Talk:Organic farming/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

shorten intro

hello, can we cut this passage from the intro and just leave that in the section on growth:

In addition, as of 2005 'organic wild' products are farmed on approximately 62 million hectares (IFOAM 2007:10). As of 2001, the estimated total market value of certified organic products was estimated to be $20 billion (Lotter 2003:1). By 2002 this was $23 billion and by 2005 $33 billion, with Organic Monitor projecting sales of $40 billion in 2006 (IFOAM 2007:11). The change from 2001 to 2005 represents a compound growth of 10.6 percent.

i would like an intro that just concentrates on the basics, giving the figure of organicly farmed surface should be enough, what are organic wild products anyway? trueblood (talk) 08:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to move the growth and market size information. I wouldn't cut out the organic wild stuff, as that's a major part of organic farming which probably doesn't receive the attention it should. If you want to know what organic wild products are, why don't you click that anchor and go to page 10? Although I don't mean to sound rude -- they are what they sound like: products which can be harvested from basically wild land -- some fruits, bamboo, ect. I should wikify "organic wild" and write up an article on it. I also plan on giving a brief sentence on growth when I happen across the numbers -- it's pretty easy to calculate CAGR (final value/initial value)^(1/years). ImperfectlyInformed (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Roy Bateman removing peer-reviewed studies

... and at the end. I removed: On the other hand, a large range of scientifically-based studies when aggregated, provide evidence that homogeneous-chemical-input-based farming (aka "conventional farming") is only about as productive as other practices on a globally-averaged basis, and probably significantly less productive in less-developed areas.[1][2][3] ... these are not peer reviewd papers!!! 20:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)RPB, 3 April 08

[4] appears in a University of Cambridge journal so it is probably reviewed in some manner. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, looking at this edit [5] it seems you may have a conflict of interest. Please review WP:COI. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

can i remove the expression homogeneous-chemical-input-based farming (aka "conventional farming") and replace it with conventional farming? sounds a little polemic, also why does conventional farming link to green revolution?trueblood (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I would link it to farming. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 14:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Melchett and Trewavas

I'm referring to a section recently added to the Controversy section:

In the UK, some of the debate has been summarized in an exchange between Prof A. Trewavas and Lord P. Melchett, and published by a major supermarket, concerned about examining the issues. Amongst many others, Trewavas[41] contests the notion that organic agricultural systems are more friendly to the environment and more sustainable than high-yielding farming systems; furthermore, practices such as the use of copper fungicides may do greater long-term damage than their synthetic equivalents for crop disease control.

Why should we care what these people think? I think we should rather stick with peer-reviewed literature -- actual science. These are just a couple of guys spouting off uncited facts. Further, there's nothing about copper fungicides in that article, so that claim is uncited.

By the way, how would I enclose the above passage with some sort of formatting? ImperfectlyInformed (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

trewawas is a critic of organics, who's name will pop up again and again, i think it is worth to mention his name. trewawas really is an agricultural scientist whilst dennis avery for example is just a anti organic propaganidist. let's get rid of the copper fungicide argument if it is not in the article and it is really just a claim. it is not very strong anyway since copper fungicides are used not just in organics. also the formulation 'practices just as ' implies that there are lots of other examples. trueblood (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that someone (you?) has added a citation of Trewawas's critique of organic farming, so my concerns that these people don't have real credentials are quelled. I will take down the fungicide thing here, though. ImperfectlyInformed (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the "Urban myths of organic farming" article by Trewawas. It's interesting, although not very convincing -- he claims that organic farms have 50-70% of the yields of conventional with no source. He does mention copper, as well, but he doesn't cite anything regarding how much copper is used by organic farmers, and also mentions that copper will be banned in the EU by 2002. ImperfectlyInformed (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Archiving the junk

I'd like to archive most of this Talk page. Anyone have an objection? ImperfectlyInformed (talk) 00:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 02:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I used the permanent method. If you'd prefer the traditional way you can change. I'd rather the permanent method was used so that there's no chance of people manipulating the Archive -- you can be sure that I didn't cut anything out, but there are disadvantages. I don't think there was much of value in this particular archive anyway. ImperfectlyInformed (talk) 04:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

External links

A user removed the external links with reference to WP:NOT, which suggests avoiding "Mere collections of external links". This is an article, not a mere collection; External links are perfectly acceptable in articles. Hgilbert (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see commercial or blog-like links in the list; the links here seem to be more in number, but similar in content to the external links in the Farming article, for example. It obviously needs review, however, as there have been a number of concerns expressed. Hgilbert (talk) 10:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

shortened intro

i cut this section: Organic farming is contrasted with conventional chemical farming. Organic agriculture can be considered a subset of sustainable agriculture, the difference being that organic implies certification in accordance with legal standards. Organic methods are studied in the discipline of agroecology.

for the following reasons, to say conventional chemical farming and the link leads to industrial agriculture, that to me is polemic, the term conventional chemical farming is only used be organic advocats and not clearly defined, also what organics is not is already said further up. i do not agree with organics being a subset of substainably farming. organics is relatively cleary defined, sustainable agriculture is not, just compare the two articles at wikipedia. organic methods may be studied under all kinds of disciplines, there are universities that teach agroecology, or sustainable farming or organic farming or whatever. the information conveyed here can more easily conveyed by putting the terms into the see also list. they are probably already there. keep it short. trueblood (talk) 10:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Lotter writes that organic farming is a subset of sustainable agriculture, and I agree. We could word it as "viewed as a subset" if you prefer. It is better to keep these terms in the intro because it immediately leads people to related articles, rather than later. I'd like to put the sentence back in -- I can cite Lotter on the subset thing.

Also, I don't see any polemic in calling conventional agriculture chemical. That is just fact. Please explain how it is polemical. Conventional, or, if you prefer, "mainstream" farming intensively uses isolated chemicals -- in pesticides and fertilizers. Organic does not. If necessary, I will cite these facts. ImpIn | (t - c) 00:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

To say that "mainstream farming" regularly uses isolated chemicals is a meaningless statement. Organic farming regularly uses chemicals as well, the fact that the chemicals used in organic farming are not pure doesn't reflect better on organic farming. By emphasizing the mainstream use of chemicals you're creating a false dichotomy between mainstream and organic farming. It's polemical to imply that chemicals=mainstream=bad, when you don't state the fact all farming is based on the use of "chemicals" and lead the reader to assume that organic farms somehow create their produce out of chakra energy or something. 216.36.82.26 (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not meaningless at all. Organic farming uses chemicals, but it does not use "isolated chemicals", your own word. Within the industry, and throughout several industries, chemical means isolated chemical. As far as it being polemical, that's in your own mind, although these isolated chemicals are associated with some problems (nitrate runoff, dead birds, Parkinson's disease in farmworkers). That's just a fact. II | (t - c) 17:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the problem is an inappropriate generalization of "isolated chemicals". It doesn't mean anything at all to say that "isolated chemicals are associated with some problems (nitrate runoff, dead birds, Parkinson's disease in farmworkers)". The appropriate way to make a comparison between organic and mainstream farming is to identify which compounds are associated with problems, and specify how these problems are avoided by organic farming techniques. If you say that "isolated chemicals" cause problems, it implies that these problems would not occur if the isolated chemicals were mixed with other chemicals... which I don't think is what you mean.

My point is that one of the major arguments that is put forward for organic farming is that it is "natural" while mainstream farming uses "chemicals", but this is polemical because organic farming uses chemicals too, just different chemicals. Declaring that the chemicals used in organic farming are "natural chemicals" is just further obfuscation. 216.36.82.26 (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Experts as well as nonexperts use the term chemical as shorthand for synthesized, manufactured chemical products. BASF calls itself "The Chemical Company". Now, technically every company in the world could call itself "the chemical company", since everything is a chemical. Unfortunately, we don't have a simple word for manufactured chemicals. There's nothing polemical per se about describing something in terms of being "chemical". It's just descriptive. Anyway, the "industrial agriculture" article is mistitled -- it needs to be called "conventional agriculture", because organic farms can be industrial as well (industrial has a very loose definition in terms of agriculture). To me, "industrial agriculture" reads more polemically than "chemical agriculture". II | (t - c) 21:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "manufactured chemicals"? Do you mean chemicals that are synthesized in an industrial process, or do you mean chemicals that are not derived from natural products?

Well, you're right that everything is a "chemical", but what distinction are you trying to make between conventional agriculture and organic agriculture with respect to chemicals? 216.36.82.26 (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems like everything must be derived from a natural product somehow. So the former. II | (t - c) 22:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

But industrially produced chemicals are indistinguishable from naturally isolated chemicals... 216.36.82.26 (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Chemicals aren't often isolated naturally. The only organic fertilizer which provided nearly as much soluble nitrogen as nitrates was bat guano, and it is nearly gone. Chemicals like atrazine do not occur naturally. I'm sorry I took so long replying. II | (t - c) 06:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Organic agriculture and the global food supply (2006)

The statements made in the beginig "Productivity and Profitability" section misrepresented the research from the referenced source.

These statments:

A recent study suggests that converted organic farms have lower yields than their conventional counterparts in developed countries (92%) but much higher yields in developing countries (132%). The researcher attributes this to a relative lack of expensive fertilizers and pesticides in the developing world compared to the intensive, subsidy-driven farming of the developed world.

now read:

A 2006 study suggests that converted organic farms have lower pre-harvest yields than their conventional counterparts in developed countries (92%) and that organic farms have higher pre-harvest yields than their low-intensity counterparts in developing countries (132%). The researcher attributes this to a relative lack of expensive fertilizers and pesticides in the developing world compared to the intensive, subsidy-driven farming of the developed world. Nonetheless, the researcher purposely avoids making the claim that organic methods routinely outperform green-revolution (conventional) methods.

Narmical (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresented? It seems as if you're simply adding wordiness. It is obvious that organic methods do not routinely outperform "green revolution" methods -- they have lower relative yields in the areas in which these "green revolution" methods are used. Thus, it's redundant to add that last sentence. Please respond. ImpIn | (t - c) 00:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

removed section

i removed this section, to me it is just a bunch of original research, first of all there are studies that suggest that already the switch to organic farming boost biodiversity, and what is meant with undercutting and controlled burning and how is it connected to organic farming, and anyway what is meant by the phrase :adds to comparable populations and richness to conventionally-managed landscapes when performed in excess.? who says that farmers often make the mistake to overuse what hedge planting, is there excessive hedgeplanting going on? where and how is it detrimental to biodiversity? please enlighten me. i also do not understand the relation of the last argument to organic farming.

Organic farming practices still require active participation from the farmer to effectively boost biodiversity. Making a switch to organic farming methods does not automatically or guarantee improved biodiversity. Pro-conservation ethics are required to create arable farm land that generates biodiversity. Conservationist ideals are commonly overlooked because they require additional physical and economical efforts from the producer.

- Common weed-removal processes like undercutting and controlled burning provides little opportunity for species survival, and often leads to comparable populations and richness to conventionally-managed landscapes when performed in excess. Another common process is the addition of biotopes in the form of hedgerows and ponds to further improve species richness. Farmers commonly make the mistake of over-using these resources for more intense crop production because organic yields are typically lower. Another error comes from the over-stratification of biotopes. A series of small clusters does not provide adequate land area for high biodiversity potential.

Truetom (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't have a leg to stand on when removing properly sourced relevant material from an article. Requests for clarification or rewording to more closely match the source are ok, but removing sourced material because you personally don't understand or agree with it is unjustified.Zebulin (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

None of the biodiversity sections are "well-sourced", because they don't have page numbers. Nor are they well-written, especially the detriments section. I think the detriments part could be consolidated into one section. II | (t - c) 23:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It definitely needs work and your consolidation suggestion would be a good start.Zebulin (talk) 03:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

how can you call this properly sourced, i insist that this section has nothing that can be saved, unless the person who did this explains what he meant. the ref that is given is elsen 2006, in the list there is only this under van elsen:van Elsen, T., (2000) Species diversity as a task for organic agriculture in Europe. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77: 101-109, i only read the abstract because it cost 30 bucks to read the article. i think it is probably a very useful article but it was badly quoted, i read other articles by the guy and no way can you use this guys research to reference a section with this heading. because what he says is organic farming improve biodiversity, as compared to conventional farming, but more should be done.

i repeat that the sentence :Common weed-removal processes like undercutting and controlled burning provides little opportunity for species survival, and often leads to comparable populations and richness to conventionally-managed landscapes when performed in excess is nonsensical, it is not my problem that i do not understand it but the sentence does not make sense. it is also questionable what is meant with undercutting and controlled burning, does that mean hoeing and flameweeding? controlled burning is not a common organic practice. Truetom (talk) 10:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Health benefits of Organic

The article mentions that "clear benefits" of eating organic food were published in a 2007 study. The abstract of the study itself states:

"Consumption of organic dairy products was associated with lower eczema risk (OR 0.64 (95 % CI 0.44, 0.93)), but there was no association of organic meat, fruit, vegetables or eggs, or the proportion of organic products within the total diet with the development of eczema, wheeze or atopic sensitisation."

I think that the article is overstating the meaning of the study. It might be more accurate to say that no clear benefits have been observed for meat, fruit, vegetables or eggs, but that organic milk is associated with a decrease in risk for eczema.

By stating this result in abstract general terms it creates a false sense that the practice of producing organic milk is in any way related to the practice of producing organic vegetables, which of course it is not. By generalizing a study finding one benefit to organic dairy to apply to all organic foods is disingenuous 216.36.82.26 (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Feel free to change it. II | (t - c) 17:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

---

Why even bother to make a controversy section if there isnt any? Every con somone posts is quickly demised by crackpot studies determined to sell us the organic farm myth of good and cheap food.

Even the most logic and perfectly reasonable argument that it can´t feed as many people as conventional farming is posted as an opinion from 'the creator of conventional farming' in order to make a logical statement into a biased drivel.

Seriously, there is something very wrong here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.72.96.247 (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/the-great-organic-myths-why-organic-foods-are-an-indulgence-the-world-cant-afford-818585.html

This seems to be contradicting everything told in this article(Without any of those points being discussed in this article), wots going on? 93.106.107.23 (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

this article, you are refering to has been written over and over again by different people with more or less the same arguments. they are always debunking the myth that organics is more detrimental to the environment than conventional agriculture, they always come up with copper and other dangerous pesticides used in organics (copper is used in conventional and organic fruit growing), other myth debunkers are for example Anthony Trewavas, Dennis Avery and Alex Avery. but you are right, their arguments should be adressed in the article.

Truetom (talk) 04:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

organic versus conventional

i am sorry, i always want to slash whole sections, but the first sentence about ancient agriculture not having destructive impact on biodiversity is not true, there lots of contrary examples since the stone age, you just have to read collaps by jared diamond. i also don't see the usefullness of this section, animal manure, etc are mentioned elsewhere. Plus the benefits to biodiversity is well written, well referenced and already covers a comparison with conventional agriculture Truetom (talk) 04:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

definition in intro

growingorganic added another ifoam definition to the intro, the two are somewhat similar. i proprose to delete the older one and put the new one in the the same place at the end of the intro. any opinions?Truetom (talk) 07:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

organic farming or organic agriculture

• Organic farming → Organic agriculture — Consistent with general article Agriculture, Farming redirects to it. — Truetom (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)(
• i agree that this article should be renamed organic agriculture, a quick google search finds way more sites for organic agriculture than farming, ifoam, the organic agriculture organisation is called international federation of organic agriculture movements. agriculture is the more general term and the general wiki article is likewise called agriculture, farming redirects to it. any opinions on this? Truetom (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
• I see almost three times as many for farming[6] as agriculture.[7] 199.125.109.126 (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose move of Organic farming to Organic agriculture per WP:GOOGLE and IP 199.125.109.126. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of biodynamics as part of the history of organic farming

User 68.101.71.128 deleted the following sentence from the history section this article:

Rudolf Steiner , an Austrian philosopher, made important strides in the earliest organic theory with his biodynamic agriculture.

With the justification: "organic farming is serious movement, not this mystical garbage". According to Steve Diver, Agriculture Specialist with the National Center For Appropriate Technology:

Biodynamic agriculture was the first ecological farming system to arise in response to commercial fertilizers and specialized agriculture after the turn of the century, yet it remains largely unknown to the modern farmer and land-grant university system. The contribution of biodynamics to organic agriculture is significant, however, and warrants more attention.

The inclusion of biodynamic agriculture thus is relevant to the history of organic farming and should be retained. --EPadmirateur (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Please provide some more sources from more authoritative sources. Some mainstream textbooks on Organic Farming would be ideal for establishing how important this alleged influence is. Jefffire (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

External links reloaded

Most of these links look ok; can we discuss any large-scale deletion before throwing out the baby with the bathwater? I've trimmed the list but restored many seemingly helpful and non-commercial links. hgilbert (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Dmoz (the Open Directory) is often terrible, and is certainly not freely editable.. I frankly don't understand the philosophy that it is the only external link which should be included. II | (t - c) 02:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't just let DMOZ be the deciding factor on the links but Calliopejen1 was spot-on that it looked like a link farm and after looking at them, half were garbage. We want free, high-quality info or something worthwhile to sink our teeth into as interested readers. We don't give a rat's ass about promoting clubs & organizations, photos of their members or upcoming events, or getting some lame-ass newsletter if we give them our email. We don't campaign for external causes and we don't allow gratuitous links. Go ahead and link directly to whatever goodies a site has and skip the time-consuming drivel on the front page. Either they have quality free text, pics, etc. for actually learning about the topic or they don't. Most don't! That is why we are supposed to discriminate and eliminate the mediocre...it saves the reader lots of time and hopefully raises the bar on their learning experience.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that was pretty good trimming. However, I don't agree with removing the FAO link (and was a bit surprised when you removed an FAO ref in your last edit). I'm also not sure I agree with removing the Organic Consumers Association. Both have a lot of information. Didn't see how FAO was broken. II | (t - c) 06:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, I can't find the errors that I was getting last night and am now able to get the pdf documents and maps. Maybe they were doing system maintenance; either way I have restored that external link. About removing it as a ref...that is because I didn't feel the sentence "Organic Agriculture is a very knowledge intensive production system" needed that ref because it is a simple standard statement whose meaning is implicit (i.e. doesn't need bolstering). Nothing was wrong per se. The Organic Consumers Association is a political campaign but I see a collection of loose news articles rather than direct info. It is more POV campaigning (the politics of organic farming) rather than giving data about actual farming.

I have been looking at the Internet Archive and other places as time allows for good quality documentary videos but I haven't found anything to write home about yet. Still looking...
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the FAO ref didn't provide much info, but whenever I remove a reference, I'll mention it in my edit summary if I have space, with my justification as well if I have space. If I do a big edit it may not feasible. I generally would not summarize the edit as minor. You could use more informative edit summaries. Hope you don't take it personally. II | (t - c) 17:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't mind. I welcome the criticism and will try to bear it in mind for the future. Feel free to ask me about any edits where my meaning may not be clear (sorry for the delay in response). Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Wwoof-ers

This weird-looking name is actually the odd moniker of a prominent and legitimate volunteer organization, sort of the "Medicine sans Frontieres" of the Organic Farming world. I've restored the link hgilbert (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please show me something in a link at that site that has encyclopedic value to the article on organic farming? I haven't found any kind of data or articles about organic farming there. I see an organization about networking organic farmers for meeting and communicating..I don't see how that is relevant to the article.

Their link for articles here is nothing but a collection of links to other peoples' articles all over the web...articles about the organization, not organic farming.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

older version

i really think that the older version is much much better, the intro describing organics isd well written i find, the newer version starts with plants need nitrogen or something. in the section about weeds it says :Techniques for controlling weeds include handweeding, mulch, corn gluten meal, a natural preemergence herbicide, flame, garlic and clove oil, borax, pelargonic acid, table salt, solarization (which involves spreading clear plastic across the ground in hot weather for 4–6 weeks), vinegar, and various other homemade remedies. i don't know about hobby gardeners but i can garantee you that organic growers combat weeds by mechanical means, flameweeding and mulching and not with table salt... i think that some elements can be incorporated but i think that sometimes less is more, the old version describes the general approach, mentions important elements, the newer version is chaotic and goes all over the place... Truetom (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

My basic response is that the old version has no real sources, and provides very limited, off-the-cuff information. The new section has several scholarly sources, including Gillman's (an agriculture prof) down-to-earth discussion. The new section is organized by what farmers report as their greatest challenges: soil management, then weeds, then pests. As far as salt, Gillman doesn't think it's a good idea (and I think he's probably right), but Gillman says it was one of J.I. Rodale's favorites. We could remove it or note that Gillman says it is persistent and therefore probably a bad idea. II | (t - c) 19:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

the older version started with a line about organic farming having a holistic approach the went really well with the wendell berry quotation and then described typical elements that have implication on soil fertility, pests and weeds (for instance rotations), the new versions starts with plants need nitrogen, phosphor and potassium..

for me that was not an improvement. i don't care whether you leave the salt in or not, it is the whole list, i repeat weeds are controlled through mechanical means, by flameweeding mulching and by hand, what people do in the backgarden is a different story but this article is about farming and not about backyard gardening, the reference to the truth about organic farming i don't find, the book is really called truth about organic gardening and it seems to be a book about backyardgardening, grow your own food kind of thing, we should rather have quotes from textbooks and professional magazines... Truetom (talk) 09:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Truetom. Jeff Gillman's book, 'The Truth About Organic Gardening,' has been incorrectly cited here as 'The Truth About Organic Farming,' then inappropriately and extensively used as a reference to back up statements that don't apply to organic farming. Jeff Gillman says on p. 16 of his book:

The distinction between organic gardening and organic growing must be addressed before we really begin to talk about what it means to garden organically. Organic gardening infers that you're dealing with a small plot of land, maybe only the size of a container, and that you're gardening primarily for yourself rather than other people. ... This book is written primarily for organic gardeners rather than for people planning to take their produce to market.

Products like corn gluten meal, clove oil and borax are not commonly used for weed management on organic farms because they are too expensive (not to mention that borax applied in sufficient quantity to kill weeds will also kill crops, and render soil infertile for years).Mbomford (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Introduction Language

Would it be possible to replace "etc..." with something more professional sounding? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredmhagemann (talk • contribs) 17:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

definition of organic farming

Organic farming is a type of agriculture that uses natural methods ,it includes cultivation of crop without affecting the environment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.2.55 (talk) 07:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

i am busy doing a project at school and we have been asked to look at the effects of organic farming when doing an experiment on cress seeds, what does organic farming have to do with cress seeds, apart from the obvious fact that cress seeds are organic and are grown ?

NPOV & Organic Farming

This article was weak because it ignores certain controversies that should be included for NPOV. I made a few edits to improve this. The intent was to manage this without changing it so as to debate points but to permit the Reader to review contoversies if they wish to. 24.10.30.141 (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Benefits of organic produce

This 2007 link needs to be deleted http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/organic-food-is-healthier-and-safer-fouryear-eu-investigation-shows-395483.html

It is a preview of a scientific study to be published in 2008. This study and not this cited article needs to be the supporting citation. I cannot find any such study, but did not delete the claim and supporting citation because someone else may be able to find it. 24.10.30.141 (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't find anything either and find the content misleading. The Organic Food article is much more balanced and doesn't use the study that is in question here. Xanderanj (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It is my understanding that newspaper articles are an approved source for articles as long as they are papers such as the NYT's, the Guardian, etc. I frequently find a news source reference rather than the study. Gandydancer (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

International regulation & IFOAM

This text gives me the impression that there is international regulation when apart from some EU treaties there is none. Could someone else edit this section to make this clear? I would, but I don't know enough about the IFOAM to be able to do this well. Personally I doubt that many nations pay a lot of attention to the IFOAM and I would prefer that it just be deleted, but others likely disagree. 24.10.30.141 (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

"Organic agricultural methods are internationally regulated and legally enforced by many nations, based in large part on the standards set by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), an international umbrella organization for organic organizations established in 1972."

Weed control

People who don't do any farming themselves tend to lack appreciation for the need for weed control—i.e., that it takes so much attention, that it's not just an afterthought. This edit was an addition to bring the importance of weed control to the attention of the lay reader. OK, the editor on this edit felt that that additon was superfluous, apparently on the theory that the reader would already understand and appreciate weed control without it, presumably because the word "pesticides" was already linked above. OK, that's reasonable, but I felt that, if we're "not allowed" to have this sentence, then you do need at least to lead the lay reader by the hand a little bit as done here. OK, fine, no problem, but then the editor of this edit says that most people already know what a pesticide is (doubtful to those of us who know the true background level of knowledge of many of the non-farming readers who will come here), and, furthermore, says that an herbicide is not a pesticide, which is clearly not in line what's presented at the link targets themselves (i.e., if one *actually reads* the ledes of pesticide and herbicide). *Both* of those ledes make clear that herbicides are being classed among pesticides, and that weeds are being classed among pests, so the second half of this edit summary just emphasizes the mistakenness of the first part. I'm not picking on anyone at all—I know that all of these edits are in good faith—but all I'm saying is, please don't automatically assume that you can second-guess my edits, slash, know better than I do (such that both of my edits need to be undone) when I'm putting more attention and thought into my edits than you're putting into yours. I mean that only logically, not as an insult in any way. The idea that the readers who come to this lede don't need to have the basic concepts of weed control briefly mentioned, because they already know the correct information and emphasis without being told, has been demonstrated to be wrong by the edits themselves. The lede as it now stands is fine by me—it mentions and link both pesticide and herbicide, and that's enough—but please—don't revert others' work on a cursory, skimming, didn't-read basis without paying enough attention to judge the merits of it. I'm not a newbie, so I'm not offended when I see it, but one has to remember that doing that kind of reversion to newbies would constitute WP:BITEing. It takes good contributors and sours them on future contributing. Thanks, and happy editing. Regards, — ¾-10 23:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree on both points. --EPadmirateur (talk) 00:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I am so sorry! I am a life-long organic gardener and I do a fair amount of editing on related articles and I have never known that a herbicide was considered a pesticide. I am usually aware of the need to be "nice", especially to new editors, but I really did think that anyone that thought herbicides were pesticides must be real dopes and certainly know nothing about gardening. Sorry to make you go through all this work just to defend a perfectly good edit. Gandydancer (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem—sorry that it sounds so whiny upon re-reading. Didn't mean it as a whine so much as a whoa-slow-down. Glad you guys understood. Happy gardening. — ¾-10 01:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No, you were not whiny at all! And happy gardening to you as well - this year I will be adding two hives to my collection of things that make me happy. Gandydancer (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

i am sorry to insist here, but i am a grower of orgniac veg myself, and i find this annoying, organic farming never includes herbicidal weed control, also this is covered in it's own section, let's keep intros short.Truetom (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm OK with your most recent edit, because it still addresses my concern. As for "superfluous", that's a judgment call, but fine as long as the herbicide link is kept. As for "misleading", I think the only thing misleading is that it said "usually" when really it's "always" as far as I know. So I think that sentence would have been fine except with "usually" deleted. But your edit is fine, too. — ¾-10 22:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see your comment here, Truetom, but I disagree. The lead of an article needs to include the most relevant and distinguishing information about the subject. That's what this sentence does. The fact that the weed control is covered in the main article is irrelevant. A summary of that information needs to be in the lead to distinguish organic farming from conventional farming. Let's delete "usually" as well. --EPadmirateur (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

the first paragraph already states that herbicides are excluded from organic farming, why say it twice. besides this is not an article about backyard gardening, weed control is not important to organic pig or cattle farmers, hoeing and weeding are not methods that are used be organic growers or cereal or apples. i try to avoid phrases that sound small scale. Truetom (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, homemade organic herbicides & fungicides are indeed used by some organic farmers. Using saltwater to treat fence lines immediately comes to mind. Any practitioner of Integrated pest management will probably have the need at some point for a homemade "safe" formulas. I agree that it is best practice to use the least amounts that you can get away with. A search for homemade organic herbicides reveals a multitude of recipes & treatments, not all will be effective, though. The article only seems to address synthetic (manufactured) herbicides.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Berean Hunter's good point is about what was in the back of my mind when I first wrote "usually" (and later, here on this talk page, "...as far as I know"). I figured it was entirely probable that someone somewhere practices organic farming using herbicidal weed control, except that it can be called "organic" because the herbicide is made using "natural ingredients". (The division between natural and synthetic is harder to make scientifically then it is in laypeople's minds, but still, there's a big, and real, difference between Roundup and salt water.) But I myself have never been involved with it, so I couldn't provide examples. Truetom, as for your recent note above ("backyard gardening [...] i try to avoid phrases that sound small scale")—you're right that organic pig or cattle farmers probably need not worry about weed control (the animals do it for them). But you're wrong that weed control is not a deliberate, conscious concern in other commercial organic farming, such as cereal crops. For example, when soybeans and maize are grown conventionally (nonorganically), it is often with "Roundup-Ready" seed, because Roundup is going to be used to control the weeds during the growing season. There's a big, important reason why "Roundup-Ready" was developed in the first place: because when you're growing corn or soybeans or other crops organically, the weeds are going to be every bit as big, lush, and green as the crops are—in fact, more so, usually—unless you do things to stifle them, such as cultivating. There's nothing "small-scale" about the concern of weed control and how you accomplish it in many domains of commercial agriculture. There are large organic truck farming operations (row-crop vegetables) that have to worry about it big-time. It's simply entirely incorrect that this topic is confined to backyard gardens and small-scale affairs. So that's why not treating it as an afterthought or a sidelight is important in this article. Regards all, — ¾-10 15:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I also wonder about the cattle and pig farmers not worrying about weeds. They don't eat everything and leave some of the worst weeds like thistle and stinging nettle. As those are left, they go to seed and rapidly multiply taking over more and more space while crowding out feed crops. I've noticed this at a neighboring farm as it has progressed over the last four years and he now has a serious problem...I don't know if he is trying to do things organically or not but the principle is the same either way. When we had cattle (over 20 years ago), we moved them into adjacent pastures and then went in spot-treating with 2-4-D to keep that in check. What does the organic farmer do for that?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

A good question, and one that I'm sure poses quite a thorn in the side (or make that a thistle actually) of farmers needing to address problems like that within the realm of organic methods. I think that when many people buy meat (or veg too) with an organic label, they're not understanding how much weed-control challenge (and insect-control and fungus-control challenge) went into it. I think that plenty of nonfarming people imagine that inorganic methods were merely foisted on farmers by Big Evil Corporations (in caps) and that doing things organically can easily be accomplished if the farmer will simply commit himself to living right and "saying 'screw you' to The Man". People don't realize that the reason inorganic farming became so widespread is because it solves short-term and medium-term problems that farmers really need to solve in order to have a good harvest. What it does in the long term is another question—the one that drives the effort to minimize the use of inorganic methods even if we can't practically eliminate their use. Farming is, at its heart, some amount of inescapable controlled monoculture. It is humans swimming upstream against the current of nature by trying to force one species to thrive and consume the soil's resources while battling back other ones from doing the same. Nature abhors a vacuum, and it doesn't suffer monocultures to live on indefinitely. Anyway, now that I've spent too much time typing here, off to do other stuff! — ¾-10 16:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Input on pesticide effects on farm workers

I had recently moved information in the pesticides section of organic food to the talk page of another article about the health effects of pesticides on farm workers; this was reverted, but I started a discussion on the talk page about the most appropriate location for that information. Upon further consideration, it would seem more appropriate here than in the organic food article, but would welcome input on this from editors here. Yobol (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Import text here from organic food:

Risk to farm workers

There are studies detailing the effects and side effects of pesticides upon the health of farm workers. Even when pesticides are organic, and are used correctly, they still end up in the air and bodies of farm workers. Through these studies, organophosphate pesticides have become associated with acute health problems such as abdominal pain, dizziness, headaches, nausea, vomiting, as well as skin and eye problems. In addition, there have been many other studies that have found pesticide exposure is associated with more severe health problems such as respiratory problems, memory disorders, dermatologic conditions, cancer, depression, neurologic deficits, miscarriages, and birth defects. Summaries of peer-reviewed research have examined the link between pesticide exposure and neurological outcomes and cancer in organophosphate-exposed workers. Those pesticides found to cause major health problems are banned for use in agriculture, conventional or organic, in many developed counties.

I think there are significant OR issues so did not incorporate into article. Feel free to do so. Yobol (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Homework

please help me i have project so i cant do this the question is what the side effects of these chemical and pesticides to human. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.164.84 (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read this.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Two points that were inaccurate

I was just looking up some information on organic farming as a part of a school project and came across this. I was so shocked with the some of the facts I read, I almost fell flat on the floor not because they were true, but because they weren't!

Firstly, I would like to point out that no one was the "creator" of organic farming, because as we all know chemicals are only more of a recent thing. Can you imagine the ancient Egyptians spraying their tomatoes with bug spray every morning? Hardly! They were more ingenious than that, for they created the wheel and the alphabet! So was it the Romans? No, for no one was, that was just how it was done after God created the world. You might say it was the natural instinct of human kind just like it is to reproduce.

Secondly, the food we eat is not getting more organic and neither is the farms! It's only that people have just started to label it now. What you might not have noticed is, that it's actually getting worse, for now they have made so many more chemicals to use on farms! I was extremely disappointed with this document and I'll leave you with these couple of thoughts.

Great critical thinking. Thanks. The "history" paragraphs had been written by someone(s) with an implicit context (not consciously or critically examined) of "the modern era since the industrial revolution". I made several minor edits there which widen the context of the comments to include human history overall, in which, as you rightly point out, organic farming (of many particular kinds in different times and places) was the original type of agriculture, and has been practiced for thousands of years. As for your second point, i.e., whether the entire agricultural sector today is trending more organic or less organic, this is a very deep question, and how one answers it depends on which variables one measures and what overall impression one takes away from that. Greenwashing certainly plays a big part in recent years (as you pointed out at "just started to label it"). You are correct that chemical technology continues to develop (I wouldn't say "advance" lest someone take that to mean that "it's all better now, no more worries", which is not what I mean; although, in fairness to the chemists and engineers who are working on it, most of them are trying to improve things [e.g., stuff like the switch from R-12 to R-134a). My own sense is that things are not entirely hopeless, just fraught with ambiguity and uncertainty as to how things will trend in future. Environmental protection has come a long way since 1970. Things have been getting better in some ways, because today the general populace at least even understands that humans are in danger of fucking themselves up big time if they don't shoot carefully for sustainability. In 1970 most people just didn't even really think about it. Now, the hard part is getting people to take serious action now that they mostly understand what they ought to be striving toward. Humans often tend to be rather bad at actually doing what they know they should be doing. In that sense many consumers today are complicit in greenwashing because corporations are telling them what they want to hear, and they are choosing to believe it because they have a need to believe it. But it's a constant struggle to get them to really put their money where their mouth is. And not that it's all the fault of the individual, either; corporations pride themselves on being completely amoral (thus completely sociopathic), which is a long-simmering problem that humanity may need to put an end to someday if it wants to avoid meltdown of various kinds (literal and figurative) in the future. One last thing I want to say here, which is that looking down on modern technology, which is a popular way to feel superior these days, is no panacea, either, as a solution to humanity's problems. If humans want to breed up a population of even more billions (which they basically do) and have decent quality of life (and who doesn't?), they will need to look carefully at all tools in the toolbox, with a cautious but open mind. For example, it's all well and good to paint all GMO development with the same black-tar brush, calling it all evil and misguided (which many greener-than-thou people do); but are we really going to feed 6 or 8 or 10 or 15 billion people comfortably if we rule out GMO rice, soy, and maize? Personally I think salvation lies in a whole basket of solutions, with all of them viewed suspiciously as necessary evils to be balanced against each other. For example, preaching foodier-than-thou sermons is great, but are poor people supposed to "just suck up" higher food prices if that's what it entails? That attitude won't necessarily lead to good quality of life for all; it's too dangerously close to "well, I've got mine, so screw you". Anyway, thanks for improving this article today. Regards, — ¾-10 20:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

enough nitrogen

I removed the following section because it is wrong, or i suppose it depends on your definition of enough nitrogen. the whole section on soil management is a mess, actually: but getting enough nitrogen,at the right time, is next to impossible for organic farmers. Truetom (talk) 11:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the entire edit. Gandydancer (talk) 12:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I saw that, did you have anything else to say?

Truetom (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Critical Analysis

I removed "The UN Environmental Programme concluded that organic methods greatly increase yields in Africa." - not only is the reference inadequate but the assertion is unproven and arguably dangerous. Roy Bateman (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's accurate, the same remark has been made for India. You however need to consider the yield over a long period of time (decades). The use of chemical fertilisers, pesticides ... exhaust the soil (soil fatigue) as it eliminates microorganisms. In the long run, this degrades the initial gain attained with the fertilisers, pesticides, but in the long run it becomes less efficient.

Use of several organisms

The use of several organisms in a system should be mentioned (ie fish, seaplants, soilplants, ...). See Integrated_multi-trophic_aquaculture, Integrated Rice and Duck Farming 91.182.170.213 (talk) 08:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Pesticides, Changed the Unlike to Like at the beginning of the paragraph, do people truly believe a conventional farmer would spend time and resources applying a pesticde to a crop if it was not necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commonsensepleaseplease (talk • contribs) 11:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Supporters

Famous organic farmers include Senator Jon Tester, Farmer John- of Angelic Organics, skateboarder Bob Burnquist, Eliot Coleman, C.G. Kains, and Rodale.

perhaps mention in text 91.182.201.97 (talk) 11:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Labels and Regulations

A section that explains organic farming labels is missing. For example, what european regulation governs organic farming, what are the labels consumers can recognize and which production methods does it entail. Timelezz (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your remark. But I disagree. This is an article about farming. No label is applied to a farm. Rather, the label is applied to the product that is actually sold (e.g. organic food and organic clothing. It is in those product articles that you should rightfully expect discussion of labeling. I do agree that this article could use a section clearly describing the outputs of organic farming, worldwide. What percentage is food, and which? What percentage is cotton? What else is produced organically? That would be interesting to know, and to have here. That section would contain wikilinks that would lead the reader naturally to the product articles. I will put that on my to-do list! Jytdog (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

You are right. I just see that there is an article about Organic certification and that is where I want to elaborate on the regulations that the EU has set for Organic Food. I think that the term 'standards' (where it now belongs to) did not gather my attention while I was looking for labels or regulations. Perhaps we should consider a better sub header for that part of the text? Or perhaps it is just me. Timelezz (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

@Jytdog Sorry for adding 'the late'. I did not know it meant 'deceased'. I thought it referred to a persons period in its life. Early life, versus later on in ones life. I learned I was mistaken. My apologies to Mark Lynas :) Timelezz (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

History of organic farming

It's not clear why material drawn from a verifiable source is being reverted (by Ronz). hgilbert (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps my fault as I added a ref but did not make an edit summary. The other one mentioned is linked to a reasonable "ref". Gandydancer (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Putting the label "organic" on Biodynamic agriculture is dubious at best. The sources are careful when doing so, to the point where it probably doesn't belong at all. Further, the copy was so poorly written that it could be interpreted to mean that biodynamic agriculture was developed in response to use of chemical fertilizers.

And please remember that this is a summary of History of organic farming. --Ronz (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. As it is widely acknowledged as the first major system of organic farming, biodynamics needs to be included in a history of the subject. hgilbert (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I have added references to many histories of organic farming that include biodynamics as an early, usually the earliest form of modern organic agriculture (all verifiable sources). Incidentally, there are many more out there; if you want twenty or thirty more, that's no problem. hgilbert (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

For example, hgilbert (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Lange, Stefan; Williges, Ute; Saxena, Shilpi and Willer, Helga (Eds.), Research in Organic Food and Farming. Reports on organisation and conduction of research programmes in 11 European countries (2006) Federal Agency for Agriculture and Food BLE, Bonn, Germany, p. 96.
• "From the outset 'biodynamic' was accepted as a special case of 'organic'." Paull, John, From France to the World: The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), Journal of Social Research & Policy1. 2 (Dec 2010): 93-102.
• "Biodynamic agriculture is an organic farming system". Carpenter-Boggs, Lynne; Reganold, John P; Kennedy, Ann C., "Biodynamic preparations: Short-term effects on crops, soils, and weed populations", Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems15. 3 (2000): 110-118.
• "Organic farming has a long history in Austria, not least due to the fact that Rudolf Steiner, the founder of the bio-dynamic farming movement, was an Austrian." Vogl, C. R. and Darnhofer, I. (2004) Organic Agriculture in Austria. The Organic Standard (34), pp. 2-5.

That only makes the problem worse. This article is on organic farming, not its history. Nor does the content reflect the care in which the sources link the two. Seems like we're writing content first, then trying to find sources that partially support that content. At least copy is getting more coherent.

"was independently developed" Really? Which source verifies this?

Of course, all this should be moved over to History of organic farming, and this article should just summarize that one. Sorry I wasn't ultra-clear on this continued problem. --Ronz (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the History of organic farming should have a fuller exposition; point well taken, and I'll have a look there. The current history section of this article does not seem unduly long, however. hgilbert (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

No one mentioned the length of the section. I mentioned that the section should be an accurate summary of the other article. --Ronz (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I suppose its purpose is really to be an accurate summary of the history of organic farming, which may or may not be the same as being an accurate summary of the Wikipedia article about the history of organic farming. The latter is not regarded as a verifiable source by Wikipedia guidelines. hgilbert (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Luckily, no one is saying that it should be used as a source. Let's focus on concerns actually brought up in the discussion. --Ronz (talk) 02:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

addressed objections here, hopefully to everyone's satisfactionJytdog (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with several poster that the history section horribly misleading at best and is complete false at worst. The problem is that while organic draws on and improves traditional methods, it is not traditional in and of itself. before the 1940's organic agriculture did not exist. That is traditional or biodynamic or whatever, but NOT organic. I can rewrite the whole paragraph, but before I do that I would like to avoid a editor war. So whoever wishes to discuss it, please do so here. Redddbaron (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Since it is unclear what you would change and how, I suggest you be bold and edit - even if it is reverted it at least makes clear what your concerns are. Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. Now we can talk about the changes, if you like. Redddbaron (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems fine to me.Jytdog (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

External link request

I'd appreciate it if this report could be considered for inclusion in the 'External Links' section: http://www.kerrcenter.com/publications/organic-philosophy-report.pdf

It is a summary of the history and philosophy of organic farming. The author has decades of experience as an organic farmer and researcher; another publication by the same author is already cited in this article's 'References' section.

Disclosure: I am affiliated with the organization that published the report.

Many thanks! Farm65 (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I posted it, since it is well written and no objections were posted and it doesn't seem spam like to me. Worst case someone else might take it down. Redddbaron (talk) 01:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Deleted paragraph rewritten and moved.

I rewrote one of the banned editors paragraphs and moved it from systems to methods. Because the idea he was trying to include was valid, but poorly written and out of context. Hopefully by moving it to the methods section instead it fits the flow of the article better, and shows the context better too. Because there is nothing fundamentally preventing conventional agriculture from borrowing successful organic methods and integrating them. And in fact they often have and do.Redddbaron (talk) 13:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Good job. I've asked the editor who removed all the information to explain what's going on. --Ronz (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Reference 66 Link is Broken

The reference for organic farming benefits in the Economics section is no longer at the linked location.

• Staff, IFOAM, 2009. Misconception Number 38: Organic farmers can only survive because they get subsidies; the system is not fit for economic competitiveness. The organic sector is eating tax-payers money and it goes into the pockets of a few manipulative individuals.184.189.243.215 (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't find the document so I've tagged the ref as a dead link.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Pesticides

Made a small change, biological pesticides include herbicides,insectides and fungicides just as chemical pesticides do (giving this definition after mentioning synthetic is implying a biased POV). (Organic farming is a form of agriculture that relies on techniques such as crop rotation, green manure, compost and biological pest control. Organic farming uses fertilizers and pesticides (which include herbicides, insecticides and fungicides) but excludes or strictly limits the use of manufactured (synthetic) fertilizers, pesticides , plant growth regulators such as hormones, livestock antibiotics, food additives, genetically modified organisms,[1] human sewage sludge, and nanomaterials.[2]) (Before change the definition was given after manufactured (synthetic)). FYI http://www.wpi.edu/News/TechNews/010403/organic.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.105.239.3 (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hormones and Antibiotics = Petrochemicals?

That's what one would be lead to believe if they were completely scientifically illiterate and read the opening paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.82.43.229 (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I changed the punctuation to prevent that. — ¾-10 01:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Self-sufficient seed production

See Plant_propagation An important issue in any organic farming, natural farming and biodynamic farming is that one can produce one's own seed (hence many take care to choose crop cultivars that produce very fertile seeds -heirloom crops, ...-) . However, using crops that do not produce viable seeds (and so can only be propagated vegetatively) seems to be more ecologic in some ways, as it prevents the accidental propogation (by birds, ...) of these non-native crops into the surrounding environment.

Perhaps useful to mention in article KVDP (talk) 14:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

crystalball

w regard to the new content on "tip of the iceberg" content was added in this dif; i reverted in this dif, User:Gandydancer reverted in this dif. a) this is speculation by the author of the article; b) the article is an editorial, not a factual piece. This is not reliable information that we should present to readers in Wikipedia's voice as actual describing reality. please see WP:CRYSTALBALL. Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, was the editorial based on a survey or some other evidence? Or just an opinion piece? It would make a difference. Personally I see no need for it. But if it was done in a scientific poll, that might make it allowable. Rather than technicalities though. I would like to hear why he thinks it is important to add in the first place.Redddbaron (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please note that I actually did not end up adding the info. After some research I decided it was not needed and I was not satisfied with the source. Perhaps you could have saved your warnings and presented them if the information was actually returned to the article. Gandydancer (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Your edit note was misleading. I reckon you changed your mind halfway through and neglected to change the note. Glad we agree on this. Jytdog (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I planned to do the edit in two stages, first to return it and then move it down into the article since it certainly was not appropriate for the lead. But I planned to rewrite it and by the time I did some research I had decided to not use it after all (see below). My next plan was to make a talk page note to explain...too bad that I didn't get around to it as clearly a stitch in time would have saved nine! Gandydancer (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Re Red's question, I did not think it was needed either, once I had read the section where I thought it might fit. As for the source, I googled the journal and found that it is quite new--only a few years old-- and only published twice a year, and a few other probs as well, which you will see if you google it. On the other hand, if I thought that the article needed the info and it was published as an editorial in a well-established journal, I may well have argued to keep it and obviously I would not bother to argue if I did not think I had a good chance of "winning". Gandydancer (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

luddite fallacy

Since when did lower labour productivity become a good thing? Thousands of years of agricultural progress have given us steadily improving productivity; now people trying to support a less productive form of farming turn it around and try to frame lower productivity as though it were positive. That's thoroughly unencyclopædic. bobrayner (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Nowhere did the paragraph you removed say that anything was a good thing. You may read "19% more farming jobs in the UK" as being a terrible disappointment, in that those people would then be denied all the joys of office work, or unemployment benefit, if you choose. It appears to have been a well sourced section, and I suggest that it be reinstated. --Nigelj (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. I am putting the paragraph back in. There is nothing Luddite in creating jobs in a new industry. Actually it is the conventional ag industry that is acting like Luddites, if anyone. Proof being the vandalism Bobrayner did on this wikipage by removing balanced, refernced, NPOV information simply because it hurts his own antiquated conventional model viewpoint. Redddbaron (talk) 16:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Rather than thousands of years of agricultural progress, it is the very recent use of long-stored carbon products that have so drastically caused the drop of man hours needed to raise food. But some people believe that we have reached a point where we are altering world climate by releasing thousands of years of stored carbon and need to return to more ecologically friendly types of raising our food. Small organic farmers are interested not only in profit, but also in preservation as well. Some people believe that we'd be better off using present day calories from human's work rather than the calories that have been stored for millions of years. ...poorly written...but I have no desire to put a lot of effort into this reply since in my experience it is information that is readily available but rejected by some people. Gandydancer (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. I even agree. However, the specific issue on the table is if the paragraph in question should be removed as an unencyclopædic Luddite fallacy. Clearly it isn't and shouldn't have been removed. As you hinted at, the world is gradually changing from a view that there is a shortage of labor, and surplus of good arable land, to a more modern view that there is a surplus of labor and a shortage of good arable land. This shift must also be reflected in agricultural business models. Those who refuse to change to more modern scientific based organic are the Luddites, not the modern organic business models. Either way, the paragraph was NPOV, and made no claims if either model was good or bad, so removing it was incorrect. Redddbaron (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Granted that User:Bobrayner started this thread with some inflammatory activity and language, I would ask everybody to cool it. There are valid points on both sides here and nobody is a "vandal." Let me start by saying that the source used to support the content under discussion is a primary source, which is undesirable under wikipedia's sourcing policy. However, if you do read it, you will see that the study was commissioned by the Soil Association, a UK group that promotes organic agriculture. If you do a bit more looking, you find that a year later, the Soil Association itself wrote a review (Green M and Maynard R. The employment benefi ts of organic farming Aspects of Applied Biology 79, 2006; 51-55) in which they discuss the study they commissioned and other ones, and importantly, includes a section in which they make their argument: "The evidence presented in Organic works contradicts the narrow and negative thinking aimed at ‘shedding’ farm labour which has dominated agricultural policy for the past 60 years. Although he provision of jobs and achieving full employment are generally agreed to be desirable social goals, for more than half a century governments and industry leaders have seen ‘shedding labour’ as a key measure of the efficiency of the agricultural industry. Technological changes, underpinned by a support structure of Government grants, drove the shift to the dominant, industrial model of highly mechanised, chemical-dependent farming. These trends have fostered an increasingly isolated and ageing farming population, with few young farmers or new entrants to the agricultural industry: between 1951 and 2003 there was a 79% drop in UK farm workers (Defra, 2004); during a single decade (1993 to 2003), the proportion of UK farmers aged 55 and over increased from 48% to 56% (Defra, 2005); and in 2003, one farm worker committed suicide every seven days (Office for National Statistics, 2006)." It is pretty clear to me, that the Soil Association is doing some PR, and specifically, is trying to change the policy discussion from an emphasis on productivity (as bobrayner emphasized) to job creation. If you talk about how to best feed the country, productivity is a basis for debate on which Organic cannot win; job creation however is. Again, bobrayner had a point that our article presented the issue way the Soil Association frames the issue in an unalloyed way. A balanced section in our article would discuss both sides of the labor issue - on the one hand, Organic takes more labor and is less efficient, which makes the food more expensive; on the other hand, it employs more people, and younger people, and that is a good thing. Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with almost everything you said except for 1 thing. You need to define "productivity". Productivity per man hour is clearly in the favor of of the conventional business model, but productivity per acre is not so certain. Most (not all) modern science based organic business models are in fact more productive per acre in the long run. I have been considering writing a long paragraph to add to this page for quite a while. However, it is very complicated and is full of variables that would make it exceedingly difficult to write in summary form for a NPOV encyclopædic entry without also breaking the rules of synthesis. Basically the statistics given for "productivity" are defined by the conventional business model, and then conventional agriculture has been optimized to fit that business model. But make a new business model, and the same statistics become misleading. In its simplest form to understand, agricultural productivity is defined by output and/or market value of products leaving the farm and is often compared to the total arable acreage and/or man hours labor. There is a fallacy involved in applying it to many organic systems that is often over looked. These are measures of what leave the farm, and not necessarily what the farm actually produces. On a smaller farm a greater % of what the land produces is used by the farmer himself to feed himself and his own family and even in many cases the hired labor. Not to mention all the private transactions with the local community that never get detected by the larger markets. Taken on a country or world wide scale this can be a significant error in statistics attempting to measure the productivity of organic systems. If a country's farm population is 52% and they change to the conventional industrial model with a 2% farming population, then 50% productivity increases show in the statistics without actually producing a single bit more food or fiber. (highly simplified to make a point) In truth, conventional methods generally produce LESS Total food and fiber per acre than smaller organic farms, but a much higher % of that production gets measured because it leaves the farm. How to convey this concept for submission to a wiki article is problematic for me though.Redddbaron (talk) 09:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and made a change as per my suggestion above. User:Redddbaron thanks for your note - I do hear the hypothesis you are setting forth, and the difficulties around SYN with stating it; we would need a source that provided that kind of complex analysis to avoid the SYN problem. It also would be interesting to see if it the data actually supported the hypothesis! Jytdog (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

LOL you do know the Luddite Fallacy does include the idea that it provides more employment. Of course they often mean more "legitimate" employment in particular economic areas like agriculture. In fact that is the founding social basis of the Luddite movement: new industrial technology was putting the traditional cottage artisan out of work and they refused the ignominy of changing from being highly respected independent business member of the community to just another factory worker under the thumb of the new robber barons. All the religious and social ideology was merely camouflage for this basic loss of self and community esteem. And to be honest that is probably 30% of the reasons why people get into organic farming - getting out of the large corporation environment. 72.182.8.122 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

You are simply making the same fallacy many make, confusing traditional with modern science based organic. The vast majority of new science and technology advances are in organic, with the one exception being genetic engineering. The "new" Luddites worried about their jobs are in the conventional ag business model.Redddbaron (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The question of efficiency centers on two key factors: Profit and Population. Organic farming does incorporate an unconscious level of political belief in world population control. Specifically that when population reaches a level where manual agricultural labor cannot support more people -- any excess population should be converted to fertilizer rather than resort to technological means. And its hard to argue with that when looking at the large scale ecology of the human species. Of course the problem is applying those populations at the personal level when the human instinct is to make an exception for every person you see (i.e. everyone). The idea of safety margins also suggests that technology being reserved for brief catastrophic emergencies at best. The problem with pervasive use of rapid technological change is of course the opportunity to make similarly rapid technological mistakes.

Expediency of Profit as king should probably be confined to things that are not essential to survival of the human species. If someone makes a catastrophic mistake in car design its tragic for a few thousand at most before correction takes over. Quite different when unregulated alteration of the world food supply is involved in a wild frenzy of change and competition and total lack of liability and back up planning.

That is genetic engineering should be allowed to go forward but be more carefully regulated with specific provisions that patent owners demonstrate specific means of controlling and eliminating the new products from the environment and be ready to bear the costs of doing when required so -- before introducing products to the open air. There should also be provision to maintain viable original species for at least 40 years. The ability to rollback mistakes and start over is sort of important. Its the price for being allowed to gamble on rapid change in the food supply. If executives and scientists don't agree I suggest we seal them in some houses where junior high school kids are allowed to experiment with the air. 72.182.8.122 (talk)

Similar fallacies here too. Based on the same mistake as before. Confusing traditional with modern science based organic. If you include traditional (being nominally "organic" you can twist the statistics to make it seem as if organic is less productive, but if based on productivity of food per acre instead of productivity per farmer, modern science based organic is in most cases more productive, especially animal husbandry. In fact modern organic animal husbandry methods like multi-species Managed intensive rotational grazing and holistic management are as much as 5 times more productive per acre than confinement systems, all else equal. Joel Salatin This doesn't apply to all crops, but most crops too. The fact that organic doesn't in most cases allow genetic engineering is true, but as far as a wiki article is concerned, there is no reason to make subjective comments as to whether that is a good thing or a bad thing in talk. If you wish to add this to the article, and don't think it is addressed well enough in the article, find a good respectable source and use it in the criticism section.Redddbaron (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Organic farmers-consumers should not be hassled. Its a personal choice in most lower population countries with good arable land.

However, most of them should also be aware that taking things beyond the Renaissance Festival concept introduces several inherent undercurrents of hypocrisy. For example almost all manure comes from confinement livestock operations which organic supporters say should go away. I guarantee you that picking up manure from free range animals as fertilizer would not be economically viable past feeding your own family at basic 1800s agricultural standards. Great if the great plague wipes out 99.9% of humans I guess. Then there is the issue of genetics engineered produces versus natural when almost none the crops or animals used by organic farmers existed 5000 years ago. All current organic products were developed by human selective breeding and crossbreeding...which is essentially crude slow genetic engineering. The current practice of patenting new agricultural species was even developed during the early 20th Century years before current gene level engineering was on the horizon. I do however agree that current trade secrecy on some of these products is inhibiting peoples options to evaluate products or opt out (difficult to make herbicides to kill spreading genetic grains as a weed if more than sale of seed is covered). 72.182.8.122 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, subjective comments and comments based on your own confusion between traditional (Renaissance Festival concept) vs modern science based organic. This is addressed already in the article. If you have a suggestion to clarify the difference or to add a paragraph detailing it better, please make that suggestion. But debating in talk page based on your own lack of understanding is pretty pointless. Educate yourself on the subject, find good references, and then make or propose changes that will educate others who also don't understand. That is the point of wiki, education.Redddbaron (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

hey User:Redddbaron

Please do not feed the trolls.

:) Thx. Jytdog (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

As per the note at the top of this page: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Organic farming article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Edits to improve the article.

Forp, I would suggest that to avoid an edit war, proposed changes be talked about here. Wikipedia is not a place to post anti-organic propaganda anymore than pro-organic propaganda. However, if anti-organic is posted, then it should always be balanced with pro. It seems to me, by looking at your edits, you are more interested in shifting the bias against organic, rather that informing the wiki public about organic in its many various forms, both good and bad. Now I made a compromise by leaving the negative in, and by also changing the IFOAM quote to a USDA quote, but I will not stand by and allow anti-organic propagandists destroy the article. Please prove that is not you by working with me and other editors to the benefit of all.Redddbaron (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Forp is a bit aggressive; your edits ("Breakthoughs in blah blah" are in some ways too promotional. More importantly, your proposal to suggest changes here first violates WP:BOLD and goes toward (but doesn't reach) WP:OWN. Everybody, try to be use neutral;, non-promotional and also non-derogatory language. Avoiding generalities and being specific is useful toward that end (e.g. "Rotational grazing is an organic technique that does X") Forp I suggested on your Talk page to be more careful in the language you choose, to be sure it is neutral! Please do try. I am busy with other stuff so am going to stay out of this, other than this comment, for now Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with WP:BOLD, and I even left Forps (and others) additions in place, just balanced them out. What I was referring to was the repeated removal of things like the IFOAM quote. It doesn't do any good for one editor to remove it, and another put it back in over and over repeatedly. That's why instead of putting it back in a 3rd time (which is essentially just a petty edit war) I tried replacing it with a USDA quote. USDA isn't as good because it isn't international, although it does have some international influence, but it can't be accused of being only a pro organic organization like IFOAM. My motivation for work on this article is to educate people on organic agriculture, both the failings and successes, on a case by case basis, not to necessarily "promote" anything. It might sound "promotional" when describing a breakthrough, just as it might sound like a negative bias if only failings are mentioned. The truth is in the middle. Some breakthroughs have been made, and in other cases fails, most times somewhere in the middle. It's just reality. One would think that it is important to show where it could go right or go wrong so someone could learn. So I have no problem with people mentioning negatives as long as the reader doesn't walk away with the impression that is the only possible outcome. I am not "owning", just striving for balance. Organic like all agriculture is progressing as science and technology progresses. When breakthroughs happen, they need to be mentioned just as much as when in conventional agriculture new breakthroughs are made, in my honest opinion. By using the term "breakthrough" the reader can understand that not all organic is this way, but organic on the cutting edge can be, in specific cases.Redddbaron (talk) 06:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I did not remove the IFOAM quote, I moved it later below. I don't see its place in the intro, a bit like a Monsanto quote is not OK in GMO intro. But do you really consider peer-reviewed articles in high-quality scientific journals as "anti-organic propaganda" that has to be "balanced" by Rodale or similar non-scientific sources? That is what you did Feb 24. Yet I generally did not remove Rodale results etc. but I think that they should mostly be removed. There is sufficiently scientific research on the subject that we don't need propaganda sources---except perhaps in a "discussion" section or similar. The readers have it difficult to distinguish between propaganda and scientific sources. One of the "Rodale" references I supplemented with "(pro-organic)" but you removed that. I think that it should be there, as most readers probably do not know that it is 100 % partial. --Forp (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

"Balance" in Wikipedia (WP:NPOV) does not mean choosing two sides and trying to balance them. It means presenting information according to its prominence in reliable sources, and often means very carefully identifying what biases might be in those sources. We also give significantly more prominence to scientific consensus than to any alternative viewpoints. --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a bit more complicated than that Ronz. Science, technology and management practices in all agriculture (not just organic agriculture) are rapidly advancing. By the time consensus is obtained, the practices in the field have often already passed those methods being tested! This is why personally I would have preferred comparisons like those I tried to balance out were not even in the article at all. But seeing as they were there, I at least tried to show they are not the only possible outcome. A good example is grazing management. For years it was claimed CAFOs, while polluting with excessive manure problems, were at least advantageous due to requiring less land and less methane. In some cases using as much as 1/4 as much land. All that is true. However, grazing management has advanced and it is not uncommon to see 5 times or more forage per acre and a net negative carbon emissions rate including methane with variations of MIRG. (Ones that take advantage biomimicry and trophic cascades) That passes the advantage CAFOs formerly had. And there are advances in CAFO management too, that may one day pass grazing again. SRI is another. It is still possible to find scientific studies under 10 years old that show little to no advantages over conventional BMP rice production, yet the method has already advanced past those studies and on average from millions of farmers in the field they are getting double conventional yields of rice, and the cutting edge are breaking world records. Who knows? By the time you get scientific consensus on one form, another has already passed it! We don't know the future. Most times when there is an attempt to box either side, it is for propaganda purposes.Redddbaron (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Redddbaron, reality is indeed more complicated than that, but Wikipedia does not try to address reality directly. Wikipedia's content reflects the consensus, not the cutting edge. (WP:NOTNEWS) For wikipedia to try to express the cutting edge, ahead of how the consensus is expressed in reliable sources, would require editors to conduct original research, which we do not do here. Ronz is 100% correct. In several of your comments on this page you have provided your opinion of where the cutting edge is, and where the field is going, as you do above. Please do remember where we are. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

just want to add that subject-area experts are wildly helpful to have involved in articles. Not to give the cutting edge, but to identify and deploy secondary sources that express the mainstream view, which they can do more efficiently than anybody... if they stay true to Wikipedia's goals, policies, and guidelines! Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I will do my best to remember that.Redddbaron (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

thank you for being gracious. Jytdog (talk)

Criticism -- too technical

The following comment was added to the article by 109.153.212.15 in this dif, and was appropriately deleted, since it belongs here and not in the article: "This is all very confusing and does not make much sense to anybody unless you are some kind of botanic genius. If you are, that's great and everything, congrats, but most people don't have a clue. If this is the case, I suggest you use a different website, which is actually in English. Thanks."

I've asked that person on their Talk page to provide more specific feedback. We'll see if he/she does. Jytdog (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring over Organic_farming#Food_quality_and_safety section

folks have been trying to add extensive content based on a 2014 review to this section>

• 198.48.205.238 added content and TimidGuy refined it, in this this set of difs
• which i reverted in this dif with an incorrect edit note that said "already discussed in article." (which led TimidGuy to leave a note on my Talk page asking why)
• 198.48.205.238 re-instated the content in this dif with no edit note
• i re-reverted in this dif with correct edit note:"adding to last revert, content is about Organic food where article is already discussed. this art. = organic farming. different!"
• 198.48.205.238 re-instead again, in this dif, now with an edit note "The findings contradict those of a 2009 UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) which is cited here. If you remove one, remove the other. Otherwise you are not presenting the right information. The study is about organic crops,.)"
• i reverted again in this dif with edit note: " PLEASE stop edit warring and bring this to Talk as per WP:BRD. terrible!"

OK, this section is a WP:SUMMARY of the organic food article. It should basically be the lead of that article, with refs added. Nothing should be here, that is not there. that article should determine the weight of content given here. The IP address has just blown off WP:BRD here. it is great to be bold, but if you are reverted, bring to Talk! I have gone ahead and started this. Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Jytdog, the weight of sources should be established in the parent article. Yobol (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree, this should simply be in WP:SYNC with the referenced food article. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, your edit, "Previously, the weight of the available scientific evidence had not shown a consistent and significant difference between organic and more conventionally grown food in terms of safety." But I doubt the new study says that conventionally raised crops are unsafe. TFD (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The new meta-analysis found lower levels of cadmium in organic compared to conventionally grown food. That would seem to be a significant difference in terms of safety, since cadmium is toxic. I agree with the IP. It's odd to remove this latest and most comprehensive meta-analysis favoring organic from this article, and leave in all the older sources that aren't as positive toward organic. It appears to be a violation of core policy. If this article were to be in sync with the referenced organic food article, then it would mention the 2014 meta. If the mention in this article should basically be the lead of the organic food article, as Jytdog suggests, then it would include the 2014 meta, which was added to the lead of the organic food article by Doc James. TimidGuy (talk) 09:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no question that organic methods CAN produce higher quality safer food. In reality they don't always, but they can. The main determining factor for vegetable and grain production is the soil health. The reason it happens in produce is because many organic methods focus on soil health and improve it over time. It may take 5 years or more to achieve significant enough changes in soil health to show statistical improvement in product though, and that assumes the farmer is focusing on soil health. (it is not automatic) So anyone can easily find studies to "prove" either side of the issue they wish to promote, depending on the bias of the study. Animal production is different though. Statistical differences in nutritional quality and safety can manifest in a matter of weeks, and are consistent across the board. There really is no such thing as a "safe" CAFO. Organic pasture raised is always superior. There are literally thousands of scientific studies (maybe 10s of thousands) to back that claim. Now I stayed out of this edit war because Jytdog asked me earlier, and I promised, to do my best to avoid this kind of thing, but I have to note that this wiki page was biased by including an attack on organic, while excluding the attempt by 198.48.205.238 to balance the paragraph. A rewrite is needed for sure. What that rewrite should be.....I have some ideas, but I'll leave it to discussion instead of boldly just changing it. Redddbaron (talk) 11:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

TimidGuy it is your conclusion that the differences in cadmium matter. The 2014 meta review does not draw such a conclusion. What you are neglecting is that the levels of cadmium in conventional food are within regulatory limits. There is zero evidence that the lower levels of cadmium in organic food matter and I don't think you will find any reliable source that says they do. Thanks for calling attention to the edits made by doc james, which had been bothering for a while and I just went and fixed, and discussed on Talk on that page. Redddbaron all I asked you to do was discuss the article and sources, and not give us your own original thinking. as you do again above. I disagree, strongly, that this article is any kind of "attack" on organic. The scientific consensus is that to date, there is no scientific evidence that eating organic is more healthy - that you live longer or have less disease or anything else. The reasons why there is no evidence, are explained in the organic food article. I am sorry if you find that disappointing but stating that is not attacking anything. (putting this in parentheses because it is out of bounds for Talk: for what it is worth, i have nothing against organic. I am mostly vegetarian for ethical reasons. i buy some organic stuff (like carrots) because after experimenting, i've found that where i live, some (not all) organic produce tastes better. I have no idea why - it could well be that they are just fresher. It could be the concentration thing discussed in the article. I cannot see any scientific reason why use/not-use of pesticides or fertilizers per se would actually affect the taste and I haven't read any credible explanation of why that would be true.) Jytdog (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The cadmium levels only matter if MEDRS sources say so.

Note that being rich in antioxidants isn't necessarily a good thing, as much as the marketers would like us to think otherwise.

Maybe it would help to summarize the quality and contents of the review article so we can better decide how it might be used properly? --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

it is discussed and cited in the organic food article, where it belongs. Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Unless sources claim that the differences in toxins and antioxidants are significant to health, we cannot make that statement. Jytdog, the organic carrots you buy could be a more flavorful variety or they could be allowed to ripen more before harvesting. Or it could be they come straight from the farm, while the conventional ones come from storage. TFD (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

JytdogI wish I could claim original thinking in the paragraph above, but it simply isn't true. In fact the first long term scientific study ever done on organic crop production, Haughley Experiment, showed health benefits in organic production as well as the other things I mentioned. And in animal production there are literally THOUSANDS of feed studies showing how feed affects animal health as well as nutritional qualities of animal products we eat. There are also thousands more medical studies showing those exact nutritional difference are key factors involving human health. Everything from vitamins like beta carotene to lipids composition and balance. That's not even getting into antibiotics resistance which WHO has declared to be a major health risk. Nope, I am not talking synthesis here. It is well documented. But as I promised, discussing it here instead of changing the paragraph in the article. But it certainly does need changed. Right now it is so biased it is simply wrong.Redddbaron (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The disputed edit said there were differences in food safety, but you have provided no sources. Also large organic producers typically use phosphate fertilizers, so they would produce comparable levels of cadmium. TFD (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

http://csanr.wsu.edu/program-areas/m2m/research-areas/nutritional-quality/organic-production-enhances-milk-nutritional-quality-by-shifting-fatty-acid-composition-a-united-states-wide-18-month-study/ with a link to the study itself http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0082429 and

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24968103 and 4 more http://csanr.wsu.edu/program-areas/m2m/research-areas/nutritional-quality/bjn-2014/other-recent-meta-analyses-and-reviews/Redddbaron (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)ETA: Here is the full study http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FBJN%2FS0007114514001366a.pdf&code=be6f8609d714ba9d5367dab8427fc72d Redddbaron (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)And here is a description of what it all means written by a scientist in the study. http://www.cornucopia.org/2014/07/new-meta-analysis-identifies-three-significant-benefits-associated-organically-grown-plant-based-foods/Redddbaron (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

as above, this section is a WP:SUMMARY of the organic food article. the discussion belongs there not here. this is about farming and we discuss (summarize) our content on food because, well, food is one of the main goals of farming. Jytdog (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem summarizing here and then detailing there. But here we have all kinds of things like this,"No evidence of a difference in content of nutrients and other substances between organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock products was detected ....." and you removed proof the above is certainly highly misleading and probably just factually incorrect. If you prefer to discuss in depth at organic food, that seems a good solution, but to do that the paragraph here needs reworked. I can make a stab at it like I did for the "history" section.... if you want. That edit held up pretty well, maybe I can do the same here to improve the article while still maintaining NPOV?Redddbaron (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

again, this section should basically be the lead of the organic food article. compare WP:SUMMARY and WP:LEAD and you will see what I mean. And SUMMARY specifically says "It is advisable to develop new material in a subtopic before summarizing it in the main article." Jytdog (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

i just did it. Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Aha, I get it now. The battle to be fought to improve wiki's content is first on the other page organic food before it can reasonably be fixed here. Because the misleading bias found here in this section is simply carried from the other wiki page. Sorry Jytdog. I was a bit slow on the uptake there. Learn something new about wiki every day. Well the other page definitely needs some work, but that task is much larger. You can't just change the lead of the other page without including the "meat" ;) of the subject in the main body of that page. And you really shouldn't change this page until you can justifiably change the lead of that one. It's opening a can of worms! I doubt I can get to it until winter. That's a lot of work, both research and writing. But I certainly would encourage anyone reading this that is knowledgeable on the subject to take a stab at it.Redddbaron (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Great!! You totally get it. This is some of the really important actual editing work that (in my view) way too many WP editors neglect, to the detriment of the encyclopedia. We end up with huge swaths of content in related articles that differs significantly and even contradicts. So glad you are aware of this now! anyway, on the organic food article... A lot of people have been working on that, for a long time.. if you review the Talk page archives you will see that the current state of that article is the result of long and careful (and sometimes very intense) negotiations.Jytdog (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

everybody lobbies

yep, and everybody funds research.Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)