Talk:Environmental impact of agriculture

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

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

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eselph95.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2020 and 5 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Flmcclure.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tm526212.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Intensive Farming[edit]

The present "Intensive Farming" section should be deleted, as it contains several misleading statements, appears constructed to promote a negative advocacy agenda, and cites no supporting references at all. A section on this topic may be superfluous, as most issues now identified in this section are addressed in other sections. If a section devoted to this topic is restored, it should be unbiased, written so as not to mislead, and documented according to Wikipedia standards. Schafhirt (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which "deficits" in this article need to be corrected?[edit]

@Serten II: In a related discussion, you mentioned that there were "strong deficits" in this article that needed to be corrected. Can you suggest any changes or improvements that can be made here? Jarble (talk) 04:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The current stub is a mere propaganda for something called "sustainable agriculture", whatever that may be. the article, currently a list of incoherent tags doesnt differentiate between e.g. agriculture and forestry. It lacks any historical dimension - agriculture is and has been among the most important human influence on the globe since it was invented. the article seems to see any impact as being negative and it has no idea of how agriculture actually shaped the rather negative surroundings of prehistoric man to a currently much more friendly and productive globe allowing some billions of human beings to live on this planet with a life expectancy and availability of food never seen before. I doubt it has any value and it might currently be deleted for quality reasons in the current state. Serten II (talk) 08:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "Issues by region" shows some of the deficits - it refers to (from a global perspective) non-problems (hedgerow cleaning in the UK etc to phosphate mining in Nauru) and stays in a rather provincial, anglo-american outlook. The topic is much to generic and global, while the actual impacts are local and rather differentiated. There is no reference to actual scientific literature or textbooks on the topic, take Radkau or Skinner. Serten II (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Serten II: Some of the global effects of agriculture are discussed in Wikipedia's main article about climate change and agriculture. Jarble (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, how do you adress the concerns about this article? WP is no source per se, and this sort of "climate change and xyz" article has major weaknesses. INsofar I cannot see how to deal with the article here. Serten II (talk) 09:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Serten II and Serten: I don't notice any problems with that article. What are the "major weaknesses" in the climate change and agriculture article? Jarble (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I listed the problems. Please refer to those. Serten Talk 08:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubstantaied Claims[edit]

On reading this article I have noticed several problems in terms of the accuracy of claims or the lack of scientific evidence. Some examples include:

  • In Genetic engineering it should be noted that herbicide resistance is ONLY one example of articifical genetic engineering. There are other examples (e.g. BT cotton) which have had an overwelming positive impact on the environment.
  • The incorrect assumption that Organic farming is more sustainable than modern agriculture without considering the impacts of increased need for soil cultivation or the lower production that occurs under organic production--GILDog (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry- I have NEVER edited anything on WIKI- so if anyone has the time and energy- please go ahead, with these 3 quick google scholar resources:

http://www.agbioforum.org/v8n23/v8n23a15-brookes.htm?&sa=U&ei=KojTVOKAL9CyogTSqYCgCg&ved=0CBQQFjAA&u This links to a stat based analysis of production and profit, with positive results on environmental impact assessment as a result on reduced pesticide usage between the years of 1996-2004.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jafc.5b05116 This paper emphasizes global adoption of modern agricultural biotechnology. That it has not only provided benefits to growers and consumers but has great potential to provide solutions to an increasing global population and diminishing agricultural land. This has the potential to be realized with continued scientific innovation, harmonized regulatory systems, and broader communication of the benefits of the high-yielding, disease-resistant, and nutritionally enhanced crops attainable through modern biotechnology.

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1057/9781137405722 Literally an entire book discussing Plant Breeding and Agricultural Development, Potentials and Risks of GM Crops, Adoption and Impacts of GM Crops, New and Future GM Crop Applications, Regulation and the COMPLEX PUBLIC DEBATE! by Matin Qaim, Palgrave Studies in Agricultural Economics and Food Policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.68.26 (talk) 13:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What defines "sufficient context" for people unfamiliar with the subject?[edit]

Is there a certain required amount of background information that would put the page into context for people unfamiliar with the subject and it's issues? How can this issue be resolved?


Emmaannjo (talk) 04:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Emmaannjo: Several cleanup templates were added to this article by User:Serten II. See the discussion above for Serten II's objections to this article. Jarble (talk) 06:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Evaluation[edit]

This article is a general overview. The information provided is well presented and easily understood. Based on the table of contents, all of the necessary topics within this article seem to be covered. That being said, each section is rather bare, maxing out at 1-2 short paragraphs. The section that stands out the most as needing improvement is the introduction. It is extremely short and doesn't provide nearly enough context for the information that follows. I also am not sure of the validity of the information provided within the introduction because is contains no references. There is a cite error at the end of the paragraph. There are missing citations within the "genetic engineering" section as well. The information in "genetic engineering" seems very biased and doesn't really focus on environmental impacts. Overall, this section could probably be deleted for the better. There is a section for "pollutants", and a section for "waste", which is redundant and the two should be condensed into one. Each reference provided is a clickable link and all of the links seem to have an appropriate level of validity.

There is only one image in this article and no graphs/figures. More need to be added, along with other relevant figures. There is a section on sustainable agriculture, but more information could be added in terms of solutions and prevention methods.

Tm526212 (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect sentence in Introduction?[edit]

One sentence in the introduction reads: "An example of a means-based indicator would be the quality of groundwater, that is effected by the amount of nitrogen applied to the soil."

I'm guessing that should be: "An example of a means-based indicator would be the quality of groundwater, which is affected by the amount of nitrogen applied to the soil."

It's possible I'm misinterpreting what the writer is trying to say, so could someone either back me up, or explain what I've got wrong (or rewrite the sentence to reduce the chances of misinterpretation)? Ricklaman (talk) 09:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2022 and 30 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jun3038 (article contribs). Hello there, I see that the two types of indicators, means-based and effect-based are introduced but the cons and pros which can be useful for others to read are missing. Therefore I suggest adding the paragraph below to the end of the existing second paragraph. These two types of indicators have opposite advantages and disadvantages: Due to its simplicity in implementation and low cost, means-based indicators are the first choice for certifications' usage of evaluation methods and the establishment of payment level. However because these indicators let humans see what's happening to the environment without revealing the impacts of what's happened since the event that's happening itself is being used as the measurement of the impacts.[1]Jun3038 ([[User talk:Jun3038|talk]) 06:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC) Hello there, I see that the two types of indicators, means-based and effect-based are introduced but the cons and pros which can be useful for others to read are missing. Therefore I suggest adding the paragraph below to the end of the existing second paragraph. Therefore means-based indicators' failure in helping to improve agriculture technologies also caused its deficiency in keeping up with the new technologies in agriculture because if one tech is being used for agriculture for the first time in history, it's impossible to quantify it into a means-based measurement. When in use, means-based indicators should be paired up with new environmental research results to continuously help farmers update their farm tech.[2]Jun3038 (talk) 06:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC) Hello there, I see that the two types of indicators, means-based and effect-based are introduced but the cons and pros which can be useful for others to read are missing. Therefore I suggest adding the paragraph below to the end of the existing second paragraph. The pros and cons of the other indicator is comparatively simpler because effect-based indicator is simply much more expensive and time-costly to implement but provides accurate and traceable results.[3]Jun3038 (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00354-1
  2. ^ https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00354-1
  3. ^ https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00354-1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Environmental_impact_of_agriculture&oldid=1195084053"