Talk:Sugar Mountain Farm/Archive 1

New article
''Many simple but effective low cost, low input tools and techniques have been invented by Jeffries at Sugar Mountain Farm and shared through his writings in articles both in print and on the web. One example is the chain grabber for Baler round bales. Jeffries has written many articles online and in print detailing the simple methods, ways and stories from their family farm. Many of these articles are available on Jeffries blog. Sugar Mountain Farm has been featured in a number of articles in both national and state newspapers and magazines as exemplary sustainable agriculture and was recently chosen as a finalist in the Gallo Family Awards contest.
 * Note that above section is from author, not me. I wikified the article a bit and removed the unreliable sources. Blogs and youtube are not reliable resources.-- RyRy5 ( talk  ♠  Review ) 22:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note I would like to content that blogs and youtube while they may not have been considered reliable sources of information in the past may become that in the future as people self-publish research on the web which is then able to be be peer reviewed in-situ. There was a time when Wikipedia as was looked down on as unreliable. Times change. I do a lot of research on our farm. I have long been a scientist and inventor. My blog happens to be an easy way to get the information to other people so they can use it. That is part of the purpose of research. My apologies if this isn't formatted properly - I'm just getting the hang of the formatting grammar and syntax so no, this is not properly formatted or pretty. One will improve.-Pubwvj 12:43, 01 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note Added more citations, references to newspaper articles, TV, etc local, state, regional and national coverage of Sugar Mountain Farm. Pubwvj (talk) 04:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Citations Added
Citations to newspapers, magazines and TV media added 20100824.

-User:pubwvj (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Boar taint
This article references unaccessible "personal email communications" as one of the cites for the boar taint, and then points to the farms blog page, an unreliable source. There are no references to boar taint other than the owner of the farm claiming to have done work in this area. No mention by any animal breeding researchers, no industry notice... nothing but the claim from the primary source.

I'm open to any reliable source for this. But I don't see any. I believe that the boar taint section should either be supported or removed.

Bruceki (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Personal communications are often cited in research. Citation is given referring to the researcher. All the other documents cited are available on the web. A single "personal communications" citation does not warrant removal. This information and technical advances are important in swine farming and this farm is a leader in field application of this research as well as advancing this research which can lead to more humane raising of pigs by eliminating surgical castration which is normally done without anesthesia. Pubwvj (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Private communication that is non-verfiable is not a trusted source. See WP:SOURCE Can you produce this correspondence or show it has been published somewhere other than the farms own website?  See WP:V
 * And please refrain from characterising edits as vandalism, by me or anyone else.  Your own edits show that the links were both incorect and broken.  See WP:PROVEIT
 * The elimination of boar taint from this herd qualifies as an exceptional claim; industry is devoting millions of dollars towards this issue. Has there been any publications that cite this work, or reference it, or in any way mention it?  SEE WP:REDFLAG  The closest thing in this is a quote from the owner of the farm saying that he takes biopsies to test for boar taint but that's not at all the same thing as saying that either this farm has been successful in removing boar taint or that any action taken by this farm was effective in any way to combat boar taint.  In fact, boar taint may not have been present in this herd when it was established, which is more likely if it isn't present today.  Only the owner of this farm claims to have accomplished this.   See WP:PRIMARYBruceki (talk) 21:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Sugar Mountain Farm has sold the meat from thousands of boars to customers and tens of thousands of consumers over a period of the past decade and continues to do so with weekly sales. If there were a problem with boar taint then consumers would not keep buying. This market proof establishes that there is no problem with boar taint in the farm's herds.Pubwvj (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * How do you know the sales from this farm, or the customer reaction from those sales? Bruceki (talk) 02:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * See customer reactions in the form of quotes and letters from customers. Pubwvj (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a blog/website operated by the owner of the farm, a primary source. It is not a reliable source Bruceki (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The assertion made here is that some action on the farms part removed boar taint from their herd. No reliable source says either that the herd had boar taint to begin with, or that any action on the part of the farm removed boar taint from the herd. If you have any reliable source that mentions this I'm open to hearing it and you should cite it. Barring that, I think that the mentions of this should be removed from this entry. Bruceki (talk) 02:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The assertion is proven in the market place - Sugar Mountain Farm has been been selling the meat from thousands of intact a.k.a. not castrated boars for years. Half of the Sugar Mountain Farm pigs are boars and they are not castrated. Please stop inserting your opinions and false statements on the talk page. Use your blog for that.Pubwvj (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "the market place" is not a reliable source. Do you have any other source for this information other than the farmers statements themselves?  Bruceki (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Much of the production of this farm is made into high-processed meat products that would mask boar taint to begin with. Bruceki (talk) 02:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Bruceki you are making false statements about things you do not even know about because you don't have anything to do with it, nor do you buy it or consume it. You're a farmer on the opposite coast who's on a vendetta, spreading false information. The fact is that the vast majority of the pork from Sugar Mountain Farm goes to fresh raw pork like chops, belly, ribs, trotters, etc. . Hot dogs only represent about 5% of Sugar Mountain Farm pork and since half the pigs are boars your statement is patently absurd as well as false. Keep your agenda and falsifications on your blog and stop spreading lies.Pubwvj (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what percentage of their production is processed meats. Neither do you, unless you have a source that I haven't found yet.  How do you know this information -- where is it published or where did you obtain it?Bruceki (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

pubwvj: I have added "citation needed" and an explanation for each item that appears to be unsupported in this entry. I think you should refrain from adding to this entry until we reach an agreement on what a reliable source is, and support some of the statements made here. If you would like I will ask for a third opinion on this from a disinterested wiki editor on this topic. Would you be agreeable to that? Bruceki (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

pubwvj: You deleted this entire talk entry. I am attempting to reach a consensus here about the topic at hand, and your deletion does not help that. Please do not delete items from the talk page. I am going to ask you formally if you would agree to get a 3rd opinion from other wiki editors here. it is non-binding, and will be an editor that has no connection to this topic or either of us. The opinion is non-binding -- if you disagree with it you are not required to do anything, but it would provide some distance from this topic that you apparently care very much about. Bruceki (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I deleted it because you are putting lies here on the Talk page. You border on, or perhaps are past, libel. This type of material belongs on your blog, at best. You have been repeatedly warned not to do this sort of edit on Wiki.Pubwvj (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Pubwvj: Please refrain from personal attacks and stick to the subject at hand.  Bruceki (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Since this is a disagreement between two editors, Please look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion. 3O is non-binding - and you may find it useful to have an uninvolved editors opinion. Will you agree to that? You can answer yes or no, but I do request the courtesy of an answer Bruceki (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I've already involved a third party. They have acted as the history shows. They gave their opinion on the situation. Accordingly I have undone your last defacement per Identifying_and_using_primary_and_secondary_sources which allows the use of primary source for factual statements of practices. "source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities." Please stop defacing this page. Keep your opinions on your blog per WP:SOAPBOX Pubwvj (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The history for revisions shows several references that were removed by user:OhNoItsJamie ; there is no backup for the claims in this entry that this farm had boar taint and then eliminated it. The only source for that information are statements by the farm owner/operator on his personal blog and in interviews with this farm owner.  It is just as likely that they started without it, or cannot detect it reliably, or any number of other reasons.  Please provide a link, cite or reference that says that any action by this farm has had any effect on boar taint.  Please refer to WP:SOURCE, specifically the portion that refers to the use of primary sources, and I quote "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. "  There appear to be no secondary sources that support any of these claims.

With respect to involving a third party, you seem to be agreeable to hearing a third parties opinion, so I will ask that we involve a 3rd party opinion per WP:3O Bruceki (talk) 01:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, Bruceki. I have not agreed to anything with you. After your years of abuse I am not making any agreements with you. You are posting lies and other false information as well as defacing this page and you've done similar things on other pages. You've been warned not to do that as shown in your talk page. Stop it.Pubwvj (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How do you propose we resolve this issue, then? It's not appropriate to do this via hourly edit wars.  Please consider using some method of conflict resolution.  I'll point out that in a recent example where I asked for a third opinion the opinion was contrary to my view and in the other editors favor.  It's not my mechanism here -- it's a standard way to resolve issues on wiki.  Bruceki (talk) 06:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Pubwvj is the owner and operator of sugar mountain farms, per his wiki user page. I am unclear on what this does to the discussion here; I'm relatively new to wiki.  It may be COI, but I'm fine discussing the content here even if he might have one.   Bruceki (talk) 06:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Bruce the solution is you need to stop your attacks and vandalism. You are the problem. You have a long history of attacking me. You also have a long history of attacking other people. You're a cyberbully. This page has a long standing with the Wiki Agriculture and Food and Drink. This page has supporting citations and has been approved by User:Ohnoitsjamie who has previously given you warnings not to use Wiki as your soap box and that what you're doing should be kept to your blog. See your own Talk page for details. Stop defacing the page and stop adding your false statements here on the Talk page. Pubwvj (talk) 10:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion
I have come here due to the posting at third opinion. Would you please post the precise text at issue and the sources used to support it. I will note that after reading through the discussion here that I believe that anything relating to 'boar taint' at a specific farm is a contentious claim requiring independent, third party reliable sources. personal communications (Which can only possibly be used as sources through communication with WP:OTRS in very limited cased, of which this is not one.), blogs and self published material are not proper sources for such claims per Wikipedia policy. Also, I noticed a claim that one of the editors here is associated with the subject of this article. Please note our policies on conflict of interest as well as WP:Terms of service. An editor with a declared COI should only be editing the talk page to request edits for other editors to scrutinize and choose to make or not to make they should not be making direct edits to the article. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 11:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC) I have previously added citations to support each point from independent third parties published sources. User:Ohnoitsjamie has previously checked these and made some rewordings to help with tone as shown in the history. The citations were added because of requests for citations - many of those requests by BruceKi. I have worked to answer and cite for each point. Our farm is a leader in the pastured pig movement demonstrating that pigs can be raised outdoors with managed rotational grazing. Not castration is one of the practices we do at our farm which is why it is discussed in the practices. There is a developing move towards eliminating castration. It will likely become mandatory and farms need to develop ways of managing without castration. This is why I developed the biopsy method of testing as well why we've done selective breeding and management to eliminate castration on our farm. Other farms have benefited from following our lead on that humane raising issue which is why it is listed in the practices section. This page has a long history on Wiki since 2008 and has been recognized by both the Agriculture and the Food and Drink as noted above. If there are specific things that need further attention please let me know. I want the page to be good and right. I appreciate your assistance in improving it.
 * Bruceki has a major conflict of interest because he has been attacking me personally and Sugar Mountain Farm for years. Bruceki has a long history of attacking other farmers on his blog and in forums. I would request that he not be allowed to edit on this page. User:Ohnoitsjamie has already reviewed the edits as an independent third party and gone over the issues and has warned User:Bruceki before about soapboxing and other issues related to Bruceki's edits on this page and on another page. Pubwvj (talk) 12:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * To be blunt I am totally uninterested in past conflict here and I request that you both put that aside and address the sources and text only. Right now the article reads like a resume for Walter Jeffries rather than an article on Sugar Mountain Farm and it suffers from citation overload. Does Walter Jeffries have any of his material published in peer reviewed journals? Is there any peer reviewed literature discussing his techniques? As far as your ongoing conflict with  my suggestion is you take it up at WP:ANI or the conflict of interest noticeboard. Please quote the text in dispute and the sources you believe support it so the discussion can be consolidated in this thread. Thank you. Jbh (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I mention BruceKi's ongoing attacks and long history of attacks against Sugar Mountain Farm and me because the issue of COI was raised. He has a COI as a long time stalker. His history is relevant if he's going to be here on the Talk page and if he's going to make edits. Because of his COI I would like him to step out of this. He has previously been warned by User:Ohnoitsjamie for his soap boxing and edits on this page and another page.
 * Here is the problem and I will be very blunt. As you say this is about your farm that you wrote. That is not Wikipedia best practices. It is not prohibited but it is frowned on and the article and sources will be subject to extra scrutiny. Since the claims being made have a direct commercial impact on your farm self published sources are not acceptable. This goes double for claims that are unpublished in scientific literature on a subject studied and discussed in the scientific literature, it is what we call a contentious claim and those need very good sourcing. While what you claim may be true Wikipedia will not write about it until someone else writes about it. About the best that can be done is note the claim as a quote but not in Wikipedia's voice. That is fundamental Wikipedia policy. Right now the article reads more like a press release or advertisement than an encyclopedia article. Since you have a commercial interest in the subject of the article as well as this anti-taint process you should not be editing this article per out COI guidelines. What you describe of the behavior of may or may not be a COI issue but you need to take that up at WP:COIN not argue about it on the talk page. I see a lot of editing here to make the article reflect what reliable sources say as opposed to repeating the claims of the owner. If you have any third party published material on the anti-taint research/techniques please post them here what I have seen in the article are, in my opinion, not WP:RS for the claims being made. Jbh (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Jbh. Thank you for taking the time to explain. I have tried to have independent third party citations for each point. Here is an example and here is another example that are published independent third party articles about the taint topic which specifically mention our farm's work in this area. I also gave citations to the overall issues in the industry to introduce the topic.   which all explain how important this topic is for humane raising, for pig farmers, ultimately for consumers and how castration is being phased out in Europe. The first of those publications talk about the topic and Sugar Mountain Farm. The last of those publications talk about the overall issue. I did not write or influence the writing of any of those other than being interviewed by the writers who had come to me because of our farm's work in the issue of eliminating castration in pigs so these are independent sources. How can I further improve this article? Pubwvj (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. The last four are good for talking about the issue of taint but this is not an article on taint. While it may be your interest there is not enough coverage in RS for anything other than a brief mention that the owner of the farm is trying to address the problem. The first two are not even close to sufficient to establish that what is being done has anything other than marketing relevance. A Tale of Two Testes: The Boar Taint That Ain’t

describes the material as "Somewhat anecdotal" and is nothing but a passing mention of about forty-five words. Is the GMO Debate Aimed at Pig Testicles? can only be used to say Jefferies is doing some "research" at Sugar Mountain Farm and that Jefferies has "become something of a connoisseur of taint tastes." Again nothing in this says anything about the notability of whatever SMF is doing, whether it actually works, whether it is being taken seriously by researchers. Sources must directly support the claims being made and these do not. An article about taint may be interesting to write and I think you could write a good one. The notability of SMF seems to be their sustainable farming techniques, I have not read those sources but they might support a more detailed section than the one there now. As it stands the Principles section is an essay it does not really talk about SLM. The general stuff should be trimmed and whatever SMF is doing that got them the press coverage should be talked about. The publications section seems more about Jeffries than SMF so that should be trimmed. The 'mentioned in' should either say why SMF was mentioned if it is notable or cut if not. I have BOLDly edited the material related to taint and removed the material I think is unsupported. Jbh (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your feedback. I'll work on this. On your recent edit of Guardian to Guard dogs I would like to bring to your attention that in livestock farming they are known as Livestock Guardian Dogs which distinguishes from Guard Dogs such as those used to guard buildings, etc. Thus I would suggest that the word be undone back to Guardian since that is the terminology. Here is the Wiki page on LGDs "A livestock guardian dog (LGD) is a type of pastoral dog bred for the purpose of protecting livestock from predators."


 * Thank you, I did not know that. I reverted my edit. Jbh (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a farming terminology thing so perfectly understandable. In other fields there are "guard" dogs so the words are very similar. Thank you for revising it back.Pubwvj (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your 3O. The basic issue I've got with the content on boar taint is that this is an industry-wide problem and there are many people researching it in many different countries; there is a lot of interest in solving this problem. I'm fine with concept that SMF came up with something that worked to reduce or eliminate it (WP:EXCEPTIONAL), but other than direct statements from the farm operators to a generally non-industry press I haven't seen anything in the way of reliable sources to support that. No peer review, no mention in industry, nothing. I also don't see any reliable source that says that SMF had a problem with boar taint in the first place. They may indeed have found something, they may have had a problem with it. WP:PROVEIT Bruceki (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

In the current revision there's a problematic cite to private communications that are not verifiable, and a link to the farms own website/blog that also does not show whatever was said in the private email. I don't think that private email is an acceptable source. Bruceki (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I have cut out a lot of the claims that were in the article earlier. Right now, I think (There could be some implications I do not get. I am not familiar with the intricacies of the taint problem or farming in general), there are no claims that what they are doing works only that they are doing something. The 'Personal Email' is also a web page so I am inclined to consider it just like any other SPS. All it is supporting is Sugar Mountain Farm has been working on eliminating boar taint from the farm's herds for over a decade through generations of selecting for low aggression, feeding a high fiber diet, extensive pasture management and biopsy testing of adult boars in the farm's breeding program which is ABOUTSELF. All it says is what they do but does not claim a result. I agree that to claim any results or effectiveness for their techniques much better sources would be needed. What are your specific issues with the wording of the article as it stands. If you could quote a couple of lines of text that you are concerned with we can start there. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The general issue I'm stumped at is that I don't know how to draw the line between claims and provable facts when it comes to a wiki entry. An example in this entry is the phrase "...Pasture makes up about 80% of the pigs's diet." Should we be taking the tact that any claim made by this farm should be included uncritically no matter how far from other published results? 80% of the diet of finishing pigs provided by forage would qualify as an exceptional claim in my opinion. Most estimates of the percentage of diet provided by forage are around 30% on GOOD pasture, which this farm doesn't have (thin mountain soil, steep slopes, short growing season per the farms website) (cite 4 of footnoted reference) I'm using this as an example, there are other issues like it. pubwvj you are welcome to contribute here. I am explicitly inviting you to comment Bruceki (talk) 03:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

One of the thing that is completely missing from this entry is that Sugar Mountain keeps their animals outdoors virtually all the time. they do provide shelter to them, and limited bedding, but this is one of the things that they do in their husbandry that is very different than industry. Bruceki (talk) 04:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Bruceki does not know or understand how we farm, he does not know what our pastures are like, he distorts things and he keeps denying the reality that we have been successfully farming for over a decade. This is not a matter of sources but of Bruceki's agenda and vendetta against other farms. Please see the reprimands Bruceki has previously received for his actions against other farm pages on Wiki as noted on his Talk page history. Bruceki farms very differently and attacks people who farm in other ways. He has a long history of doing this. Pubwvj (talk) 10:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , you are once again drifting toward a block for original research/soapboxing here. It's one thing to challenge unsourced statements on these pages; it's another thing entirely to make statements on the talk page like the above "...keeps their animals outdoors virtually all the time..." and "Much of the production of this farm is made into high-processed meat products" without having sources to back up those statements. Please restrict your comments to improvement of the article. This talk page is not an extension of your blog to criticize other people's farms. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 14:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - That said Walter, rather than focusing your ire on Bruce, you'd be better off focusing on improving this (or other articles) by making sure that statements are easily verifiable with reliable sources, preferably third-party ones whenever possible. You've made it clear that you are not a fan of Bruce; so please drop the stick. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 14:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , Thank you for your feedback and assistance Jamie. If Bruceki can refrain from his soapboxing and other behaviors like that we can focus on the improvement of the page. I have zero interest in arguing with him. I have added citations for everything he has brought up which is how the Taint section ended up growing large. Jbhuntley has trimmed the extra from it and it looks fine to me. If there are any things that need additional attention please let me know. I appreciate your feedback and help with the page. Pubwvj (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been ignoring pubwvj's issues with me and sticking with the material on hand, per WP:NPA - that is why I haven't said anyhting in response. Back to the content: Regarding the outoor nature of SMFs operation is evident in their website and mentioned in virtually every press contact the farm has - example in cite ; it's not original research and it's not a criticism, it's an observation of the various sources cited here.  I'm mentioning a characteristic that shows up in most of the sources, and certainly on the farms own website.  pubwvj, I don't think that you'd dispute that your animals are kept outdoors most or all of the  year?  Bruceki (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , I added "According to Walter Jefferies, the farm owner" to the section on pasturing etc. since he is the one who says it in the source to avoid making such statements in Wikipedia voice. Is this OK with the two of you? Jbh (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Thank you. -Walter Pubwvj (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * {ping|jbhunley}} That resolves my issue with the 80% statement. is the consensus that the reference to private emails/link to farms blog OK as a source?  there are 4 links to the farms blog offered as inline cites in this article; and in a general sense, there are a lot of cites to things that aren't controversial or will be challenged, the usual reason for an inline cite.  No one disputes that SMF has been mentioned in the press, for instance.   Bruceki (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Primary sources (i.e., the farm's blog) are OK in some cases; from Identifying_and_using_primary_and_secondary_sources:

"An article about a business: The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary‡ source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities. It is not likely to be an acceptable source for most claims about how it or its products compare to similar companies and their products (e.g., 'OurCo's Foo is better than Brand X'), although it will be acceptable for some simple, objective comparison claims ('OurCo is the oldest widget business in Smallville' or 'OurCo sells more widgets than anyone else in New Zealand'). It is never an acceptable source for claims that evaluate or analyze the company or its actions, such as an analysis of its marketing strategies (e.g., 'OurCo's sponsorship of National Breast Cancer Month is an effective tool in expanding sales to middle-aged, middle-class American women')."
 * On the other hand, a cite that references private emails/communications is not; that's not much better that having a cite that says something to the effect of "saw it with my own eyes." OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Jamie, pubwvj is worried about bias; would you take a look at them and see which qualify in your opinion?  there are 4 links to the farms  blog offered as inline cites in this article (one of the blog links is listed in 2 cites)   ; there are also several cites to other blogs;  ; and in a general sense, there are a lot of cites to things that aren't controversial or will be challenged, the usual reason for an inline cite.  No one disputes that SMF has been mentioned in the press, for instance.    Bruceki (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

First off please use reflist-talk at the end of any section you use cites in. This keeps cites from piling up at the end of the page. You are correct most of the blog cites should be either removed or if they expand on something they can be moved to External Links. In particular the link to the Personal email web page should go there if it is kept. It does explain what they claim they are doing at the farm and may be of interest to some readers. Right now all it supports in the text is that they do biopsies on the pigs. I see no real claim they are successful at removing taint only that they have some process in place to address the issue. It does not seem like a contentious claim to me but I might be missing something so please let me know if I am. Also most of the cites to general knowledge can be removed. In particular those which can be addressed in Boar taint and Sustainable farming or other articles that can be pointed to in See also Jbh (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * JBHuntly, I would like to suggest that the citation be added back to the boar taint section as it talks about the selection based on aggression and the biopsy method. This is an independent third party source article that talks about the work done at Sugar Mountain Farm regarding this topic which is an important raising principle. Pubwvj (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * What do you want to use it to support? My main concern is that it not be used to support anything definitive about the effectiveness of the procedures but I have no objection to its inclusion in general. Maybe cite it like this depending on what you want to use the citation to support in the article. What do the other editors here think? (PS - To ping me you need to type . Jbh is just how my signature displays.) Jbh (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I was thinking that it was a source which talks about the raising, selection and biopsy we do and how another person took that information and applied it and then wrote about it for a magazine (OnPasture) that is respected in our field (pasturing). Perhaps it could go after the "for over a decade" in the first sentence of that paragraph. Pubwvj (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... What about "...pasture management and biopsy testing1 of adult boars..." using the ref with the included quote? Jbh (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Thank you. Pubwvj (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I will make the edit and see if anyone objects. Jbh (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I would like to see if we can remove some of the citation overload in this article now. Are there any suggestions for references this article can get by without? Jbh (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I will work on some suggestions. I object to Bruceki making any edits as he has a major COI. Bruceki should stick to the Talk page and have edits made by JBH or Jamie. Pubwvj (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Walter, per WP:NPA I have asked you to refrain from attacking me on your user talk page. I have involved an outside editor for a 3rd opinion over your objection.  Please read WP:COI and consider that YOU have a COI and YOU are expressly discouraged from editing an entry that refers to YOU or YOUR FARM.  If you believe that I have a COI, there are several avenues available to you to pursue that claim, and in fact, I'm fine with some sort of dispute resolution.  I have not pursued that avenue with you because I think that your input is good, but I am reaching the end of my patience.  Please stick to the content and refrain from attacking anyone.  Bruceki (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Bruceki you have a massive COI based on your years of attacking me. You have been warned not to use Wiki for your soapbox, both on this page and other pages. Leave the edits to JBH and Jamie. Do not edit the page. Stick to talk or stay out of this. JBH and Jamie have already edited and approved the things you're proposing changing. You wanted a third party, you have two of them and they've done the edits. Don't undo what they have done by making more edits. Pubwvj (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Per this talk page and per WP:RS I'm going to do an edit that removes the blog references. I'm giving folks a heads up so that they can review this talk page and the links listed here. ' jbh: The links I'd like to consider removing are cites to non-controversial topics, or where there are a list of cites that make the entry unreadable. Either eliminate or move to the external links secton. With respect to this boar-taint testing, I don't think you need a cite there, a simple statement that sugar mountain has performed biopsy testing is sufficient. I don't think that anyone disputes that and as a statement from the farm operator it's not really verifiable, either. This entry has statements from the farm operator marked as opinion already - something like "Farm operator Walter Jefferies claims to have done biopsy testing on boars from his herd". The issue about various ways to test for boar taint is out of the scope of this entry. Sugar mountain farm doesn't perform those tests for other parties, isn't an expert or source for those tests, and in fact claims that the tests are always negative ("we have no boar taint in our herd") Bruceki (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Bruce, I'm inclined to think that the current state of the page is fine after Jbhunley's cleanup. Links to the farm's blog aren't forbidden, and attributions have been clarified sufficiently. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 20:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As someone who's been given a lot of grief for links to blogs, I don't understand why it's ok in this instance. I think that the contents here can be supported sufficiently without them, and for this particular subject I think that a bright clear line on when a blog link is OK and when it is not is needed because there's been a constant creep of blog links over time, and I would expect that to continue.  Bruceki (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I object to Bruceki making any edits due to his COI and Bruceki's lack of knowledge of practices and information about the farm. He should at most leave comments on talk and Jamie or JBH should do edits instead of Bruceki. Pubwvj (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Bruce hasn't done anything that rises to the level of a topic or page ban at this point. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 20:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Bruceki's COI arrises from his spending years making personal attacks on me. Furthermore he lacks information that he makes claims about and he repeatedly missrepresents information and distorts information. His statement about all tests being negative is an example of this. He does not know that and he has no way to know that. He knows little to nothing about the biopsy testing. I do it. I've done it for years. I've had boars test negative, positive and between (mild). He was never involved in any of that testing so he has no knowledge. He asked for a third party to intervene. He should stick to talk at most and let you make the edits. Otherwise what was his point of asking for third party intervention. In fact what is his whole point other than attacking me, something he has spent years doing. There is lots of evidence of that across the web. If you want to read it I can provide links. It's a pattern of behavior and I'm not the only one he has attacked repeatedly over the years. Pubwvj (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * @All. These are behavior/COI questions. I strongly recommend they be addressed at WP:ANI and/or WP:COIN respectively. I am willing to work to help find policy compliant compromises here but I have no desire to step into the middle of a drama. Possibly using a more formal format here would help. However it goes you both need to agree at least on if/how to proceed for there to be a productive discussion. if you feel  has a conflict of interest that prevents him from editing in a neutral manner with respect to this article or to you please take the matter to WP:COIN. It is really the best place to hash out these things and there are editors who are expert at handling such matters. Jbh (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Bruceki asked for third party intervention and should now step out of the editing loop so as to let the impartial third parties (JDH and Jamie) do the editing. He asked for it. I appreciate your (JDH & Jamie) help with improving the page. Pubwvj (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Asking for a third opinion does not require a user to "step out of the editing loop." Please drop the stick on that. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Then I would request that Bruceki step out of the editing loop since he does not know what goes on at the farm but instead I will update the page and improve citations along the lines that JBH/Jamie have suggested with the assistance of JBH and Jamie and after that if Bruceki sees things he thinks need improving he should mention them on the talk page to be discussed. I think that Jamie already basically suggested above: "Bruce, I'm inclined to think that the current state of the page is fine after Jbhunley's cleanup." by Jamie and "I would like to see if we can remove some of the citation overload in this article now. Are there any suggestions for references this article can get by without?" by JBH. Pubwvj (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Please do read and follow 's advice on COI conflict resolution if you believe that there is an issue. Personally, I would rather focus on the content here, and so I will decline to respond to it in this forum. I will talk to you on my user talk page, or on yours and have attempted to do so, but I will not do so in the talk page of an article. Gentlemen, would I be out of line to ask that all of the derogatory comments here by pubwvj about me be removed per WP:RUC to remove the distraction from this talk page? Bruceki (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

No Bruce. That is the point. You continually try and engage me with your attacks. I'm not interested debating with you on your blog, elsewhere or here. You don't know my farm and you distort things. Jamie and JDH have already said they will take care of the page and they have made the necessary edits. See their notes above. Politely bow out at this point and let them do it. Pubwvj (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I am having a hard time disussing the content here, or even following responses because of conflicting edits that seem to be primarily how much Walter hates me - Jamies reply to my question was deleted by pubwvj. Half of the content of this talk page are screeds on how much the guy hates me. At what point is this considered uncivil? Bruceki (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Please know it is not appropriate to ask to not edit this page. Our COI policies ask editors with a major COI, like working on articles about themselves, their businesses, their families or employers to refrain from editing those articles and rather post edit requests on the talk page. If you think Bruceki has a strong COI then click here and open a discussion thread asking for some sort of restriction. Talking about it further here will accomplish nothing and will likely be considered disruptive.  my advice is the same to you - open up a noticeboard thread or drop it. The only purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia not to continue outside feuds nor to promote outside agendas. This is why we have COI policies because people who are too close to a subject can not separate their own interests from the good of the encyclopedia. Both of you have considerable knowledge that could be applied to improve many articles we have here. I suggest you both try to improve an article on a different topic which you find interesting and give this one a break. If this is the only article you are interested in editing then consider whether your reason is to improve Wikipedia or for advocacy. We do not do advocacy here. Have a nice weekend. Jbh (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Bruceki (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Post COI content discussion
Having read and considered the COI discussion, I'll abide by the opinions expressed in it. I'm interested in an accurate wiki entry; in an abundance of caution I will restrict my activity here to the talk page. Here are the issues that I see remaining with the current revision: 1) having traveled the links available, some of them are either broken, or do not offer an online source or archive for the information. I'll offer the first link in the article as an example NECN-TV. .  How is this handled in a general sense on other wiki pages?  Without quite a bit of work it's going to be impossible to say whether this source or others like it are accurately cited.  In the case of this particular one, I don't have any idea what the article says and neither does any other editor here.  2) some of the links are offered but seem to be unrelated to the sentence where they are cited. I'll offer cite #2 in this article as an example. . It doesn't support sentence that it's cited on "...biggest pig farm in new england". I think I'd like to see this cite gone, personally. 3) but speaking to the butcher shop, I believe that the cite does mention something relevant to this farms operation - attempting to build a butcher shop. I'd rather see this in a section titled "Attempt to build butcher shop" or whatever would work and put there.  Disclosure:  I have contributed financial support to Mr. Jefferies butcher shop construction and personally I'm all for it.  I'd like to peel this onion a layer at a time, so I'm going to stop there and wait for comment.  Bruceki (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Per #1 OhNoItsJamie wrote " It's fine to use articles not available on the web for references in most cases. Here's a good (and fairly short) policy link for that: Offline_sources." and Per #2 that looks like it should be the citation for a different sentence such as "Sugar Mountain Farm is building its own USDA/State inspected on-farm butcher shop." The size of the farm came from one of the TV articles but I'm not sure which one. It looks like at some point some citiations might have shifted within the paragraphs as edits were made. Pubwvj (talk) 09:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Notability
I spotted this at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard and started culling through all of the sources. I removed op-eds, primary sources, self-authored pieces, blogs, advertisements, brief mentions and a lot of content that wasn't actually in the sources offered. Others were cited to credible news organizations that would be acceptable sources, but the links just went to the front page of the newspaper's website, not to a new article about the farm.

What was left was a few local news publications and Voice of America, which is itself a questionable source. I think before anyone invests more time and effort on the page, a discussion needs to occur on whether we should actually have one based on the criterion at WP:GNG. Typically we expect at least one national-level source, and Voice of America is a very weak source to fulfill that requirement. CorporateM (Talk) 03:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * FYI there has been coverage in 2008 by the International Herald Tribune and in 2012 by the Washington Post . --Mike Cline (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * As Mike Cline notes above there has been extensive national coverage of Sugar Mountain Farm as a source of innovation and inspiration in the field of in the pastured pig movement, in the move away from castration and of naturally raising pigs out on pasture rather than in confinement. The search at HighBeam.com that Mike Cline lists above gives a few of these and there has also been coverage in Forbes magazine and various farming magazines such as Modern Farmer, OnPasture, LocalBanquet, FarmShow Magazine, Vermont Life Magazine, University of Vermont television, Acres Magazine, CBS News and others as well as more local things. Additinoally WikiProject Agriculture and WikiProject Food and drink both selected this article as being in their scope as noted at the top of the page. What do we need to do to get these things back into the article and take care of the notability question?

On the Note about numbers of pigs, counts vary seasonally and over the years: 300 to 400 is typical in recent years.

On the farm size: the total farm is about 892 acres +/-10% (typical variance) of which most is sustainable forestry (Current Use Program in Vermont), about 70 acres is marsh land and about 70 acres is used for the livestock. I don't know how you want to say that. I think as written it is okay since that represents what is used for pasturing.

I would suggest adding the word "pastured" before "pigs" in the first sentence. On the topic of feed, some is acid whey, some is sweet whey. Dropping the word acid would simplify that. The majority of the pigs diet is pasture (~80% measured by dry matter which is how livestock diets are measured) and about 7% is dairy (e.g., whey) with the remainder being other things such as apples, pumpkins, sunflowers, spent barley from a local brew pub, etc..

We use managed rotational grazing at Sugar Mountain Farm with the pigs which was unusual prior to our doing it. There were no resources about how to do it with pigs. Many other small pastured pig farms now use rotational grazing with their pigs as a result of having learned about it from Sugar Mountain Farm. That could be added to that section. (The managed rotational grazing is an important part of management of livestock on pasture - see Managed intensive rotational grazing.)

The biopsy testing is worth mentioning as it was innovated for the testing of boar taint here at Sugar Mountain Farm and is now used by many other small farms who learned it from Sugar Mountain Farm. The selecting for low aggression done by Sugar Mountain Farm was suggested as also being an important point by the boar taint researcher who I spoke with years ago who had been cited in the article previously (personal emails). Pubwvj (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Pubwvj can you provide a link to the single best credible, independent source you feel is missing from the current page? CorporateM (Talk) 01:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Biopsy testing for boar taint didn't originate at SMF, and there's no cite for a new technique or innovation. It's a pretty standard test that's been done for centuries.  Industry tests for taint and breeds low-taint boars as a regular course of business, particularly for markets that prohibit/restrict surgical castration.  There's no cite to show that anything that SMF has done has been or is effective against taint WP:PROVEIT.  per WP:SELFSOURCE Diet at SMF is not limited to whey, but is comprised of tens of thousands of pounds of all sorts of dairy waste, including butter, cheese, cottage cheese, yogurt and hundreds of thousands of gallons of whey .  It would be more accurate to say "dairy waste" than specify a particular kind of dairy waste.  Jefferies claim that 80% of his pigs diet is derived from pasture appears to be an exceptional claim when compared to published sources on pigs utilization of pasture, which average about 30% of their dietary needs with some studies saying 66% but no one saying 80% except this one farm. WP:REDFLAG    The press interviews Jefferies has given have been to mainstream media press who are not experts in the field and have no background to evaluate his claims.  Jefferies has never been cited by industry or research to my knowledge.  Finally, the start date of the farm is suspect.  There's no cite to date the farm to 1994; his blog shows 2006 as a more likely date; need a cite to prove it.  Incorporation date?  Business license? Bruceki (talk) 05:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The complete guide to raising pigs, by carlotta cooper published 2010,ISBN-13: 978-1601383792 quotes jefferies as having bred pigs for 7 years, which puts the start date at 2003. business license or incorporation date would be a better cite Bruceki (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * If you would like a single citation for notability I would suggest Acres Magazine as that is recent, a national magazine in the livestock industry and specifically discusses diet and management practices at Sugar Mountain Farm as well as three other farms who are similarly raising pigs on a high pasture diet.

Jeffries (myself - which way is it best to refer to self here?) and Sugar Mountain Farm has been extensively cited and discussed by "industry" publications (pasture management, livestock raising) including but not limited to: Acres Magazine, OnPasture, Modern Farmer, Farming – The Journal of Northeast Agriculture, Local Banquet, Vermont Life, University of Vermont publications and others as well as more general press like the NYTimes, Washington Post, Forbes Magazine CBS News, National Public Radio and others. These citations were in the old version of the article prior to 4/15/2015.

Sugar Mountain Farm was trademarked (USPTO) in 2012, incorporated 4/20/2007, started with pigs in April of 2003, began raising sheep in 1995, was doing chickens & ducks beginning in the spring of 1992 (March?) and maple syrup making (4,000 taps - ergo, the name of the farm) and sustainable forestry back to July 1989 which is when Walter Jeffries made the purchase and sale agreement for the land where Sugar Mountain Farm resides as recorded in the town records.

Jeffries did develop the boar taint testing by biopsy method completely independent and the source Bruceki cites is from 2013 which is more recent than Jeffries (me) has been doing biopsy boar testing. Biopsies have been done in animal biology such as testing for pollutants in whales for a while but not in this application to the best of my knowledge - I follow this topic rather closely, have researched it extensively, done a lot of work in the field, worked with researchers and written about the topic extensively educating other farmers about how we do it so they were able to do it too. Bruceki's claim that biopsy testing for taint in boars has been done for centuries is a blatant exaggeration which he is prone to so his statements on the topic need to be discounted.

Bruceki is not an expert in pastured pigs nor on boar taint and he is actively antagonistic towards Jeffries (me) and Sugar Mountain Farm as was discussed on the COI page so be cautious of his bias in everything he offers since he often miss-represents things, distorts things and worse as cited on the COI page. Bruceki raises animals in barns, confining them, using farrowing crates and feeding industry standard grain as part of their diet. There is nothing wrong with what he does, if you want to eat that pork, but he is not an expert on what Sugar Mountain Farm does. Bruceki's knowledge of management, pig genetics, boar taint, practices, sales and diet at Sugar Mountain Farm is at best third hand and anecdotal. At worse he distorts and miss-represents things. Pubwvj (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please restrict your comments to the content at hand and cease with the criticisms of the editor. I have asked you politely on your talk page, and several times through this and other discussions.  Feel free to dispute any fact or cite or topic, but cease with the attacks.  If you persist I will seek some form of more-formal solution.  Fair warning.  WP:NPA

scratch that walter. I'm tired of asking you to be civil. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bruceki (talk) 23:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I followed the link you provided, but it does not lead to an article about Sugar Mountain. CorporateM (Talk) 18:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That link is the general website for the magazine Acres USA which is a national small farm magazine. It is a print magazine. They don't have their articles online but rather are on paper, mailed to subscribers and sold in bookstores, newsstands and farm stores. The article about Sugar Mountain Farm's practices and three other farms that is referenced in the link in the April 2015 issue, titled "The Practical Permaculture Pig" by Andrew French. The article is not available online. Per OhNoItsJamie: "It's fine to use articles not available on the web for references in most cases. Here's a good (and fairly short) policy link for that: Offline_sources." There are also other citations that are online such as the OnPasture, Modern Farmer, Farming Journal, Farm Show in the national industry as well as more general national pieces in the NYTimes, Washington post, NPR, CBS and others. There are citations for these in the original article. Would you like me to gather them together and put them here on the talk page here? Pubwvj (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The magazine's self-description here says "chemical farming [is] obsolete and misguided" and seems to to suggest it is an advocacy source lobbying for sustainable farming techniques. Also, it says that articles can be submitted by its readers here, whereas we cannot accept anything crowd-sourced such as articles bylined by readers. I'm guessing the author is the Andrew French affiliated with the National Fish & Wildlife Refuge, but doing some quick google searches doesn't seem to suggest he would qualify as an expert source - for the purpose of determining reliable sources, we only bestow that title to those renown for their expertise. Offline sources are not forbidden, but this one looks questionable. I wouldn't mind taking a closer look by ordering a back issue, but... CorporateM (Talk) 21:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That is a different Andrew French in the link you gave at the NFWR. The Andrew French who wrote the article for Acres USA Magazine is a farmer in Wisconsion. He contacted me via email when he was writing the article for Acres USA Magazine. Acres is a highly respected magazine in our field of farming which was founded in 1970. There is a Wiki article about the founder of Acres USA Magazine Charles Walters, Jr.. In that Wiki article it mentions the magazine Acres USA. There are also articles in other long time national farming publications such as those I listed above. Pubwvj (talk) 23:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Mike, since you cleaned up the info box so nicely could you also update the Formation date of 1989. That is when we purchased the land which is the same year we began sustainable forestry in Vermont's Current Use program and when we started maple sugar making? Pubwvj (talk) 23:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Looking at the link About Acres USA Magazine that you gave above I see what I would consider a very good description of what the magazine is about: '"Acres U.S.A. is the only national magazine that offers a comprehensive guide to sustainable agriculture. Drawing on knowledge accumulated in more than 40 years of continuous publication, we bring our readers the latest techniques for growing bountiful, nutritious crops and healthy, vibrant livestock. A glance at any issue is enough to see why sustainable farming — we call it “eco-agriculture” because it's both ecological and economical — represents the real revolution in scientific food cultivation."' I've know Acres USA because they have approached me looking for me to write about my areas of experience which is pastured pork - that's what I do, I raise pigs on pasture without confinement systems, without commercial hog feed, without the high calorie grain based feeds, without castration in a natural manner using Managed intensive rotational grazing. Acres USA has articles from people who do things reporting their experiences and probably many are 'experts', some through education in the university system and some from education in the field. My background is in computers, chemistry, engineering and other hard sciences. I have been applying scientific method to my farming for decades which is probably part of what helps make our farm successful. Acres USA may not be the level of rigor of The Astrophysical Journal but it is respected in its field, nationally published, widely read and filled good articles in it's field which is small scale farming. If you would like me to pick a different reference, or more than one, please let me know. Are you looking for notability or for citations on Sugar Mountain Farm raising practices or something else? Pubwvj (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide a cite or link to some proof of incorporation in 2007? That seems to be the most reasonable date for the start of this farm as a business. Re: Biopsy, can you provide any link to any source that mentions this innovation? Industry press, college or university, anything? Castration of male pigs is done as a primary control of boar taint thorugh history, and people have been slaughtering pigs and testing them for boar taint for as [|long as pigs have been domesticated] - probably 10,000 years. Boar taint as an issue of pig husbandry is neither new nor novel. Bruceki (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem is BruceKi has a many year history of attacking PubWVJ (me) and Sugar Mountain Farm using lies and distortions. He is trying to insert miss-information into the article such as his blatant attempt to put in the wrong date above. I gave all the exact dates that might be used and he pigs one and demands proof. If he wants to try and change it then he should go get proof and he really should be changing the date to a better data to improve the quality of Wiki rather than to a worse date which is just some ego satisfaction for Bruceki.

Bruceki's behavior here does not make me think he is going to change but rather that is a new twist on his attack campaign against other small farmers.

Part of the problem is that the 'content he wants to stick to' is really his Synthed Soapboxed agenda driven reinterpretation of how we run our farm. He does not know what we do and he denies that what we say we do is correct. Bruceki lives in Washington state. We live in Vermont. And hopefully we'll never actually meet in person since he is so nasty by online communications I have no desire to have any involvement with him. The fact is, Bruceki has no expertise and no insight into the conversation. All he offfers is his antagonism which can be found on his blog posts.

I well believe that he fails at the things he describes failing on his blog but just because he fails doesn't mean other people don't succeed. Life is complicated and there are a lot of little details. The pig genetics, management techniques, attention to detail, what forages are planted and so much more. If farming were easy everyone would succeed. We succeed at raising pigs on pasture with pasture making up 80% of their diet see http://SugarMtnFarm.com/pigs We have been raising pigs this way for over a decade and sell hundreds of thousands of pounds of our pastured pork fresh to customers directly and through local stores and restaurants. Bruceki's denial of reality is just him sticking his head in the sand while other people are out their making their farms work. This is fact. Time proves out if something is a success or not.

Suggestion: BruceKi to be removed from the Sugar Mountain Farm and talk page and he should not contact me. This eliminates his stalking at least on Wikipedia. That will resolve the conflict. I'm not stalking him. He is stalking me. He's been stalking me for years. If he would simply stop stalking me and leave me alone then the problem is solved. I won't seek him out. I don't. All of the problems are a result of his actions and what he says. He spreads lies. Most of the time I ignore him rather than engaging. On rare occasions like now I engage.

Bruceki has been given multiple warnings by the administrators that he would be banned. Perhaps it is time to try banning him. Bruceski is highly biased, lacks expertise on this topic of farming methods and this particular farm and Bruceski has a huge undeclared COI that he is not being honest about.

Then the other people can get back to talking civilly on the Sugar Mountain Farm talk page and making appropriate edits to cover the background on the farm, farm notability, farm practices, what is unusual about the farm and what the farm has accomplished or other interesting things for Wiki readers Pubwvj (talk) 04:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We can't expand the article until credible, independent sources are identified that cover the farm in-depth, are authored by professional journalists that work for the publication, and are not opinion, blurbs, brief mentions, etc.. CorporateM (Talk) 13:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that "professional journalists" not be a criteria for the writer of an article as it is better that the writer be experienced in the field of pastured farming. Andrew French who wrote the Acres USA Magazine article is credible, independent, experienced in the field of sustainable pastured farming and the article he wrote is factual about the Sugar Mountain Farm pasturing of pigs specifically exploring diet.

Due to copyright I can't simply scan my copy of the magazine and send it to you but you can order the April 2015 issue or perhaps pick it up at a news stand near you, especially a farming related one. Or you could order the magazine back issue at the publisher's web site. It is unfortunate that all magazines don't put their articles on the web but since Acres USA Magazine is older (est. 1970) this is not too surprising that they stick with print only as is common with many of the older publications that have not transitioned to web publishing.

I will also work on picking through some other sources that were written by professional journalists that featured how things are done at Sugar Mountain Farm and put that together for you.Pubwvj (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to request a week to work on putting together the citations on notability that CorporateM asked for. Pubwvj (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)