Talk:Subsistence agriculture

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

revert back[edit]

I'm afraid that although the last article is still bad, this one is worse, so I am going to revert back to the old one. Saritamackita 10:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


why all this talk about sabura? this edit is no better than the last one, I'm afraid. The page still needs to be seriously rewritten.Saritamackita 21:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

bad for the environment?[edit]

I find this claim to be very dubious. While there are certainly types of subsistence agriculture that is bad for the environment, there is certainly a lot of it that is not. I'm sure conventional agriculture is a lot worse for the environment overall than subsistence agriculture. Saritamackita 21:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that genetic modification and chemical fertilization reduces environmental strain and by making crops higher yeild you reduce the land required to feed the same amount of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I too am not. In fact, conventional/commercial agriculture is arguably -vastly- better for the environment. It puts out an aggregate total more pollution, sure, but it produces vastly superior quantities of food, uses advanced methods of cultivation, genetic crops, etc. Subsistence farming, on the other hand, is using land less efficiently, puts out far more pollution per quantity of food produced, etc. Now, I don't write this to "prove you wrong," or something. Just to point out: there are DEFINITELY two sides to that issue, and this article, if it is going to go into "effects on the environment," needs to give equal time. I happen to think subsistence farming is environmentally catastrophic, hehe :). Ginsengbomb (talk) 04:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe the above comment was intended as a deeply sarcastic joke, if not I have two words: CITATION NEEDED (talk) 09:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The main problem of this article is its reference who are at least biased, of course there are several view on this topic but it will be a good things to edit reference that shows the other point a view. for example this article in french is totaly different. globally the economic perspective is to market-oriented and some author as Tchayanov, Polanyi,Meillassoux show that subsistence agriculture are much more complicated — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Merge with Subsistence agriculture[edit]

These two articles cover much of the same information, making them redundant. Bje2089 23:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge. yes these are the same. thanks Bje for identifying this duplication Covalent 16:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

List of countries[edit]

As of 2006, a significant number of people practice subsistence agriculture in Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Congo, Guinea, Canada, Madagascar, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Zambia, Mexico, Yugoslavia, Polynesia, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Vietnam and many other lesser developed countries.

I think we need a source for this, because otherwise it just attracts random vandals (Canada? Yugoslavia!?). Jpatokal 16:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


While this article could definitely benefit from expansion on the contemporary issue, as it exists in the world today, the article also makes no mention whatsoever of subsistence agriculture throughout history, and its place in the greater concepts of "progress", "civilization", "feudalism", "agricultural revolution", etc. LordAmeth 00:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Another is that the article seems to have the opinion the subsistence farming is a bad thing and that people only do it out of necessity because they are poor. There is actually a fairly strong movement of people choosing to retract from society and farm for themselves. This should be touched on as well.
Moving back to subsistence farming... Who in their right mind would want to do that? Sources??? (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, Who in their right mind wouldn't?! It means economic independence and being in control of your own destiny, rather than being at the mercy of an employer. I am a proud subsistence and happy subsistence farmer! (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


The article talks about "organic" farming. Rather, I think, it should be "natural" farming. Since organic farming is also a technique, using natural fertilizer, compost, etc. So in most of the countries, natural farmin *like shifting cultivation* is used! Can I change?

Dennis Keller —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

dubious claim[edit]

Can someone please provide some quantification for this please? I have heard of several well publicized incidents of people living on subsitence farms who are very happy and work very little. With modern farming methods (e.g. Square foot gardening) one can provide for themselves with very little work aside from initial setup, planting and harvesting... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

that stuff on here is not ruling..............

This article COMPLETELY IGNORES the native Indian's (paticularly the Northern Alaskan/Canadian Eskimo tribes) cultural context to subsistence of gaming/hunting -- carribous, whaling, geese, etc.,.. These indigenous people are neither poor or wealthy but possess a culture few thousand years strong. They've come this far by pure means of subsistence.