Talk:Factory farming/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Biased primary image 2 new article 3 Ecoli 4 Moved titles 5 deletion from alternatives 6 Image 7 regulations 8 animal rights 9 Awful! 10 Controversies 11 Egg Image 12 Re: Egg Image 13 from intro 14 Tsavage edit to Alternatives 15 Current article is poorly structured, missing a central section 16 Dairy cow image 17 Animals/Crops Sections

Biased primary image

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

• Do you mean the one with the dirty and skinny cows? It is a little ridiculous for an impartial article. Also, a bunch of stuff needs citations on the "Against" side, why is it there if no one can prove it? --207.118.7.99 12:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

no, the image in question has been replaced. if you have any references for this article please do bring them in.trueblood 12:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What image would you expect exactly? maybe a crop field? it makes no difference whether you show the animal or crop side of industrial agriculture, it's just an example image. The image is has now is of an industrial battery farm I assume, which is obviously on topic. - Sye I agree there is no contrast in the article. Take your hippie crap somewhere else. Like [1] hahhahaha--Rossmacleod1992 10:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

new article

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

Ecoli

this discussion was moved from factory farming article

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

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

If you want to see why the e. coli section relates to intensive farming

check out the articles the section cites. From the New York Times:

Plank, Nina. "Leafy Green Sewage", New York Times, 2006-09-21. Retrieved on 2006-09-21. 

Basically, grain is a common diet on intensive farms, but not a natural diet of free-range cattle. Research, as mentioned in the New York Times article, as well as cited in the section:

Callaway, T. R.; Elder, R.O.; Keen J.E.; Anderson, R.C.; Nisbet, D.J. (2003). "Forage Feeding to Reduce Preharvest Escherichia coli Populations in Cattle, a Review". Journal of Dairy Science 86: 852-860. 

points out that it is this grain diet that increases the acidity of the stomach of cattle and increases the abundance of the 0157 strain of E. coli. The research suggests a solution: stop feeding cattle grain. JabberWok 01:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That isn't related to factory farms, though, as I'd understand the definition. I believe a factory farm is one that has a large number of animals... but nearly all farms (working farms, not "I have a pet cow" places), regardless of size, feed grain. As such, I still don't see the relevance to this article. I believe this ecoli discussion would fit better elsewhere. 65.246.216.100 02:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The New York Time article references industrial farms:

“

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

”

So, while you might be right that grain is a typical diet for cattle on most farms - on industrial farms it's standard to feed grain to drive up production levels of the dairy cattle.

I guess this falls under a critisim of industrial farms. Although, I agree the section could be made shorter or more clear and to the point. JabberWok 02:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Citing the Nina Plank article from the NY Times op-ed page by definition does not constitute unbiased information. This is definitely a POV citation. A scientific journal article is more appropriate here that a newspaper opinion piece. This reference should be improved or the reference and associated text should be deleted.--NDM 07:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You are probably refering to a statement made in that section similar to what is said in the Nina Plank piece:

“

In 2003, The Journal of Dairy Science noted that up to 80 percent of dairy cattle carry O157.

”

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

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

trueblood 11:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moved titles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, then I suggest we move everything to that one title "Industrial agriculture" and have "factory farming" as a redirect. Would that work for you? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

that would mean to maybe include a section about the term factory farming, but yes that would work for me.trueblood 08:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

We can say in the lead "also referred to as factory farming." That would cover it. I'll make the moves now if that's okay with you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, done. I'm not keen on the arguments for and against format, but at least it's now all on one page with a neutral title. Hope that works for everyone. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

deletion from alternatives

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

Image

Trueblood, please stop removing the image. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

regulations

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

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

animal rights

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

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

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

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

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

Awful!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

it still is not very balanced, feel free to improve it, but it is not the place to preach about animal rights. in fact i don't see why their should be any mention of animal rights. trueblood 06:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any preeching at all, but its not a ridiculous notion to have a link to the animal rights section on policies or something, to beter inform the user that there are contraversies with this subject, if not then you'll only be putting a blanket over thier head, and I didn't think that was what wiki was about - Magwitch 09:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Controversies

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

Egg Image

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

Re: Egg Image

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

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

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

from intro

from the intro:"According to the United States Department of Agriculture, ninety-eight percent of all farms in the United States are "family farms". Two percent of farms are not family farms, and those two percent make up fourteen percent of total agricultural output in the United States, although half of them have total sales of less than $50,000 per year. Overall, ninety-one percent of farms in the United States are considered small family farms. Depending on other factors, nine percent of the farms in the United States may qualify as industrial agriculture.^[1]"

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

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

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

Tsavage edit to Alternatives

Hi Tsavage, Thanks for your additions to this article. We need good editors. I wanted to see what you thought about my thoughts on your recent revision. You talked about organic certifications are those, "...which preclude most of the practices that characterize industrialized agriculture." I would argue that the major components of all agriculture are the anthropomorphic production of crops that inlcude the amelioration of germplasm to better suit human and environmental requirments. Next I would say tillage and (in most cases) irrigation of the planted ground are part of most practices. What do you think? --Agrofe 19:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps my small addition could be worded more clearly. Feel free! Its point is straightforward, it isn't very deep. Here in WP, we've made industrial agriculture synonymous with factory farming, and what characterizes IA/FF for general discussion purposes are a few basic practices like crowding, drugs, GE, monoculture, synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. These are the things that put the "factory" in farming as defined by this article. Organic certification standards don't allow any of these practices. You can still have massive farms and quite factory-like production under organic certification, but you can't do it as described here. --Tsavage 22:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Current article is poorly structured, missing a central section

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

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

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

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

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

Dairy cow image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have found a very representative one. If you don't like it, why don't you look for a better one? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

With respect to the "hog picture," what does your objection consist of? El_C 06:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

1) It's not representative of most "industrial agriculture" operations [including hog farms] 2) it draws emotional responses due to lack of explanation/facts (hog crates are used during the week before and 3 weeks [or so] after farrowing because if they are not used, the sow crushes the piglets [by laying on them]) (which, oddly, isn't what the picture even shows) and 3) it is intentionally inflammatory [see category six on this page]. Jav43 06:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What is your evidence for saying it's not representative? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Here is a description from an industry source. [2] These crates are widely used. As for the argument that they're only used for a week before and three weeks after birth, that misses the point that the sows are kept almost perpetually pregnant, so they end up spending a good deal of their lives in these crates. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Animals/Crops Sections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Food Safety, Food Security
In Factory Farming Food Saftey and Food Security becomes more cumbersome. When large quantities of meat or a wholefood product from disparate locations are comingled it is difficult to track the sources of all the constituents in a timely manner. Also, contaminated prostions of a small part of the batch might contain a food borne that contaminates the entire batch. Traceability is limited and the likely hood of mass contamination and illness is increased. Portions of ground beef may contain the flesh of as many as 1000 cows.[11] [12] [13]. This causes concern among consumers concerning the origin of foods and among government officials concerning the origin of disease. The National Animal Identification System is one proposed way the USDA is attempting to remedy this problem. Another proposed solution is the amelioration of irradiation technology for food sterilization.
--Agrofe 15:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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