From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This isn't in Simple English yet.

sure not

Also there is no need to remove links to key topics like sustainable agriculture.

did I ?

In fact these are extremely important topics to many Simple English Users - more so than articles on detailed aspects of high tech farming and industrial agriculture.

Simple English Users are also living on high tech farming and industrial agriculture

We really need articles on actual developing nations best practices, to attract their interest to these articles. And get organizations like NGOs distributing this material, and of course improving it.

agree. But do not confuse Simple English Users with Simple Minded Users. They may not understand english very well, but that does not mean they are poorly-intellectually-abled. We should not confuse difficulty to understand jargon, with necessity to provide article being level 6 years old of intelligence.

For an example of how to link to more complex articles in Full English, and how to explain something simply and then more fully, see the pair Healing and Psychoneuroimmunology, which were specifically written to test the ways we can explain very complicated things that involve specialist language and state of the art science, without dumbing it down.

I'll go and see.

The structure there suggests we need an article on Farming, which is the word most Simple English Users would learn first,

You say so. It is not obvious to me. Agriculture is the word my langage use, and it is the most natural for me. Farming means nothing. I do not see where the difference lie, except perhaps that agriculture is wider. For example, I put fish production and wood production in Agriculture, not in farming.

which includes what *WE* would call subsistence agriculture. The word "Farming" at least describes the process of really doing the work.

Says you. My word is "cultiver", would not it be "cultivating" then ? :-)

Then Gardening, and more complex articles on types of agriculture can branch off from there. Also perhaps Gardening is really the most basic article, since that is what we would call most developing nations' techniques if we saw people doing them in our suburban neighbourhood... until they brought out the water buffalo that is...


So what if Gardening is the most basic, and includes everything done with hand tools largely for family consuming or small market gardening.

agree. Though small market gardening production is agriculture to me. Not gardening

Then Farming, which includes subsistence agriculture as a sub topic, can talk about irrigation systems, domestic animals, selling crops, etc.

I still do not see the difference between farming and agriculture

Finally Sustainable Agriculture can talk about the ways in which this is made compatible with the local ecology, like what practices are and are not part of it.

this I agree with

Some things in this article, not only aren't in simple english, but are grammatically incorrect. Valley2city 07:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

~There is certainly a worrisome impression given by this page that "poor third world farming sucks and is terrible" and that "modern first world methods have it all down". But progressive science (and notable observers throughout the last century) have shown that many first world cashcrop style farming drains soil nutrients and has plentiful drawbacks. On the other hand, some ancient/traditional methods are much healthier and more sustainable. These include such practices as humanure composting, small plots with diverse crops intermixed, multiple crops rounds in place of frequent field rotation, legume crops as nitrogen fixers, et cetera. I agree that modern science is a key component to healthy agriculture, particularly with selective varieties and soil testing, but it is not as simple as "Us" versus "Them" (read, in many cases, "Rich" versus "Poor" and, unfortunately, "White" versus "Dark Skinned"). The best growing arises out of open minds and contributions from every system around!

What is "qx/ha"?[change source]

In this article, there is a unit of measure written "qx/ha". What is this unit?

  • It seems like a plausible typo from mispositioning fingers on the kbd & failing to proofread:
meaning "first number in acres, 2nd in hectares", tho i haven't looked at the context.
--Jerzy 19:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Apparently 'quintal per hectare', which may be about 1/10th of a 'ton per hectare'. See [1] and related and following discussion. Freshstart 05:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Posts[change source]

Guys, please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~! How are people supposed to know who wrote the comment if you don't sign them? Orashmatash (tc) 19:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)