Talk:Agriculture in Australia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Agriculture in Australia is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
|
|||
|
Assessment comments
This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
Contents |
[edit] Sugar, Sugar, baby
I want to add a thing on sugar, but I know little botanical/horticultural clasisfication. (Monocot, Dicot, Gymnosperm & Angio is about as far as I go). So i don't know whether sugar industry should be a seperate heading (probably should be anyway its big enough) or mentioned in Horticulture.
Also pineapples, Where would they go?--ZayZayEM 05:12, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Sugar falls under crops in the stats, technically sugar is a grass (monocot) so a subsection in crops would be a good place for sugar. Pineapples are definatley a horticultural crop --nixie 05:23, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Page missing a critical component of agriculture
There's not a word here on beekeeping, although I know Australia has at least one world-renouned expert on pollination management. A number of crops are not possible without contract pollination. I understand there is also a lot of research on the use of native bees for managed pollination. Can someone supply the missing info? Pollinator 00:51, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Sheep station/Cattle station
There we have the great iconic landuse of rangelands and dammed if I can see anything about it in this art? If nobody replies on this one will try to insert somewhere.vcxlor 08:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure, but I think there is a distinction between agricultural land (i.e land that supports plants that will be harvested) and
pastoral land (i.e. land that supports plants that will be grazed by stock). Sheep / cattle stations are indeed an iconic Australian landuse, and there's a lot to say about them. I wonder if it wouldn't be best said in a separate article; perhaps Pastoralism in Australia. That would give me a better place to link "Pastoralist" to ;-) Snottygobble | Talk 12:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- It's all agriculture, and thus some comment on the big cattle stations belongs here. --Robert Merkel 23:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, very important to have some mention of cattle and sheep stations here, but that does not preclude a separate rangeland/pastoralism in australia article - like x% of australian landmass is taken up by them, and this is after all an encyc.vcxlor 01:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
The New South Wales Department of Primary Industries would see them all as being Agriculture. Farms would exclude enterprises where the only activity is grazing for meat &/or wool - but dairies in Australia are regarded as being farms, as are poultry enterprises. As this article is not Farming in Australia there is no reason to keep any of it out, but if it gets too big it should go to a seperate article.Garrie 02:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wool is missing
The section Major agricultural products does not list wool in the top ten. This does not appear consistent with ABARE livestock (PDF). --Scott Davis Talk 05:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Updated, fruit and nuts and vegitables were also missing.Charles Esson 20:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Soap box
I am reverting animal welfare back to pre Russel dyer. It's an Encyclopedia not a soap box. Removing the bit about it not being as emotive as European Union. That is a Judgement that I see hard to justify for an encyclopedia and a red rag to a bull if someone is emotiive on the issue. Charles Esson 20:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC).
Animal welfare is important but so are many other issues, it belongs in a section on it's own. Needs to be a paragraph on hens, that has been a constant battle and a interesting one as it is forcing change in industry practice. I tried to create a balanced view and put it in one section. Charles Esson 20:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rapeseed
im cotemplating should we change rape seed to canola ive worked on may farms and ive been heavily involved in the industry for for more then 10 years and ive always heard it called canola i look foward to everyones feedback cheers Bnsbeaver —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bnsbeaver (talk • contribs) 09:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
Canola are cultivars of rapeweed that contain lower levels of glucosinates; it really should be changed to canola because that is what is farmed.Charles Esson 21:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
yeah but it's not very PC to call it rapeseed... they started calling it canola (in Australia) (weather correct or not!) back in the 1980's... WP:NAME and WP:NC(CN) would suggest, using what it is called by most people - which is canola. (when was the last time you saw "rape seed oil" or "rape seed margarine" in your supermarket? maybe you did at a stock food place but most people haven't)Garrie 05:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
It seems that there is some confustion about my first statement, I wanted to change the word from Rapeseed to Canola, becouse when I wrote the statement the article said rapeseed to which I change to canola about 14 days after i brought this up becouse i had no objections. Cheers Bnsbeaver 06:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Referencing
For this article to move toward FA-quality the referencing needs to be in-line citations not general statements all statistics from these two sites....
If you are able to go back and make use of <ref></ref> statements for the edits you made that would probably be enough to get this article to A-class. Use of tags for inline citeation is discussed at WP:CITE.
(yes it's a hobby horse of mine).
BTW: Mulesing is the current Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight
Garrie 02:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Land Clearing
that section is terribly POV anti-green. Given the strength of the statments made it is almost worth removing unless someone can provide references.Garrie 03:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Specifically: as it stands the section totally disregards the fact that the clearing of native grassland, to make way for annual crops, is seen as a significant factor in the widespread problem of dryland salinity. (that's assuming that what it is saying, is actually correct - as it is unsourced, who knows?) Garrie 03:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest removing or modifying it -- the clearing of land exposing bare soil to rain is the main culprit of dryland salinity. I am not sure where these statements come from but they are clearly subjective in nature.BroMonque 18:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Indigenous Australians practiced agriculture?
I just removed this edit criticizing the claim that indigenous Australian's were hunter-gatherers who did not practice agriculture as it's not appropriate to have fact checking annotation within the article. I moved it here so that more knowledgeable editors could address whether or not the article needs changing. Thanks -- Siobhan Hansa 18:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
