Talk:Intensive animal farming/Archive 14

BBC
BBC using "intensive farming" and "factory farming" to mean the same:

BBC again
"Intensive farming," "intensive agriculture," industrial agriculture," "factory farming," and the "modern way of agriculture" used to mean the same.

The BBC quotes Caroline Lucas, MEP, and Oliver Wolston, a farmer, using "intensive agriculture," "industrial agriculture," and "factory farming" to refer to the same phenomenon when discussing the practises that led to BSE, and the BBC headline is "Head to head: Intensive farming" and in the same intro it refers to "intensive farming" and the "modern way of agriculture."

Globalinfo.org citing industry sources

 * Sources discuss "factory farming," "industrial agriculture," "intensive farming," "Industrial-scale farms," and CAFOs in the same terms:

CNN/Reuters

 * From the U.S./UK: CNN/Reuters using "intensive agriculture," "factory farming," and "industrially farmed" to refer to the same phenomenon:

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

 * From Canada: CBC using "factory farming" and "intensive farming" to refer to the same phenomenon:

Committee for Environmental Cooperation

 * Committee for Environmental Cooperation using "intensive livestock operations" to mean "industrial-scale farms":

Chemistry and Industry

 * Chemistry and Industry uses "intensive farming" and "modern farming" to mean the same:

USA Today

 * "Factory farming" and "intensive farming" used to mean the same (CAFO also used to mean factory farm):

British government's BSE inquiry
Statement from Dr. Alan Long, Vegetarian Economy and Green Agriculture using "intensive farming" and "factory farming" to refer to the same thing. See paragraphs 6.4.2.3.1; 7.6, and 19.6. (pdf).

Intute.ac.uk
Equates "factory" and "intensive farming" :

Mark Berstein

 * "Applying PGS to these data will demonstrate that we are morally obligated to end all our factory (intensive) farming." Mark H. Bernstein, Without a Tear: Our Tragic Relationship With Animals, University of Illinois Press, 2004, p. 92, ISBN 0252071980

Brooman and Debbie Legge

 * "A major reason that animals are still reared in huge numbers in intensive farming systems is that consumer demand for meat and other animal products at the cheapest possible price remains strong. Many surveys have found that the public find factory farming practices abhorrent and would like to see them stopped. Yet, at the same time, evidence shows that roughly the same number would vote in favour of retaining an ability to buy inexpensive animal products." Simon Brooman and Debbie Legge, Law Relating To Animals, Cavendish Publishing, p. 173, ISBN 1843141299

Karl Kunkel

 * "Formed in 1981, the Farm Animal Reform Movement (FARM) claims that modern, rational, intensive farming techniques, referred to as "factory farming", are cruel to animals raised for human consumption." Karl R. Kunkel, "Factory Farming as a Social Problem", in Donileen R. Loseke & Joel Best, Social Problems: constructionist readings, Aldine Transaction, 2003, p. 101, ISBN 0202307034

Robert Garner

 * "It is in the United States, the birthplace of 'factory farming', that most remains to be done. No federal laws exist to regulate intensive farming and state anti-cruelty laws often exempt farm animals. It is clear, though, that there is much opposition to 'factory farming', or certain aspects of it, and this opposition is not restricted to radical animal rights activists." Robert Garner, Animals, Politics and Morality: Second Edition, Manchester University Press, 2005, p. 118, ISBN 0719066212

The agriculture correspondent of the Guardian, 1964

 * "Factory farming, whether we like it or not, has come to stay. The tide will not be held back, either by the humanitarian outcry of well meaning but sometimes misguided animal lovers, by the threat implicit to traditional farming methods, or by the sentimental approach to a rural way of life. In a year which has been as uneventful on the husbandry side as it has been significant in economic and political developments touching the future of food procurement, the more far-seeing would name the growth of intensive farming as the major development."

The Guardian 2003/4
"Intensive salmon farming has resulted in the spread of disease and parasites ... Intensive farming of prawns is dependent on the use of antibiotics and chemicals to kill parasites ... Grass-fed animals live in much better conditions than their cousins on intensive pig and poultry farms ... The intensive factory farming of chicken is associated with pollution ... The biggest environmental problem with intensively reared and fed pigs is faeces ... Intensive rearing is dependent on the routine use of antibiotics ... The British pig industry is currently in steep decline in the face of competition from intensive farming in other European countries. ...

"Why factory farms and mass trade make for a world where disease travels far and fast ... Although Britain has so far escaped avian flu, groups campaigning against intensive factory farming say there is an inevitability about each new panic.

The Observer
"Nor is a return to 'primitive' farming practices the only alternative to factory farming and highly intensive agriculture ... What price, for instance, should society put on the destruction of so much of our rural heritage, the loss of our water meadows and ancient hedges, the disappearance of so many songbirds? It may be impossible to calculate that sort of thing in hard cash, but much else can be quantified. There are the taxes we pay to finance farming subsidies. There is the cost of cleaning chemical pollution from our drinking water. There are the consequences for the National Health Service of factory farmers abusing antibiotics ... There is the terrible impact and vast cost of a tragedy such as BSE. And now, as I write, we are in the midst of another epidemic, foot and mouth disease. It would not be fair to say it is the direct result of intensive agriculture. But modern practices of food production and supply have enabled it to spread at a terrifying speed across the entire country. 

Examples of articles in which reliable sources use the terms "intensive," "industrial," "factory, and "modern" in DIFFERENT ways
Please add examples here of sources who are using the terms to refer to different phenomena:

Encyclopaedia britannica
Has separate articles on "factory farming" and "intensive agriculture". Factory farming:

Intensive agriculture is separate/standalone concept (see [http://www.ecifm.reading.ac.uk/intensive&extensive.htm for the full definitions):

BBC

 * "Factory farming" used in relation to cows.


 * "Factory farming" used in relation to fruit.

Seattle Times

 * "Factory farming" used in relation to cattle

Mcleans magazine
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.

Sierra Club

 * "Factory farming" discussed; used syonymously with CAFO.

Soil Association

 * History of "factory farming" discussed:

San Francisco Chronicle

 * The term "factory farming" used in relation to grape growing in Sonoma County.

Behavioral Sciences Department, Palomar College

 * Intensive farming described.

Oxford dictionary

 * "Intensive farming"

BBC (very useful source for our purposes)

 * "Intensive farming"

Point by Point
It has been stated that there are problems of policy in the recent edits I have made, but there have been no specific statements made to justify the reverts, simple reverting with needless reference to sides and personalities. Rather than continue this, I thought I would make the time to go through some changes on a point by point basis, and a few other comments. It would also be helpful to review some points of principle to see whether we have a consensus. I would prefer at the moment that Cerejota specifically answers the points so we can avoid the bear pit atmosphere, and I would also ask that they are responded to in plain English rather than shorthand terms for policy so that we can unpick what the real issues are. Obviously, anyone is free to comment, but please keep it constructive and about content, not about people. In terms of context, can we restrict discussion to things that exist since John's fresh start? Comments below will reflect that position from my point of view.

1. Is this article about the process of factory farming, or is it about the ethical debate? This question has been put recently in the talk page, but the debate has been one-sided. This edit concerns me as it suggests a point of view that the article is about an ethical debate, not about the process. I am happy to be corrected if I have misinterpreted.

2. Do you agree or disagree that even with the article being an ethical debate or only an element of the article being an ethical debate, it is important to place the facts of what the activity is neutrally and clearly so that the reader can come to their own view on the various practices?

3. I am concerned with a new accusation being made of geographic bias. Whilst I specifically only have a UK perspective, Nathan appears to have an Australian perspective, it appears other editors only have an American perspective. This is not necessarily an issue if handled appropriately. The approach to farming does appear to vary around the world. All we can do is bring our own perspective and invite a wider audience. At the moment, if there is an overly strong bias, it is the view that factory farming article is defined by the practices of the USA. Could you give some specifics of why you feel that there is some geographic bias which exceeds the normal biases on display across Wikipedia? Where do you see this as malicious intent trying to subvert Wikipedia, if at all?

4. Let's look at:''Proponents of factory farming argue that it makes food production more efficient, that the animals are looked after in state-of-the-art confinement facilities and are content, that it is needed to feed the growing global human population, and that it protects the environment. Opponents argue that it harms the environment, creates health risks, and abuses animals.'' vs.: Factory farming attracts controversy in that the advantages such as making food production more efficient, cheap and available for a growing population are balanced against harm to the environment, the health risks of the approach and the potential abuse of animals.

Both statements say roughly the same thing and can be supported by the same references. However, rather than seeking to term the debate in terms of sides, it seeks to show that there are issues to be balanced. I strongly believe this is a more appropriate approach:
 * a) The first statement assumes that there are polarised views. In fact, we can show through reference for example to DEFRA statements that groups can share the views on the facts, but come to the conclusion that the balance sways on way or another, for example based on how heavily you believe animal rights are an issue that outweigh human desires. Activists and farmers make a tiny proportion of the population. Isn't this giving undue weight to their views?
 * b) Do we believe that proponents do not acknowledge the potential harm to animals?
 * c) Is it a matter for debate that factory farming produces more foodstuff than less intensive methods?
 * d) Is it really NPOV to suggest that more food, cheaper and more available are "advantages"? It smacks of viewpoint to try and suggest otherwise.
 * e) Do proponents deny the potential for harm to the environment, abuse and whatever. No, they argue that they have these issues under control. Whether that is the case is a separate debate.
 * f) Is the second version particularly more synthetic than the first?
 * g) Is the second statement POV pushing?
 * h) Isn't the first statement pushing a POV that factory farming is an ethical issue only?

5. Compare: ''The practice has become increasingly unpopular in Europe due to a series of events associated with modern farming techniques, including outbreaks of swine fever, BSE, foot and mouth, and bird flu, together with concern over animal welfare. Gerhard Schroeder, then German Chancellor, called for an end to factory farming in 2000 in response to Europe's BSE crisis.'' with: Criticism has increased in Europe due to a series of events associated with modern farming techniques, including incidents of swine fever, BSE, foot and mouth and bird flu together with concern over animal welfare.


 * a) This is a Eurocentric view of the issue in both cases, but that is appropriate.
 * b) I take issue with the suggestion that it has become increasingly unpopular. This appears to be a statement unsupported by any citation. We can find increasing criticism by looking to citations, but synthesising this further seems to be advancing a position.
 * c) The suggestion of popularity suggests that the population as a whole have an opinion. Casting it in terms of popularity is a synthesis. We have a process which people generally take little interest in, and avoid finding out too much about. When particular practices gain publicity, then the public will be influenced. I was not particularly aware of any "We love factory farming" movement.
 * d) Where is the analysis that it is more unpopular? Statements by politicians do not form a test of popularity. For all I know, it might be the Chancellor's views that got him voted out of office.
 * e) Let's nit-pick the references (we lost one it seems):

"The German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is calling for the end of factory farming," they said.
 * i) no reference to BSE.
 * ii) It is a hearsay statement of some scientists pushing their own agenda. We do not know what is actually said.
 * iii) The BBC site says: 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. 
 * - this does not link BSE to Schroeder's views. It simply is an editorial noting of the contemporary comments. They are not "in response" as far as I can tell.
 * - it does not actually call for an end to factory farming. It is a synthesis to say so. It simply says he called for an end to the current practice.
 * - The sources are poor quality. They are high level summary, hearsay, seven years old.
 * - This is one example where I would say I would want to see the primary source to understand whether the secondary source is of sufficient quality to support the article's assertions.
 * - The extrapolation of the statement of one politician, to the whole of Europe is, erm, quite large.
 * f) So my point is that it is uncontroversial to note that with a number of problems in the farming industry (listed), it is unsurprising that public awareness and concern is being raised.
 * g) The voice of animal rights activists is being heard, that is changing opinions, hence the comment together with concern over animal welfare. Again, not particularly controversial. It introduces this concept which was not there before. Is this inappropriate?
 * h) If you go to the BSE page, you will see the detailed discussion on causes and effects of BSE. There is little that relates it to the subject matter of high density farming. I am happy that there is a vague relationship between BSE and public distrust in agricultural practises generally, but I struggle with this being used in the narrow confines of factory farming, it is animal activist FUD rather than reasoned debate.

6. There are other elements in the opening paragraph I have altered which are worth highlighting.
 * a) synthetic hormones may be used to speed growth Specifically added the may (from are) to take out the USA centric position. Hormones are banned in the EU. Do you have a problem with this?
 * b) the highest output at the lowest cost Naive and misleading point of view which fails to understand normal economics. I suggested replacing this with maximising profit, but this was seen as contentious. Counter example is egg farming in the UK where numerous farmers have converted to the more expensive free range (WAS tells me this is actually yarding) as free range eggs can be sold at a premium. Trading standards have introduced tests to check for wire marks on eggs as importers are substituting battery farm eggs for profit. In that context we can see the target is not lowest cost, nor highest output, and I conclude that it is a POV to suggest that all that matters to the nasty factory farmers is pile it high, sell it cheep[sic]!

Integrated farming systems
Integrated farming systems transcend the division of agriculture into animal versus arable. It is considered an important issue for individual farmers who are trying to maximize profitability and thus not be driven out of business by competition.Source: article EVOLUTION OF THE FARM OFFICE It is also considered both factory farming (when the term is used to mean "industrial agriculture") and sustainable agriculture (a "green" environmentally friendly method of agriculture).

Integrated farming systems (should this be in this article?) it is in Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture
An integrated farming system is a progressive biologically integrated sustainable agriculture system such as Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture or Zero waste agriculture whose implementation requires exacting knowledge of the interactions of numerous species and whose benefits include sustainability and increased profitability.

Elements of this integration can include:
 * intentionally introducing flowering plants into agricultural ecosystems to increase pollen-and nectar-resources required by natural enemies of insect pests
 * using crop rotation and cover crops to suppress nematodes in potatoes

Martha Rosenberg
Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_86 does not appear to say that AlterNet is unreliable, nor that "you might as well cite bill o'reilly for partisan spin".

Martha Rosenberg is a reliable source. She has contributed to the San Francisco Chronicle, the Providence Journal, the Chicago Tribune, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, Newsday, Arizona Republic, the New Orleans Times-Picayune, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and Consumers Digest. In addition, she is a regular health columnist on the Huffington Post, AlterNet, CounterPunch, BuzzFlash, Foodconsumer, NewsBlaze, YubaNet, Scoop, and the Epoch Times. She is the author of the book "Born With a Junk Food Deficiency: How Flaks, Quacks, and Hacks Pimp the Public Health."

And regarding the claim of partisanship, in her AlterNet piece, Rosenberg also quotes from spokespersons for the farming industry, I have included one of these in the Wikipedia article - specifically, the spokespersons' claim of reduced carbon footprint.

Regards, IjonTichy (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * NO WAY is this a reliable source. It is a sharp edged opinion piece, not even keeled reliable description or reporting.  When you bring a source to a controversial article, you should strive to bring something even keeled, solid as a rock, that nobody on either side of any issue would contest. This is an encyclopedia, not an advocacy website; we are not out to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS on Wikipedia.  I would be very happy to bring this particular source to RSN and am pretty confident it will get shot down. And as per WP:BRD you should not have added this back before we discussed this. There is no rush, no urgency here. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This is reliable description and reporting, as evidenced by the fact that the author is reliable, and by the fact that almost everything in the AlterNet piece is already contained in the WP article. That's why the AlterNet piece was only cited in support of statements that were previously contained in the WP article - no new quotes were made from the AlterNet piece into the WP article, except for the one statement quoting the claims made by the intensive animal farming industry in support of the industry (re reduced carbon footprint) ...
 * Regards, IjonTichy (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ? You introduced the source here, no? Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ach I misread what you wrote, you didn't say that the source was already there, you said that you introduced it just to support content that was already there. sorry, facepalm.   But still, that content should only be in the article at all, if it is supported by a reliable source. I am sure there are some for it; this source is just not one of them. I think it is hard to find even keeled, non-ax-grindy sources in this space. Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I now agree with you the AlterNet piece should not be used to support content within the body of the article. In my view, it may be more appropriate to add the AlterNet piece to the 'Further reading' section, under the 'criticism' sub-section (based on my reading of some of the articles and viewing the videos already in that sub-section). Thanks and regards, IjonTichy (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * :) ! Jytdog (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Further reading duplication
Does anyone else think the "Criticism..." section of "Further Reading" might have a lot of redundancy? Just my opinion, but how many vegan shock video pages are necessary? I've looked through several, and they all seem pretty much the same. Just wondering. Adv4Ag (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * agreed. Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest that as criticism of intensive animal farming is such a big issue that it needs its own main article. And BTW why can't I anonymously edit via the mobile site?  I lost access to my account and nobody will help me get it back and besides I'm doing this on mobile anyway...I just selected "request desktop site" in chrome.  - AbstractClass in exile  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.48.47 (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Erroneous, Irrelevant and Misleading Claims, and Lack of Neutrality
Concerns (now archived) about some article content were noted on the Talk page some time ago. I propose to edit or delete some of that content and some other content. Reasons for doing so are summarized below.

The article's opening paragraph contains problematic statements that are repeated elsewhere in the article. The redundancy should be eliminated, and if retained, those statements should be revised. One of these statements is "In addition, antibiotics are used to stimulate livestock growth by killing intestinal bacteria", which may misleadingly imply to some readers that this is universally characteristic of intensive animal farming. It should be clarified that such use is common, but not universal, in some kinds of intensive production in some jurisdictions where this is permitted, and that such use is prohibited in some jurisdictions, e.g. the EU and some non-EU countries, e.g. Norway. Also, although ionophores are coccidiostats, they are also classed as antibiotics, and their growth-promoting effect in cattle and other ruminants is presumably largely attributable to effects on rumen organisms, rather than intestinal bacteria (for example, see Callaway et al. 2003. Curr. Issues Intest. Microbiol. 4: 43-51). Support of a more nuanced and more accurate generalization than that in the current Wikipedia article will require reference to sources other than the document currently cited. Another statement is "Confinement at high stocking density requires the use of antibiotics and pesticides to mitigate the spread of disease and pestilence exacerbated by these crowded living conditions." This is not only an excessively sweeping generalization, but is incomplete. Depending on the kind of system involved, prevention and control of disease in intensive animal farming commonly use (where relevant) biosecurity, sanitation, surveillance, vaccinations, antibiotics, pesticides, preconditioning, low-stress management, and removal of infected animals.

Referring to intensive production, the article states: "According to the Worldwatch Institute, as of 2006 74 percent of the world's poultry, 43 percent of beef, 50 percent of pork, and 68 percent of eggs were produced this way." The author of this Worldwatch claim, D. Nierenberg, wrote several advocacy publications for the Worldwatch Institute, and the figure of 43 percent for the world's industrial beef production appears to have originated with her, due to mis-reading of one of her sources. In one of her Worldwatch publications ("Happier Meals", 2005), she attributes the figure of 43 percent for industrial beef production to de Haan, C. et al. (1997. Livestock & the environment: finding a balance.). However, de Haan et al. indicated that for beef and mutton, the global estimate was 10 percent. In an FAO study, the global figure for beef had previously been estimated at 12 percent (Seré, C. and H. Steinfeld. 1996.  World livestock production systems.  FAO). The Wikipedia article claims that the Worldwatch figures apply to 2006; however that is simply the date of the cited Worldwatch report in which the erroneous figure is repeated.

The Wikipedia article claims: "In the U.S., as of 2000 four companies produced 81 percent of cows, 73 percent of sheep, 60 percent of pigs, and 50 percent of chickens..." This erroneous claim misrepresents the original source. The cited source claims that this information is from testimony by L. Swenson before the House Judiciary Committee in September 2000. However, the official record of that testimony indicates that, with the exception of the 50 percent for "chickens", the figures are CR4 percentages for slaughter, i.e. they do not refer to animal production. Morever, the percentage for slaughter was 57, not 60; the figure of 50 percent pertained to production of broilers, not all chickens, and the figure of 81 percent pertained to beef slaughter, not cattle production or cow production or cow slaughter. (In the US in 2000, cows, including culled dairy cows, accounted for 15 percent of commercial cattle slaughter for beef.)

Under "Regulation" the article states that "Factory farms under United States laws and regulations are called concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), and in Canada they are called confined animal feeding operations (CFOs) or intensive livestock operations (ILOs). " The term "factory farm" is considered objectionable by some; rather than using it needlessly, it would seem preferable to use a more neutral term, such as "intensive animal operation". Although many intensive animal operations in the US are CAFOs, many correspond to the US regulatory term "animal feeding operation" (AFO) without meeting the more limited definition of a CAFO and without being designated as a CAFO. The CFO designation is not in general use throughout Canada. Neither CFO nor ILO appears in Canadian federal law or regulation. A CFO is called a "confined feeding operation", not a "confined animal feeding operation", and applies in the province of Alberta. The ILO designation has legal status in the province of Saskatchewan; the term is also sometimes used elsewhere in a descriptive rather than legally defined sense. Examples of somewhat analogous (but not equivalent) terms defined in laws and regulations of other Canadian provinces include "feedlot" (British Columbia and Manitoba), "parc d'engraissement" (Manitoba), and "high-density permanent outdoor confinement area" (Ontario).

The article states that "The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified certain animal feeding operations, along with many other types of industry, as point source polluters of groundwater. These operations were designated as CAFOs and subject to special anti-pollution regulation." This statement misrepresents the cited source, which nowhere refers to point source pollution of groundwater in relation to the EPA. The cited source states that "The EPA regulations that ensued from the 1972 CWA were singularly focused on the main issue of surface water protection, and the rules developed for the 'feedlots' point source category were no exception." Also, even if the reference to groundwater is corrected, the statement could mislead some readers. While the CAFO designation is applied to medium and small AFOs only if they are point sources of pollution discharged into "waters of the United States", large AFOs are designated as CAFOs regardless of whether they are point sources of such pollution. (See 40 CFR 122.23.) For purposes of the US Clean Water Act, "waters of the United States" are defined in 40 CFR 122.2 and clarified by judicial rulings. The EPA and the Corps of Engineers jointly proposed a new definition as part of a proposed rule, defeated by a vote in the House of Representatives in 2014. Neither the regulatory definition nor the defeated proposed new definition includes groundwater.

None of the content in the second paragraph under "Regulation" is specific to intensive animal farming. Such matters as transport and slaughter, although germane to the livestock industry, are not relevant to the article's topic of intensive animal farming and can be discussed in other Wikipedia articles. The comment regarding "worst abuses" needs editing, as it appears to represent an editor's opinion, and the associated content could be informatively expanded briefly to identify some reasons why some of the legislative proposals have been controversial. The third and fourth paragraphs under "Regulation" have nothing to do with regulation.

Under "Controversies and Criticisms", discussion of several issues lacks neutrality, with only one side of some controversial matters being presented. Some issues are raised without clarifying that, insofar as they occur at all in intensive animal farming, they are not characteristic of such farming or not unique to such farming. The first sentence, with regard to animal abuse, misleads by using spurious attribution. In fact, the reference cited specifically for that says nothing about animal abuse. Accordingly, that component of the sentence should be deleted, unless a suitable supporting reference can be found for it.

Part of the "Market Concentration" subsection does not seem relevant to intensive animal production. Market concentration consideration in this article seems appropriate only insofar as it affects or is affected by intensive animal farming. The subsection suggests that "Factory farming [sic] may be no more beneficial to livestock producers than traditional farming because it appears to contribute to overproduction that drives down prices." This fails to acknowledge that, because of small profit margins per unit output in some livestock and poultry production sectors, the higher production per farm and economies of scale which are often achievable with intensive production may result in higher farm income for most producers opting for intensive production. (This is consistent with USDA ERS data on net farm income in relation to gross sales for farms where the principal operator declares farming as the principal occupation, and analogous data from Statistics Canada.) The subsection also fails to acknowledge explicitly that market concentration (e.g. a high CR4 or a high HHI) tends to be a major factor resulting in low prices for farm products. (In general, because governments are often reluctant to control oligopsonies in the agri-food sector, policy intervention, if any, to address the problem of excessively low prices tends to be either through subsidies or through supply management.)  A little tweaking might make this subsection more relevant and more informative for those unfamiliar with economic considerations involved in intensive animal production.

Under "Labor", the "many violations" claim in the final paragraph is not supported by a citation. (Neither citation in the paragraph supports it.) Some of the content re undocumented labor may be based ultimately on supposition; the citations in ostensible support are allegations from advocacy sources, with no evidence indicated. The identified poultry housing requirements represent capital investment, not labor. Their description in the cited source suggests that they may be, at least in part, necessary for animal welfare. However, the way in which they are presented in the "Labor" section of this article could be interpreted as implying an inappropriate burden imposed on farmers. The subsection digresses from the topic of intensive animal farming, including information about poultry processing. Slim profit margins in intensive poultry production are invoked. However, as low profitability is a concern of farm business owners rather than hired workers, its inclusion as an issue under "Labor" seems inappropriate. Moreover, regarding financial performance of poultry farms, an impression quite different from that left by the article would be obtained from USDA Ag. Info. Bull. 748, which presents statistical data. The "forced labor" claim is ostensibly supported by the subsection's reference to Greenpeace allegations relating to a farm in Mato Grosso. Although the accompanying citation refers to p. 32 of the cited source, the cited source is only 3 pages long. Page 32 of the source that was presumably intended for citation mentions labor issues on that Mato Grosso farm only in relation to soy production, not the livestock operation. Moreover, the source provides no information to indicate that the livestock operation on this farm involves intensive animal farming. For these reasons, the implication that this Brazilian case represents a labor issue in intensive livestock farming can be considered misleading.

In the "Human health impact" subsection, the article raises the topic of pesticide bioaccumation. One source cited in ostensible support of the statement is an advocacy website which simply makes the bioaccumulation claim, citing a research publication involving DDT residues and other organochlorine residues in animal feed in a region of India. However, research described in the cited publication found that, with few exceptions, residue levels in feed in that part of India were within safe limits. Relevant North American information from CFIA and US NRP residue analysis of foods is not mentioned, and acknowledgment of a CFIA statement regarding bioaccumulation would be an informative addition.

The important issue of antimicrobial use in intensive animal production and its implications for human health is raised without reference to regulatory limitations, or to judicious use of antimicrobials in livestock production, or to any of several broad reviews on the subject, all of which address health concerns associated with antimicrobial resistance. Some article comments about MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) are problematic. [For example, article comments re MRSA in swine might be interpreted as implying that antimicrobial use in intensive swine production is implicated in the findings of Khanna et al. However, Khanna et al. note that MRSA is found in horses, dogs and cats, i.e. animals not subject to intensive production, and their findings with regard to swine do not provide evidence that MRSA in swine is causally associated with intensive production systems or with agricultural use of antimicrobials. Also, they do not indicate whether their own sampling involved farms characterized by intensive swine production. The Wikipedia article claims that "A second study revealed that 81% of Dutch pig farms had pigs with MRSA..." However, the cited paper, by de Neeling et al., does not support this claim, as sampling was done at slaughterhouses and the study authors note that it was likely that the number of positive groups that had originated on different farms was increased by MRSA transmission at slaughterhouse lairages, i.e. it is likely that fewer than 81 % of the Dutch pig farms had pigs with MRSA. Also, the study authors do not indicate whether intensive production practices were used at any of the farms from which the pigs came, and they note that there were several possible vectors; the occurrences could not be attributed to antimicrobial use. The cited Tgen study of Staphylococcus aureus in foods did not determine or even estimate the extent to which samples represented intensive production.] Because none of the article's MRSA content is found to be definitely related to intensive animal farming, without acknowledgment of that lack of connection, its inclusion in this article is misleading. This content could be wholly replaced by information relating to MRSA in intensive animal farming, e.g from Weese and the European Food Safety Authority. In addition, concern regarding antimicrobial-resistant Campylobacter and Salmonella in food animals (including those commonly subject to intensive production) could be noted. The subsection states: "Furthermore, in 2006 the European Union banned all drugs for livestock that were used for growth promotion purposes.  As a result of these bans, the levels of antibiotic resistance in animal products and within the human population showed a decrease", citing two references. One of these is a news report which does not claim that the level of antibiotic resistance in the human population showed a decrease. The other source does make such a claim, citing a source which makes such a claim. However, although that source cites two scientific papers for the claim, those papers do not support the claim, providing no information regarding trends in the human population resulting from the ban. Those two papers deal with antimicrobial resistance in Enterococcus spp. in certain farm animals in Denmark, where a ban on non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in farm animals took effect in 2000. Danish data are of particular interest not only because of the time period over which ban effects might be seen, but also because of the comprehensive monitoring under DANMAP. Data from DANMAP 2012 show fluctuations, rather than decreases, in antibiotic resistance for some microbial species sampled from humans over recent years in Denmark since the ban there took effect, and data show pronounced increases, rather than decreases, in antibiotic resistance for some other species sampled from humans. The data do not support a claim that antibiotic resistance in microbes sampled from the human population is showing a decrease as a result of the ban.

The subsection states "In the European Union, growth hormones are banned on the basis that there is no way of determining a safe level." There is no acknowledgment of other positions in the controversies regarding hormone use. In 1998, the WTO ruled that the EC ban violated trade agreements and was not based on risk assessment. Following that ruling, an EC Scientific Committee in 1999 concluded that a threshold level [in relation to safety] could not be established, although some scientific committees established by the EC prior to the WTO ruling (e.g. the Lamming Committee) had found no scientific basis for a ban. In contrast to the EC position, acceptable daily intake levels for various growth-promoting hormones have been established by JECFA (FAO/WHO Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives), and the positions taken by Health Canada, the US FDA and Australia's DHA are extremely different from that which the EC adopted after the WTO ruling. Those other positions could be summarized briefly in the Wikipedia article. The subsection states "The UK has stated that in the event of the EU raising the ban at some future date, to comply with a precautionary approach, it would only consider the introduction of specific hormones, proven on a case by case basis". If this is worth mentioning, it may also be appropriate to mention that such agencies as the US FDA and Health Canada approve specific growth-promoting hormones (and other pharmaceuticals) only on a case-by-case basis. It could also be noted that the UK (FSA) position is based on a report which concluded that there is not a scientific basis for a generic ban on the use of growth-promoting hormones.

The subsection states: "According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), farms on which animals are intensively reared can cause adverse health reactions in farm workers. Workers may develop acute and chronic lung disease, musculoskeletal injuries, and may catch infections that transmit from animals to human beings (such as tuberculosis).[82]"  The cited source identifies such issues as potential (i.e. not necessarily actual) adverse health effects, and notes that "The lack of health effects clearly associated with CAFOs makes regulatory authorities reticent to pass laws restricting CAFO development.  The panel will discuss the lack of adverse health effects in many studies..." Thus the Wikipedia statement appears misleading relative to content of the source cited in its ostensible support. Moreover, attribution to the CDC appears spurious - the cited source is a NEPH conference abstract on the CDC website; it is not a statement by the CDC. In some jurisdictions, several of the potential issues are avoided or minimized by adherence to regulatory requirements. Regulatory constraints in workplace health and safety matters are not always limited to situations involving hired workers. For example, in the United Kingdom, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 places duties not only on employer and employee, but also on the self-employed, and several regulations pursuant to the Act are applicable in intensive animal production. However, in many jurisdictions, family farms without hired employees are not required to establish formal safety programs, whereas such programs, including relevant health and safety training and provision of equipment for health protection and safety, tend to be required in operations with hired workers, which would include many intensive operations with large numbers of animals. It is important to take care to avoid giving an impression that health and safety issues are more characteristic of intensive animal farming than of other animal farming unless there is issue-specific supporting evidence. In many cases, it will be appropriate to identify the specific commodity sector involved, as (for example) some issues relating to intensive poultry farming are unlikely to resemble those associated with intensive dairy farming. Although musculoskeletal injuries do occur among workers in some kinds of livestock operations (e.g. injuries involving equipment or animals, and injuries associated with slips, trips and falls), available US statistics on such injuries are not categorized according to intensity of the livestock operation. However, there are reviews suggestive of greater frequency of certain respiratory problems found among some workers in certain kinds of intensive animal operations, notably in confined swine production (Cole et al. 2000) and intensive poultry production (Von Essen and Donham 1999). Such health issues are either eliminated or materially reduced with adoption of various protective measures recommended by university extension agencies (e.g. that of the University of Missouri - Columbia), government agencies (e.g.  the National Ag Safety Database, funded by CDC/NIOSH in the US; provincial agencies in Canada, e.g. Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development), and others. It may be of interest to note that, while acknowledging that some hazards exist that can cause respiratory problems for workers in confined poultry production and citing a publication which identifies protective measures that address such hazards, the Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety (2005) noted that "Analysis of Australian workers' compensation data did not reveal any evidence of health effects among poultry industry workers associated with zoonoses or respiratory disease". These several considerations arguably contribute to a perspective somewhat different from that promoted by the Wikipedia article. Some content of the "Human health impact" subsection is wholly reliant on citation of advocacy claims which had not been accompanied by citation of supporting evidence. If such content is to be retained, it would be appropriate to cite supporting evidence for it.

In the "Animal welfare" subsection, failure to identify several welfare benefits of intensive animal production is a serious omission, adding to perception of neutrality issues in the article. To avoid excessive length while including documented reference to welfare benefits, the present content of this section could be condensed while retaining acknowledgment of actual welfare issues. (Currently there is some redundancy and some subsection content is unrelated to welfare.) References can be added for documentation of some identified welfare issues for which no citations have been given. The "Environmental Impact" subsection also lacks neutrality, listing some important environmental problems, but omitting listing of environmental benefits of intensive animal production. Also, the list of adverse environmental impacts includes items relating to crop production, rather than being focused on intensive animal farming. I would propose briefly summarizing some US EPA statistical data regarding industry non-compliance with environmental regulations (in the Regulation section), as such information would give a reader a basis for inferring whether some of the environmental issues mentioned are rare, common or pervasive, and for comparison with environmental performance of other industries.

Under "Further reading", the "Commissions assessing industrial agriculture " category is problematic. Two of the three entries are not commissions. One is simply a book regarding animal law, with extremely little content specifically related to industrial agriculture. Another is an 18-page paper in which nearly all content pertaining to industrial agriculture is limited to just two paragraphs. The third entry is actually a Pew commission, misleadingly described as a "National" commission. Considering that commission's report content (which omitted substantive examination of positive aspects of intensive livestock production) it would more appropriately be listed under the "Criticism of factory farming" heading (which should be renamed). The "Further reading" section is heavily weighted to the latter category. There is no mention of readings produced by the Animal Agriculture Alliance, which provided relevant information largely ignored in the Pew commission's report. Readings from universities and other bodies lacking an advocacy agenda seem under-represented. For example, there is no reference to scholarly analyses exploring the history of viewpoints regarding intensive animal farming, e.g. the analysis by D. Fraser (2005) in an FAO publication.

The "See Also" list includes several links lacking direct relationship (or in some cases, any relationship) to intensive animal farming (such as Environmental Vegetarianism, Controlled Atmosphere Killing, the biography of a turkey farmer, Humane Slaughter Act, some food companies, System of Rice Intensification, and a List of United States Foodborne Disease Outbreaks). The list also duplicates several links provided in the "Agriculture" box near the head of the article (Agribusiness, Organic farming, Permaculture). Unless there is good reason for listing links to pages unrelated to the article topic under "See also", and unless there is good reason for duplication of links, several of these could be deleted. Schafhirt (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Schafhirt, I'm always appreciative when someone can generate a lot of content based discussion, but WP:TLDR is a bit of a problem here (I've run into it myself when having to deal with a large amount of content in one go too). Could you at least bold or bullet the actual edits you are proposing so we can get a better idea about what you are actually looking for? Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Intensive animal farming equals factory farming? Not!
Factory farming is not the same as intensive farming, it is simply one of many types of intensive farming. Managed intensive rotational grazing and Holistic managed planned grazing being good examples of intensive animal husbandry that is the antithesis of factory farming. I recommend the best solution to the page is simply change the title to factory farming or some such and forget even trying to pretend the only type of intensive farming of animals is the factory farming model. Otherwise there is simply too much of a rewrite needed. Then go back to the intensive farming page, and write in summary form short paragraphs directing to the many various types, with factory farming of animals just one type of intensive agriculture.Redddbaron (talk) 09:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Controversy section
I recently removed this source that was recently added by C.J. Griffin. It was readded citing WP:RS. The reason I removed it was more of a undue weight issue although it may not be a reliable source either depending on content. There are factual claims being made here, and Rolling Stone definitely would not be reliable source in this topic (CBC was removed because it's not reliable for the claims either as a news source). Rolling Stone is an entertainment magazine, and wouldn't necessarily have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy here. However, the main issue comes up in determining weight, especially on sensational type pieces (all the pictures and blood give that away even before reading the text). We shouldn't be giving credence to such sources by listing them on Wikipedia, but reach for better more reliable sources instead. Part of that is because we need to be wary of WP:FRINGE content and sources in a topic like this. In the end though, the source isn't really adding information to the article.

Now, a larger question to pose, is what exactly is intended with this sentence in question? If it's statement of fact about the things certain groups think, it's probably better to just delete the sentence and let the rest of the article explain facts. That's the standpoint the sourcing currently seems to be getting at. If we're going to mention opinions though, the bar is a little lower for what is consider a reliable source on that, and the sentence would need to be reworked a bit to stress opinions are being stated. In that case, we want to avoid making a source appear legitimate for other information when it is only being used to document the opinion, but we still need to follow WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE to assign due weight to those viewpoints as well. Some of the current sources aren't neccesarily from proponents or opponents either, so that further confounds what's intended with the current wording. Statements of opinion can get sloppy because of this, so this would require some careful content crafting. So, what direction is this sentence trying to go? The path forward should clear up quite a bit if that can be figured out. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Image

 * In this dif, added the following to the article:
 * i removed it in this dif, with edit note "unsourced, POV caption"
 * in this dif, restored it, with no edit note.
 * i removed it again, with edit note "no reason given to restore. again, caption is unsourced and POV. please discuss on Talk. thanks)".  So here is a talk discussion.  Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Labor section: problematic content
The Labor section states: “Many illegal immigrants risk their lives trying to get in the United States to work for factory farms. An estimated one-quarter to one-half of all factory farm workers are illegal immigrants. These illegal immigrants are not taking up jobs for Americans thought because no one wants to work for the factory farms. (109)” No supporting reference is given for the first sentence. (Reference 109 does not support it.) The cited reference (109) states:  “Of the roughly one million farm workers in the United States, most are immigrants, and an estimated one-quarter to one-half of them are illegal.”  There is no indication that this range of estimates applies to “factory farm” workers, and as the cited reference is otherwise concerned with illegal workers in crop production, there is no indication that the estimates are relevant to the Wikipedia article topic of intensive animal production. The third quoted sentence is not supported at all by the reference cited for it. Accordingly the quoted content should be deleted entirely. Schafhirt (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Intensive animal farming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100703084247/http://www.hsus.org/farm/resources/research/practices/gestation_crates.html to http://www.hsus.org/farm/resources/research/practices/gestation_crates.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 one external links on Intensive animal farming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080227150524/http://www.kt.iger.bbsrc.ac.uk/FACT%20sheet%20PDF%20files/kt32.pdf to http://www.kt.iger.bbsrc.ac.uk/FACT%20sheet%20PDF%20files/kt32.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090221050856/http://www.defra.gov.uk:80/news/2007/070508b.htm to http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2007/070508b.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100703084247/http://www.hsus.org/farm/resources/research/practices/gestation_crates.html to http://www.hsus.org/farm/resources/research/practices/gestation_crates.html#003
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071223155956/http://www.farmsanctuary.org:80/campaign/gestation_evidence.htm to http://www.farmsanctuary.org/campaign/gestation_evidence.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080118025806/http://www.nrcs.usda.gov:80/Technical/land/pubs/eip_pap.html to http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Technical/land/pubs/eip_pap.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090605073023/http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu:80/facts-slides-self/core-tutorial/module06/index.html to http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/facts-slides-self/core-tutorial/module06/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100831063238/http://www.nrdc.org:80/water/pollution/factor/stark.asp to http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/factor/stark.asp

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Intensive animal farming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131103174426/http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org:8080/Plone/food/factoryfarms/FoodSafetyFactoryFarms.pdf to http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org:8080/Plone/food/factoryfarms/FoodSafetyFactoryFarms.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110724163759/https://mrsa.rivm.nl/flash/Publicatie%20over%20MRSA%20bij%20varkens%20in%20slachthuizen.pdf to https://mrsa.rivm.nl/flash/Publicatie%20over%20MRSA%20bij%20varkens%20in%20slachthuizen.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Possible change to lead sentence
Hello, all!

I'd like to discuss possibly changing the lead sentence slightly to more accurately reflect the usage of some of the terminology. This phrase "...also called factory farming, is a modern form of intensive farming that..." is really rather insulting to farmers, with the possible exception of some of the smaller producers. I'd like to discuss adding the words "by opponents of the practice" right after the words "factory farming".

I'll admit readily I can't find any real sources that indicate it's actually incorrect to call it this. Even Merriam-Webster makes no real distinction. Please see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/factory%20farm. However, to most farmers it would be roughly equivalent to calling law enforcement officers "pigs" (sorry for the 1960s protest reference). Additionally, while there is a Wikipedia page for the "N" word, I don't see articles actually using the word in reference to people. Why is it okay to insult farmers just because there are so much fewer of them than there used to be?

If approved, the new lead sentence would read: "Intensive animal farming or industrial livestock production, also called factory farming by opponents of the practice, is a modern form of intensive farming that refers to the keeping of livestock, such as cattle, poultry (including in "battery cages") and fish at higher stocking densities than is usually the case with other forms of animal agriculture—a practice typical in industrial farming by agribusinesses."

I'm not too sure about the idea of making a somewhat long sentence even longer, but perhaps someone else has an idea on how to deal with that. I'm not going to make the change until there is some feedback here. Thanks! Adv4Ag (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I know I said I'd wait till there was some additional comment, but after a week with no comment at all, I decided to just go ahead and try it. Any and all comments are still welcome.  Oh, and if anyone has any ideas on how to make the sentence possibly more concise, I'm all ears!  Thanks!  Adv4Ag (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Intensive animal farming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040722232232/http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/publications/hpanel.pdf to http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/publications/hpanel.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100521115210/http://www.umaine.edu/livestock/Publications/sea_lice_bullets.htm to http://www.umaine.edu/livestock/Publications/sea_lice_bullets.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020618151910/http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/land/pubs/eip_pap.html to http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Technical/land/pubs/eip_pap.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Intensive animal farming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131116060714/http://www.unsystem.org/SCN/archives/scnnews21/ch04.htm to http://www.unsystem.org/SCN/archives/scnnews21/ch04.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130522231342/http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/oldcomm4/out17_en.html to http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/oldcomm4/out17_en.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930153810/http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/commondata/105385/rebuildag_908097.pdf to http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/commondata/105385/rebuildag_908097.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131116060714/http://www.unsystem.org/SCN/archives/scnnews21/ch04.htm to http://www.unsystem.org/SCN/archives/scnnews21/ch04.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130522231342/http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/oldcomm4/out17_en.html to http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/oldcomm4/out17_en.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070611011316/http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/science/ahaw/ahaw_opinions/831.html to http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/science/ahaw/ahaw_opinions/831.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103222718/http://www.fawc.org.uk/Default.htm to http://www.fawc.org.uk/default.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080116044156/http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article3307570.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article3307570.ece
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120310202421/http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/25191 to http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/25191
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100609205608/http://www.btny.purdue.edu/Pubs/PPP/PPP-70.pdf to http://www.btny.purdue.edu/Pubs/PPP/PPP-70.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523190228/http://ec.europa.eu/research/agriculture/projects_showcase09_en.htm to http://ec.europa.eu/research/agriculture/projects_showcase09_en.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.mrsa-net.nl/de/files/file-bron-ant-10055-0-Khanna.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303193545/http://www.awionline.org/pubs/Quarterly/summer2001/hsaintroduced.htm to http://www.awionline.org/pubs/Quarterly/summer2001/hsaintroduced.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)