From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Today's articles for improvement
WikiProject icon This article was selected as Today's article for improvement for a period of one week.
The collaboration began with this version and improved the article to this state (difference).
WikiProject icon


NOTE: The original agribusiness and talk page were retitled as Corporate farming.

I changed "corporate agriculture" back to "corporate farming". It simply adds another confusing variation, and the former is much less used than the latter. Tsavage 03:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is it really necessary for this article to contain sections on water conservation and similarly related sections? Wouldn't a link to articles involved suffice? Themusicgod1 (talk) 05:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

What about a Criticisms section?[edit]

There's a lot of criticism of the agribusiness over its industrial practices in food production (i.e. pesticides, GMO's, monoculture farming, soil destruction, and its environmental impact). Why not have a section that presents the widespread arguments and the replies of the industry? I'd gladly put in, I would just like to know if this idea is opposed by anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you are looking for the corporate farming or factory farming articles. Rmhermen (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
"They kill worms" versus "They feed people" is not a needed section of this article. Agribusiness has both good and bad aspects as does every other human enterprise. Add facts. Sourced facts. Balanced sourced facts. From objective sources. We don't need a complaints section any more than we need a praise section. WAS 4.250 (talk) 04:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

business vs. study of business[edit]

just a quick note over a series of edits between myself and Sadads over a sentence going deeper into defining "agribusiness". This is not a huge deal but I wanted to explain myself. This is a short article, so a sentence carries a lot of weight. I waited a while before editing, to see if more was coming. It wasn't, so I deleted it. Sadads introduced it, I deleted again wiht more explanation, Sadads moved it out of the lead (happy) and I edited it a bit more, and I think we are done. But here is where I have been coming from. Four things: 1) this was a lot of detail for the lead, with no discussion of the issues in the body. 2) overall: Business is business; the study of business, and even more abstractly, the study of how to manage a business, are different things. The brief sentence is, in my mind, obscure fussing over nuances about interdependence, that ~may~ matter among academics studying business/business management, but matters little in the real world where agribusinesstes large and small are coming into existence, competing, changing, and dying. In my mind the sentence was WP:UNDUE for the lead, and nothing has been provided to say why anybody should care whether academics use the term "agribusiness" to refer to interdependence among companies or not. (it is a little bit bizarre...i cannot think of any industry where there is not interdependence -- you always have manufacturers (dependent on commodity producers as well as many suppliers of many kinds) and distributors and consumers (other companies as well as people) all of whom are interdependent - it is unclear how agribusiness is any different from other sectors in that regard) 3) With respect to the last bit about "within one firm"; first it is not in the intro to the source where definitional issues are discussed. Also, sure there is ADM but then you have companies like Monsanto that started as conglomerates but haie steadily focused on one thing (seeds, for Monsanto -- having mostly shed its chemical business and having dabbled in livestock and then bailed); then you have companies like John Deere that have pretty much always done one thing, so it is unclear to me what the basis for including that phrase is, or why it even matters or if it is true. 4) Specific reference to author of source, Ng. No secondary source if provided to say why he is so important as to be mentioned - it is not typical to name the author of a source unless he/she is super important. And there are no other humans named in the article. So that gives him a lot of weight, with no secondary source to say why he matters. So I deleted reference to him. That's it - it is OK with me now and would also be OK if sources were provided for things that appear to be UNDUE... Jytdog (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Hudson's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Hudson has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

Factually, this is OK. However, the page misses an opportunity to correct the glaring misrepresentation of "corporate" farming as opposed to family farms . In fact, about 95% of all farming operations are family held, but are corporate in structure for tax purposes. This fallacy is often used in the popular media and perpetuates a myth about modern agriculture.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Hudson has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

  • Reference : Zivkovic, Sanja & Hudson, Darren, 2015. "Impact of the relationship between managers and the board of directors on economic performance of agricultural cooperatives," 2015 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2015, Atlanta, Georgia 196888, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)