years (including the development of modern broiler rearing techniques, the adoption of the Cornish Cross broiler, the use of laying cages, etc.).

By the late Fifties, poultry production had changed dramatically. Large farms and packing plants could grow birds by the tens of thousands. Chickens could be sent to slaughterhouses for butchering and processing into prepackaged commercial products to be frozen or shipped fresh to markets or wholesalers. Meat-type chickens currently grow to market weight in six to seven weeks whereas only fifty years ago it took three times as long. This is due to genetic selection and nutritional modifications (and not the use of growth hormones, which are illegal for use in poultry in the US and many other countries). Once a meat consumed only occasionally, the common availability and lower cost has made chicken a common meat product within developed nations. Growing concerns over the cholesterol content of red meat in the 1980s and 1990s further resulted in increased consumption of chicken.

Today, eggs are produced on large egg ranches on which environmental parameters are well controlled. Chickens are exposed to artificial light cycles to stimulate egg production year-round. In addition, it is a common practice to induce molting through careful manipulation of light and the amount of food they receive in order to further increase egg size and production.

On average, a chicken lays one egg a day, but not on every day of the year. This varies with the breed and time of year. In 1900, average egg production was 83 eggs per hen per year. In 2000, it was well over 300. In the United States, laying hens are butchered after their second egg laying season. In Europe, they are generally butchered after a single season. The laying period begins when the hen is about 18-20 weeks old (depending on breed and season). Males of the egg-type breeds have little commercial value at any age, and all those not used for breeding (roughly fifty percent of all egg-type chickens) are killed soon after hatching. The old hens also have little commercial value. Thus, the main sources of poultry meat 100 years ago (spring chickens and stewing hens) have both been entirely supplanted by meat-type broiler chickens.

above copied from Chicken - WAS 4.250 16:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Should be cut way down and stuff from Chicken added. WAS 4.250 16:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

List of sources and quotes found when searching for benefits
WAS 4.250 19:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) "Through seminars, workshops and demonstrations, Nkoma ADP staff taught Ester and the other members of her focus group modern farming practices like preparing fields, applying manure and planting in rows rather than scattering the seeds. Soon, group members reaped the benefits. Ester was able to increase her harvest to more than nine bags of maize per acre, which means her household has enough food each year."worldvision
 * 2) "More than 40 years of research has yet to document a single case in which antibiotic use in food animals has caused human disease due to antibiotic resistance."cgfi
 * 3) health benefits from pesticides used in industrial farming
 * 4) overview of industrial agriculture and agribusiness with pros and cons

It appears the major health benefit of industrial agriculture is the higher gross national product created by increased efficiencies. The higher GNP allows for better nutrition (no one starving is the initial health gain) and allocation of resources to other things like health care (the proportion of the population engaged in farming drops from most people to 5% or so). The health benefit of industrial agriculture is the health benefit of society having additional resources (wealth, money, products and services including educational and health). In short the health benefits are the natural consequences of wealth. But no, I did not find a quote that said so. WAS 4.250 19:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Examples of "factory farming" being used by mainstream news organizations
Here are some examples of mainstream news organizations, in the UK and U.S., using the term factory farming:


 * The Washington Post: "The largest U.S. pork supplier, Virginia-based Smithfield Foods, said yesterday that it will require its producers to phase out the practice of keeping pregnant pigs in "gestation crates" -- metal and concrete cages that animal welfare advocates consider one of the most inhumane features of large-scale factory farming."
 * CNN: "Scientists: factory farming drop could end mad cow": "United Kingdom scientists urged Europe on Monday to help farmers move away from intensive agriculture, saying the end of factory farming was the only way to kill mad cow disease." (based on a report from Reuters)
 * BBC: "In Germany, which discovered its first two cases of BSE last week, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has called for a re-think of farming policy. He told parliament that the current practice of factory farming must stop, in favour of a more consumer-friendly policy."
 * CBC: "Commissioner points to factory farming as source of contamination"
 * British House of Commons:
 * Mcleans: Nikiforuk, Andrew. "When Water Kills: Dangerous Consequences of Factory Farming in Canada." Maclean's. 113:24 (June 12, 2000): 18-21.
 * The Ecologist: O'Brien, Tim. "Factory Farming and Human Health." The Ecologist. 31:5 (June 2001 supplement): 30-4, 58-9.
 * Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy: Spira, Henry. "Less Meat, Less Misery: Reforming Factory Farms." Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy. 11 (Spring 1996): 39-44.

SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Crops

 * Webster's New Millennium dictionary calls (factory farming) "a system of large-scale industrialized and intensive agriculture that is focused on profit with animals kept indoors and restricted in mobility."
 * Where does crop production fit in this definition? --Dodo bird 11:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Crop production is part of "agriculture", and falls under "large-scale industrialized and intensive agriculture that is focused on profit". In addition, "the animals are kept indoors and restricted in mobility." So the definition covers both crops and animals. Crum375 12:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Crum375 - this it the point I've been making: the term "Factory farm" does not appear to have been used to describe crop production. If webster's attaches mention of animals, indoors and restriction of mobility: that voids the use of this term to be the all encompassing term the edits and merge have resulted. Unless you can find a reliable source that somehow voids webster's definition. As so far we only have mention of it as per what activists call things. I'll put this in a section presenting everything and then unless these are dealt with a revert and restore of the two articles is in order as this article is Original research and POV polluted.NathanLee 15:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Two examples: What is factory farming?, wisegeek.com.
 * Factory farming, America's Agriculture Authority. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 16:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That first site is essentially a blog quality of reliability site. It does not reference anything, and is just some random process for producing answers..
 * The second site is an unreferenced mirror of wikipedia's article. Try doing a search for key phrases (e.g. states "Proponents, while they do not use the term factory farming, claim that this type of concentrated farming is a useful agricultural advance:". It sounds a little too much like the wikipedia article for my liking.. And is basically a copy of the wikipedia article on the topic. We can't refer to ourselves I'm afraid and this is the problem with your changes: they start to have a ripple effect of muddying up a term. I'd ask you again if you can restore the two articles until you find some evidence to back up your (At this stage) original research which has linked these pages NathanLee 17:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As Crum said, the definition points out "large-scale industrialized and intensive agriculture that is focused on profit" - crops are part of agriculture. It then goes on to say 'with blah' - this is simply a clarification of one aspect and not the complete definition of the term. Also, as the editor below points out, factory farming = industrial agriculture as the 2 terms are pretty much synonymous.-Localzuk(talk) 19:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And as the encyclopaedia britannica disputes that:

System of modern animal farming designed to yield the most meat, milk, and eggs in the least amount of time and space possible.

The term, descriptive of standard farming practice in the U.S., is frequently used by animal-rights activists, who maintain that animal-protection measures routinely ignore farm animals. Animals are often fed growth hormones, sprayed with pesticides, and fed antibiotics to mitigate the problems of infestation and disease that are exacerbated by crowded living conditions. Chickens spend their lives crowded into small cages, often so tightly that they cannot turn around; the cages are stacked in high batteries, and the length of “day” and “night” are artificially controlled to maximize egg laying. Veal calves are virtually immobilized in narrow stalls for their entire lives. These and numerous other practices have long been decried by critics.
 * You're trying to shoehorn a term around more than it generally refers to. You're making the assumption, it's not backed up and that's Original Research. SV's references are out (as one is a mirror of the WP article) NathanLee 01:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Examples of mainstream use of "factory farming"
In case this list of examples gets lost among the very long posts here, it's worth repeating. The terms FF, intensive farming, industrial agriculture, and intensive agriculture are used interchangeably.


 * The Washington Post: "The largest U.S. pork supplier, Virginia-based Smithfield Foods, said yesterday that it will require its producers to phase out the practice of keeping pregnant pigs in "gestation crates" -- metal and concrete cages that animal welfare advocates consider one of the most inhumane features of large-scale factory farming."
 * CNN: "Scientists: factory farming drop could end mad cow": "United Kingdom scientists urged Europe on Monday to help farmers move away from intensive agriculture, saying the end of factory farming was the only way to kill mad cow disease." (based on a report from Reuters)
 * BBC: "In Germany, which discovered its first two cases of BSE last week, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has called for a re-think of farming policy. He told parliament that the current practice of factory farming must stop, in favour of a more consumer-friendly policy."
 * CBC: "Commissioner points to factory farming as source of contamination"
 * British House of Commons:
 * Mcleans: Nikiforuk, Andrew. "When Water Kills: Dangerous Consequences of Factory Farming in Canada." Maclean's. 113:24 (June 12, 2000): 18-21.
 * The Ecologist: O'Brien, Tim. "Factory Farming and Human Health." The Ecologist. 31:5 (June 2001 supplement): 30-4, 58-9.
 * Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy: Spira, Henry. "Less Meat, Less Misery: Reforming Factory Farms." Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy. 11 (Spring 1996): 39-44.

SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't looked at this issue in any detail but my first impulse is to agree with NathanLee that these terms are not synonymous since 'industrial agriculture' usually includes monocrop cultivation as well as confined animal rearing ('factory farming'). I will go and have a look at some sources. --Coroebus 10:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Google scholar search first hit: L Horrigan, RS Lawrence, P Walker - Environmental Health Perspectives, 2002 "How Sustainable Agriculture Can Address the Environmental and Human Health Harms of Industrial Agriculture" classifies "Industrial animal production...commonly called factory farms" as a subset of "Industrial Agriculture". --Coroebus 12:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's quite a useful reference. PDF available from: here

"Despite this inefficiency, livestock diets have become higher in grains and lower in grasses. The grain raised to supply feedlots (cattle) and factory farms (chickens, hogs, veal calves) is grown in intensive monocultures that stretch over thousands of acres, leading to more chemical use and exacerbating attendant problems (e.g., pesticide resistance in insects, and pollution of surface waters and aquifers by herbicides and insecticides)."

It makes a distinction between the term "feed lot" for cattle, "factory farm" for poultry, pigs, veal etc.. But I think enough other sources have referred to "factory farm" to mean animals/confined conditions etc..

It also supports the notion that Industrialised agriculture is wider than "factory farms" as it talks about crops/monocultures but also talks of the concept of regarding the farm as a factory (not the same as saying Industrial agriculture IS factory farming). "The Union of Concerned Scientists (1) said that industrial agriculture views the farm as a factory with “inputs” (such as pesticides, feed, fertilizer, and fuel) and “outputs” (corn, chickens, and so forth). The goal is to increase yield (such as bushels per acre) and decrease costs of production, usually by exploiting economies of scale. Industrial agriculture depends on expensive inputs from off the farm (e.g., pesticides and fertilizer), many of which generate wastes that harm the environment; it uses large quantities of nonrenewable fossil fuels; and it tends toward concentration of production, driving out small producers and undermining rural communities." Good find.. NathanLee 13:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Another one: In recent decades, however, industrial agriculture has increasingly separated animals from the land. More and more meat production is occurring in concentrated operations commonly called factory farms. So we've got "monoculture" style Industrial agriculture being the current trend on the plant side, factory farms/feedlots on the animal production side. I guess "monoculture intensive crop practices" would describe the current plant equivalent of factory farming (for US typical Industrial agriculture). NathanLee 14:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)