WikiProject Agriculture (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


This page uses three different spellings of 'moldboard'. ('mouldboard', 'mold-board'.) Should it be made consistent? - Dominus 03:51, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)


"Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."
Actually, the saying is "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds". (Ralph Waldo Emerson) I don't think this call for consistency is foolish. You may disagree, but if you mean that you think it is foolish, I wish you would say so. -- Dominus 05:49, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Sorry, left the smiley out because I thought starting the next sentence with "But seriously" would suffice as a clue. No, I don't think looking for consistency within a single Wikipedia article is "foolish". Whether one should use "moldboard" or "mouldboard" is a question I have no opinion though. Thanks for the corrected quote, though. I would have misremembered it as being one of Samuel Johnsons in any case, so thank ghod I didn't attribute it! -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 06:32, Aug 21, 2003 (UTC)
mouldboard is the British English spelling, and the OED is primarily and originally a dictionary of British English. -- Dominus

How can we have an article on plows that doesn't mention John Deere? I detect a British bias here. Rmhermen 15:27, Aug 21, 2003 (UTC)

And we don't have an article on John Deere either. Rmhermen 15:28, Aug 21, 2003 (UTC)

Of course we've got a British bias, the article uses the British spelling (plough) instead of the American spelling (plow). Flameoguy (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Really? This section is almost 10 years old. You've got a funny idea of "bias" too, since it was in accordance with MOS:RETAIN. Prinsgezinde (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


--Malcolmcw 12:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)I notice that the plough section makes no mention of Ransome who's contribution of the eversharp share not to mention his influence on the design of steel ploughs in general is a major lack


Mencial 15:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC) ¿Is there any more information about the prehistory of the plough? First ploughs, how it extends through the different agricultural civilizations, etc. I know, I am too lazy to do the research.

Drumscj (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC) Quote from page: "Instead of hoeing, some cultures use pigs to trample the soil and grub the earth." A citation or reference to what cultures would add verifiability. Also, have not heard the expression "grub the earth" and unclear what that means. If others find this confusing, more concise language would be excellent.

Moved from Talk:Mouldboard Plough[]


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was merge into DESTINATION PAGE. -- Nazgul533 talk contribs 01:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

  • There is absolutely no reason to have this as an article separate from Plough, and this one is also miscapitalized in the first place. Merge it, and create a redirect from the lowercase "p" version as well to the Plough article. Gene Nygaard 17:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Why wouldn't it be a seperate article? It is a distinct kind of plough that was developed, therefor warranting it's own individual article. It should not be merged, but only linked with the plough article. 01:36, 20 June 2006 User:
  • It could be confusing for people with limited knowlege about ploughing, therefor it should be merged. They'll search for a plough, not minding details what kind of plough it is. In Africa 90% of all ploughing is done by mouldboard ploughs. 16:14, 11 July 2006 User:Joevilliers
  • Exactly. I am reading up on plows and techniques, and this one singular article threw me. The basic definitions and technical explanation are duplicative of the "Plough" entry. The remainder is all why it is so horrible, contains no references, reads as biased, and incorporates no information on when and where it is appropriate, which it is in many cases. Reading other articles online from progressive organic agricultural sites clearly shows conflicts with the singularly negative (and strangely past tense) write-up. I think this entire entry is useless at best, false at least. 17:36, 26 October 2006 User:
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Just added a section on a typical Appalachian plow[]

I used the British spelling for consistency. I think I have a picture of a hillside plow (one I took years ago), and will include it if possible. Soltera 21:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


Would it be possible to have some dates for the development of the earlier type of plough? I realise this might be inexact and geographically dependent, but a guide would be very helpful. Cheers. fluoronaut 09:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


need more images

- old illustrations - photographs of museum artifacts —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

image of two furrow horse drawn plow is actually tractor drawn the controls point towards the front —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


Please use the video in the article at an appropriate place. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 03:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see comment on this video in Talk:Ard (plough) – it is not a plough but some kind of harrow. Richard New Forest (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Une(Japanese) rather than ridge between furrow(s)[]

Hi, all. There is a word "une(Japanese)" correspond to ridge which is between plowed furrows, cultivating Welsh onion or Scallion for example. See:Image:Une(Japanese)(ridge)- between plowed furrows.JPG Is any word like "Une" rather than to call "ridge between furrow(s)"? Thanks in adavance.--Namazu-tron 08:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what is called ridging (British) or hilling (American). It is dealt with in the ridging plough section. It's quite different from ridge and furrow, whose ridges are several metres apart. Richard New Forest (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Chinese Pre-History - moved from article[]

The following recently-added text was removed to the talk page for a variety of reasons, mainly that it cuts across several of the other chronological sections already in place and may or may not introduce duplicated information. The poor formatting, POV statements and inconsistent use of 'plow' (rather than plough) mean that its (unmodified) inclusion noticably degrades the article. The information may be worth merging with the existing text, but requires someone more knowledgeable to do so.

-------------PRE-HISTORY OF THE PLOUGH---------------
the Han Chinese plow is simple, light (can be carried by one person on the shoulder), and efficient because it uses the moldboard and a curved bar to put all the forces at the slant surface. This kind of plow was already used in Han dynasty (BCE).
The Dutch learned about the Chinese plow while trading in Asia in the 17th century (i.e. at least 1700 years later). The technology was passed on to Yorkshire in England. Thomas Jefferson learned about this plow when he was traveling in France. It is also the first time he saw oxen used in plowing. Horses are physically inferior to oxen in pulling.
After many improvements, the plow finally took shape in 1876, a hundred years after US became a nation. To date, John Deere uses basically the same principle on the plows.
Science and Civilization in China
By Joseph Needham, Ling, Wang, Ling Wang
Cyclopedia of American Agriculture
By Liberty Hyde Bailey. p. 387

EdJogg (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"Horses are physically inferior to oxen in pulling." Really? Even after the invention of the horse collar?--DThomsen8 (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

More dates would be helpful to the time impaired[]

Many of the events are reported without a date context...would increase the value of the article by 2000 times..Avram Primack (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC).02:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Disc plough . Chisel plough . Scarifer . Planter[]

Only relatively small,light implements are usually attached to the 3-point linkage .
As the John Deere photo shows, larger implements are self-supporting and attached to the drawbar [towbar] .

2. A primary advantage of disc ploughs is their ability to cut through trash such as wheat stubble which would choke other ploughs . However, they are often [not always] a pain/cumbersome to use .

It breaks the large clods up so the seed will be in good contact with the soil .
scarifer . It performs a similar function to the scarifier as well
as planting .
is used varies greatly . The above is only an illustration .
prepare the seedbed . All other reasons are secondary . Usually .

Compare the sizes of a draught horse and an ox . Which do you think would be the strongest ? I have never used oxen as draught animals, but know someone who has . In his experience , oxen are much slower, but will not give up as easily if difficulties [eg bogged ] arise .

I've ploughed/planted using the above implements, and seen/assisted a few more in operation including horsedrawn . I don't claim to be an expert . I do claim to be a primary source .

20:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

All very interesting – can you incorporate some into the article? We do really need references from a secondary source though.
Not sure what you're saying about oxen and horses... When you say "compare the sizes of a draught horse and an ox", what do you mean? They are much the same size... My understanding is that horses work faster, but oxen pull better against a solid load. Historically, of course, oxen were used in much larger numbers – in southern England teams of eight were normal (even when these were relatively large modern Sussexes), while two or three draught horses might be common. Richard New Forest (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
reply to above
Thanks for your interesting comments .
Draught Horse Size .
Any draught horse I've seen is much bigger than any ox I've seen . And I've never seen a really big draught horse . I suggest you sit on a draught horse one day . You'll never forget it .
Draught horse team size in Australia varied from 1 up to about 12 - I think - perhaps more - in the broadacre areas such as Western Australia . The big teams were quite big . Must have been a handful .
Your understanding of horse vs ox performance is consistent with mine . I've been told that a horse is much better until difficulties arise - the load gets stuck or bogged . Then the horses will give up more quickly, whilst the oxen will continue to pull [with a bit of encouragement] . Yes, the horse is significantly faster .Typically horses were used for ploughing in Australia and oxen were used for timbergetting . The last team of oxen used for timbergetting ceased work about 10 years ago - in the Dorrigo area .
Of course, other factors influence whether horses or oxen were used . Price and availability . If you only have oxen [ or horses ] that's what you use .
Secondary Sources.
I would be quite happy to be proven wrong here.
Cultivation methods and implements do vary a lot - the same implement is often used in very different ways in different areas . I've used a planter to scarify .
I've seen some documentation of agricultural practices which I'm dubious about . The problem is that the person documenting is not the person doing .
Documentation is useful if you know nothing, but it only tells half the story .
Incorporate some into the article .
I'm lazy . I'll think about it .
Actually, plenty of people know more about ploughing than I do . However, I'm pleased if I have helped anyone . 05:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I do know how big a large draught horse is (and I've even driven some on occasion). However, a large ox is pretty big too... I think large draught horses are probably larger than most oxen, but not as much as you might think – horses have much longer legs in proportion, so a horse is a good bit taller than an ox of the same weight. An ox is also built more for pushing, as that's something cattle do naturally. If you're used to seeing "ordinary" cattle close up, it's worth bearing in mind that a fully grown ox (castrated male) as used for draught will be significantly bigger than a cow or entire bull – probably an extra hand or two in height, and heavier about the shoulders than a cow. As an example, I have a Welsh Cob of about 14.5 hands, who probably weighs around 400 kg; I also have a British White steer of about 4 years old; he's around the same height but must weigh something like 600 kg (sadly he's neither psychologically suited nor trained to draught – the cob is both).
I think you're right that the source of traction is always what's available – and also what's convenient and affordable. Oxen have the advantage that they don't need high-grade feed – a horse can't work its hardest if it only has rough grazing and no hard feed, but an ox will work quite well under those conditions (and you can eat it afterwards...). The change from oxen to horses in the UK coincided with enclosure – the change from subsistence farming (with animals fed largely from common grazing) to cash farming. Cash farmers can afford to buy or grow grain for horse feed, in the expectation of paying for it with increased profits; subsistence farmers cannot afford to use their family's food for mere traction, when their oxen can fuel themselves for free off the common.
By the way, talk page layout and wiki markup... You might find it best to stick to colons (::) to inset your comments – they don't mix with equals signs. Also remember to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) – like this: Richard New Forest (talk) 09:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Parts of a Plough[]

There's an excellent illustration of a mouldboard plough here, it would be nice to include it if someone knew what the parts were called in English —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The Parts of a Plough is now duplicated - both the image and the numbered list. Yogurt (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Plough manufacturers[]

The Kverneland article says that the Norwegian company is the largest manufacturer of ploughing equipment. I added a {{fact}} template there. Bigger than John Deere? This article does not mention any current plough manufacturers at all. Shouldn't there be at least some links to some of the bigger ones, such as New Holland?--DThomsen8 (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

New Holland does produce plughs? Can you give me a link. -- (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


I see ploughwright redirects to this page. I *think* that a ploughwright was a person who made or repaired metal ploughs, but there does not appear to be an explanation of the occupation of ploughwright on this page. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I might add some text about ploughwrights, otherwise the redirect is a little unhelpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


I'm writing a Swedish version of a plough article for our Wikipedia and find a great deal of information in your article that I'm using. Got a little confused though when reading the Etymology sect. It seems to me that it is a bit contradictory. Does the word come from the Slavic or the Latin languages? jd6420 2011-04-15 20:04 (CEST)

Here's what Merriam-Webster Collegiate says (]): "Middle English, from Old English plōh hide of land; akin to Old High German pfluog plow. First Known Use: 12th century." No idea without researching if other dictionaries disagree. HTH. — ¾-10 22:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
PS: Check out wikt:plough#Etymology also. HTH×2. — ¾-10 22:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Found some answers in a Swedish dictionary that essentially agrees with what you say. If I understand it correctly, there seems to be two traces; one Latin and one Gothic/Longobard/Ratic. (I did register to the English Wiki, wonder why I'm still red?) jd64209 2011-04-16 10:08]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jd6420 (talkcontribs)

Confusing definition[]

The article starts out with:

The plough (play /ˈplaʊ/; American spelling: plow) is a tool used in farming for initial cultivation of soil in preparation for sowing seed or planting.

where the word "ciltivation" is linked to the main article by the same name.

Does this refer to cultivation as a synonym for agriculture in general? That doesn't seem to work in the context of this article. The meaning of cultivation in this sense is too broad for the specific purpose of a plow. Shouldn't the word "cultivation" be replaced with "tillage"? My understanding is that "tilling" is plowing then cultivating. Then plowing would be the first step in tilling the soil with cultivation being the second step. Rsduhamel (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Heavy Moldboard Iron Plough[]

Gun Powder Ma based his claim that "The earliest iron ploughshares date from around 1000 BC in the Ancient Near East" from this source:

Greek and Roman Technology, by White:

"From the available evidence it would appear that the evolutionary progress of the front of the plough ran from no protection (suitable enough for the very loose soils of Mesopotamia) through the detachable and replaceable share, first of wood, later of iron (earliest surviving examples date from c. 1000 BC in the Middle East) to variations in ploughshare design reported in the mid-first century AD by Pliny. The most important of these is a sleeved iron share furnished with a vertical edge and horizontal cutting edges along either side, ..." -pg 59

I believe is a misreading of the sources. The author could very well be talking about the earliest plough in general, to the earliest plough with a "detachable and replaceable share". This may not necessarily be iron. This is especially so when he says that a plough with "no protection" is "suitable enough for the very loose soils of Mesopotamia". This is why I made the changes.

Gnip (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

First, it is a bit rich to accuse me wrongly in the history of misrepresenting sources when you removed a perfectly sourced references on the Roman mouldboard which you obviously only claimed to have checked, but not have done so. So here it is to remove all doubts:

Like moldboards, these "ears" probably helped turn the soil. Bronze models of such ards with turning boards are known from Britain and Germany, and complete wooden ards have been recovered from the peat deposits of Northern Europe, though generally lacking the aures, which appear to have been more common in the south.

Pliny (RN 18.48) refers to an invention that was recent at the time he wrote (the mid-first century A.D.), the addition of two small wheels, implying that the plow was becoming heavier. From the late third century A.D., we find archaeological evidence for the development of an implement that went on to become the principal tool of arable cultivation, first in Europe, and then accompanying the expansion of European influence around the world. The moldboard plow, with a heavy cutting blade at its front, followed by an asymmetrical share and sod-turning moldboard, and assisted by a variety of wheels, makes its appearance during the

later stages of the Roman epoch (figure 7-4; Jones 1981, 1991).

That alone should suffice to pull the tooth that the use of moldboard was something peculiar to ancient China - it wasn't, it was also used, at least in Europe. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Second, could you please quote from the Robert Greenberger ref which you just bolstered? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Third, contrary to your interpretation, White it absolutely straightforward that the detachable and replaceable share which appeared in Babylonia was of iron ("...detachable and replaceable share, first of wood, later of iron (earliest surviving examples date from c. 1000 BC in the Middle East)". However, what led me to reconsider is that in the sentence above he speaks of "Ridging boards to be to be a Roman invention", and this seems to be the key invention, not whether the board was made of iron or wood. In any case, I changed the phrasing somewhat to leave room for both interpretations, wood or iron, and you are most certainly welcome to ask for a third opinion on what I believe is overall a clear matter: moldboard plows were known and used in antiquity outside China. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
First of all, I only consented on your because of the interpretations of "heavy" and because I thought you implied iron. That has nothing to do with reading the source. If you want to beat a dead horse, then here is what I consider your own "faulty" interpretations. I ed it out but since you insist to continue with something that I was willing to concede with, here is my original statement:

He[Gun Powder Ma] then claims that "The Romans achieved the heavy wheeled mouldboard plough in the late 3rd and 4th century AD, when archaeological evidence appears, inter alia, in Roman Britain." The statement is based on the following.

Greek and Roman Agriculture, by Margaritis, Evi M. and Martin J.: "From the late third century A.D., we find archaeological evidence for the development of an implement that went on to become the principal tool of arable cultivation, first in Europe, and then accompanying the expansion of European influence around the world. The mouldboard plow, with a heavy cutting blade at its front, followed by an asymmetrical share and sod-turning moldboard, and assisted by a variety of wheels, makes its appearance during the later stages of the Roman epoch."-pg 166

At most the author states in pg 166 that the addition of "two small wheels" implied that the plough was "becoming heavier". The author later implies the absence of heavy mouldboard ploughs in the very next paragraph:"Little, if any, metal was used in the construction of an ard-in line with the wood-based technology of farmers in general. Metal was scarce and conserved, used only where a durable cutting edge was absolutely necessary. Even then, obsidian flakes often provided a more accessible material for a sharp edge in areas with the appropriate geology, blades of obsidian being inserted both in threshing sleds and sickle mounts. The heavy investment in metal seen in the later plough was simply not within the resources of the great majority of classical-period farmers. Indeed, the need for it only arose beyond the limits of the Merranean region, where the soils were heavier."

Interpreting a "mouldboard plough" with a "heavy blade" as a "heavy moldboard plough" is really stretching it.

So your use of the source is misrepresentative. Your entire reply is an reiteration of the problems I am addressing. You also tried to cover up that fault by misrepresenting my statements. I never said that Rome didn't have a "moldboard plough", only that they didn't have a "heavy moldboard plough". Your source is still misused, whatever your claim of having read it. As for White, reiterating his quote(which could be interpreted multiple ways, as I have shown) hardly gives credence to your claim. As I have already given his full quote: "From the available evidence it would appear that the evolutionary progress of the front of the plough ran from no protection (suitable enough for the very loose soils of Mesopotamia) through the detachable and replaceable share, first of wood, later of iron (earliest surviving examples date from c. 1000 BC in the Middle East) to variations in ploughshare design reported in the mid-first century AD by Pliny. The most important of these is a sleeved iron share furnished with a vertical edge and horizontal cutting edges along either side, ..." -pg 59

Giving half the quote and then saying that it could "only" be interpreted one way is hardly accurate. Perhaps you shouldn't use selective quoting to further your claims. Other users have found you misrepresenting sources as well, have they not? So who is the one who haven't read the source?

Now you say that the first "wood or iron" ploughshare came from 1000 BCE Mesopotamia and 500 BC China, in your attempt to cover up your mistake on Mesopotamia (all the while blaming it on me). This is despite the fact that even though the source specifically states "The first iron plow found dates from about 500 BC. It was a flat V-shaped piece, mounted on wooden poles and handles"-pg 11. I don't see how you could have misinterpreted that into "wood or iron". Gnip (talk) 5:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Please ask yourself how often you've now used the word "imply", try to cut the interpretative crap and address the reference as it is. Again, it couldn't hardly be more straightforward:

From the late third century A.D., we find archaeological evidence for the development of an implement that went on to become the principal tool of arable cultivation, first in Europe, and then accompanying the expansion of European influence around the world. The moldboard plow, with a heavy cutting blade at its front, followed by an asymmetrical share and sod-turning moldboard, and assisted by a variety of wheels, makes its appearance during the later stages of the Roman epoch (figure 7-4; Jones 1981, 1991).

And below:

Three iron implements that recur on Romano-British sites of the late third and fourth centuries A.D. are the long harvesting scythe, the coulter, and the asymmetrical plowshare (Rees 1979). All three can be linked to the intensification of cereal production, and the latter two to the moldboard plow, designed to cut deep into the soil and invert the furrow (figure 7.4; Jones 1981).

In fact, the entire section is titled: MEADOWS, GARDENS, AND MOLDBOARD PLOWS
I honestly don't know why you attach so much importance to the heaviness of the moldboard plow. The weight is absolutely secondary. The main technical difference lies between the ard which scratches the earth and the moldboard plow which turns it. Whether the moldboard itself was of iron and more heavy or of wood and less heavy is secondary; the question of material is secondary, what counts is the design. Both my references squarely state that moldboard plows existed in ancient Europe. Now do you agree to that or not? And please don't forget to cite from Greenberger or it got to be removed. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Secondary to whom? Are you really going to stick to arguing about something I didn't even disagree with? I have already stated, and I repeat
1) That the moldboard plow was used in Rome
2) That the issue was the "heavy moldboard plow" and the use of "iron ploughshares" for white. If the "heavy" or "iron" parts were secondary then, considering that they are not confirmed by the given sources, why even put it there? I dropped my former claim as "heavy" is a relative term. Despite the absence of your source confirming the existence of "heavy moldboard ploughs", I was willing to let that go. Yet for reasons unknown you keep bringing it up.
What you are doing is using a straw-man argument, arguing in favor of things I never denied. So instead of misinterpreting the author you misinterpret me. Sadly I'm not surprised. Besides that, I don't think you're reading me. I have already given the quote from Greenberger. It seems I must repeat it: "The first iron plow found dates from about 500 BC. It was a flat V-shaped piece, mounted on wooden poles and handles" -pg 11. These were so heavy that "it was injuring the horses and oxen" until a new breast harness was developed. Now I don't even know why you need me to give these quotes. I'm sure you could find it on your own. Your threat to delete it is funny. If you couldn't find the source to "verify" it, though I'm sure you could, you're going to delete it? I don't think that's how wikipedia works. I also see that you're asking for the "Robert Greenberger ref which you just bolstered", which was about "iron plowshares", not "heavy moldboard iron ploughs". Yet you ed the article in which "heavy moldboard iron ploughs" had to be verified by Greensberger, despite that this particular claim is also bolstered by another source. That's very tricky of you.
Anyways, if it's such a big deal, then why are you so insistent on preventing me on correcting such a "secondary" misrepresentations of the authors? I'm sure you won't mind these minor corrections, won't you? By all means, if you do find sources that say there were iron plows in Mesopotamia during 1000 BC, you're welcome to do so. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised, as iron was introduced in the region a couple hundred years before that. However, the use of sources must be accurate. Even if you're saying the truth, the source has to back up that statement. That's all I'm saying. Gnip (talk) 10:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
So, please quote sources which attach the same importance to the heaviness of the moldboard plow as you do. I've given you enough refs now which make clear that it was the design, not the material, which made the difference. Actually, there are also ards which were made of iron. This leads me to the second point. Yes, White is ambiguous about whether these Mesopotamian plows around 1000 BC were made of iron or wood. As you know, the Iron Age began in Mesopotomia at least half a millennium earlier than in China, so there is nothing intrinsically unlikely about iron plows appearing in Babylonia at this time along with all the other iron tools and implements. Still, we can setttle for something like "either iron or wood" or whatever. As for Greenberger's quote, nowhere does he talk about moldboard plows, "V-shaped piece" could refer just as well to simple ards, so I guess we have to adjust the quote in the text accordingly, if that's all he says about it. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Gun Powder Ma, I was the one who revealed that the quote was misrepresented, so I gave the the actual quote in order to settle things correctly. Thanks for finally admiting that. However, I was not the one who put in the information that China had "heavy iron moldboards", nor was Greenberger the only source used. I don't know why you insist about Greenberger's quote about the lack of moldboard plows when you could so easily find out for yourself that he actually did. For example, and I quote: "The earliest iron plow found dates from about 500s BC. It was a flat V-shaped piece, mounted on wooden poles and handles. By the third century BC, when iron tools were made using improved casting methods, the plowshare called the kuan (the moldboard plow) came into use and rapidly spread over the next two centuries.... [descriptions of the kuan]...." -pg 11
I'm sure you can easily find this out for yourself. Your threat to delete the section on the bases that I couldn't give the quote is uncalled for. I'm not the one who put the information there, so you shouldn't be asking me in the first place. You should be asking PericlesofAthens, someone whom I trust as being credible with his use of sources. Plus, considering that the section is sourced by not just Greenberger's book, but also by Wang ZhongShu's book, means that discring Greenberger as misrepresented would only warrant deleting his source, not the entire information about Chinese ploughs! Me actually providing quotes from Greenberger is going above and beyond normal expectations for wikipedians. I have done this thrice now. I don't see why you keep asking for the same quote again and again. No, I don't have Wang ZhongShu's book available. I can't prove what he said or did not say either way. I caught you misrepresenting the source because, unfortunately for you, I actually DO have the same sources you had used. That's what gives me the right if not the obligation to delete it, because I can PROVE that the sources were misrepresented. If you want to delete the section about Chinese ploughs, it's YOUR job to provide the quotations from not just Greenberger, but also from Wang ZhongShu. If you are so adamant on deleting it, then go find the source. I'm not going to do it for you.
It's funny how you emphasize that you will delete the section about Chinese ploughs on the basis of Greenberger, while ignoring Wang ShongShu's citations altogether. Chances are, that source is no more available to you than it is to me. You want to delete the section, yet you can't prove the citations were misrepresented. So you use me as an excuse. You give me the duty to "verify" the sources, even though you know full well I didn't put the information there in the first place, which decreases my chance of knowing what the books said. I sense ulterior motives. Gnip (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Occult nonsense[]

"Orel (2003)[4] tentatively attaches plough to a PIE stem *blōkó-, which gave Armenian peɫem "to dig" and Welsh bwlch "crack", though the word may not be of IE origin."

What a load of bollocks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Please be civil. Do you have any more constructive comments? Is the ref incorrect, or are there counter-refs? What exactly is the problem? Richard New Forest (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Tilling vs cultivation[]

Opening section, second half of the fifth paragraph:

Cultivated land becomes more fertile and productive over time, while tilled land tends to go down in productivity over time...

Are these both true? This says that tilling and cultivation, whatever the distinctions between them, have the opposite effect, over time. Aboctok (talk) 12:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


Does anyone know anyhting more about when these things happened! I cant find more info anywhere on the internet and I am too lazy to actually do serious research. If someone could find some dates and put them on here, that would help me and a lot of other people out. (talk) 01:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC) Dattes deglet from Biskra.jpg

Here are some dates for you. In all seriousness, Wikipedia is not a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Within the historical sections is an abundance of information with references and further reading. Take a look at WP:DYOH for some good advice.--☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 01:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Plough. Please take a moment to review my . 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


The entire field of sustainable, eco- or regenerative agriculture is pretty much "anti plowing" (and for some, even tilling). There's no mention of this anywhere in the entry, which tends toward the "pro plowing" side. However, as early as 1942, Edward Faulkner wrote a book (Plowman's Folly) questioning this "inherited wisdom", and more and more, modern soil science and microbiology back him up. You'd never know any of this from the article. I'm not the one to write about this, but I might put in a stub for others to expand upon. (I don't even know if writing this here is the right way to "complain" and draw attention to this.)

In skimming through the sections, there are a fair number of implicit assertions (declarative sentences) that would actually be topics of great debate by those cutting-edge researchers. Names of authoritative voices -- scientists, authors, farmers and speakers -- would include Elaine Ingham, David Montgomery, Gabe Brown and Joel Salatin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Membender (talkcontribs) 23:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


Picture of the day
A plough is a farm implement that turns over the upper layer of soil, bringing fresh nutrients to the surface as part of preparation for sowing seeds or planting. In early agriculture, soil was turned by hand using digging sticks and hoes. The first animal-drawn plough was the ard, with the earliest evidence of a ploughed field dating to the Indus Valley Civilisation site of Kalibangan from around 2800 B.C. Wheels were introduced by Celtic peoples during the Roman era, and the mouldboard plough, a major innovation in plough technology, was invented in the 18th century. Modern ploughs are usually reversible ploughs, mounted on a tractor.

This painting, Ploughing in the Nivernais, was completed by the French artist Rosa Bonheur in 1849 and is now in the Musée d'Orsay in Paris.Painting: Rosa Bonheur

Duplication of content leads one to the suspicion...[]

that the s of April 2017 were... badly done. What I noticed was a near complete duplication of information under Mole plough. But the contributor probably didn't make just this one error, but rather was pasting in text from somewhere else and didn't even compare first against the text here. Shenme (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Well spotted. Alas, I fear chunks of text added by that IP were copied wholesale without attribution and probably in breach of copyright. Spot checking phrases suggests parts come from Farm Field Machinery by Marshall F. Finner in 1973, or from Farm Machinery Fundamentals by Marshall F. Finner and Richard J. Straub in 1985. The whole test of these books is not online, but you can find identical paragraphs. Perhaps they all come from a common source? I'm not sure how this should be resolved. (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)