Talk:Ridge and furrow

message: The ridge and furrow topic deserves much more consideration.  I offer a brief outline of my understanding.
In the UK the measurements were one chain (22 yards) wide by one furlong (220 yards)which is exactly one acre.  This was the area that could be ploughed by one man with one horse and a plough in one day.  Hopefully this could be done in eight hours which was regarded as all that could be expected from a horse in one day allowing for breaks for rest and food and the day light hours.  Hence man and society came to adopt an eight hour day as reasonable although actually the man was required to prepare the horse and tackle before the eight hour day started and he was also expected to care for the horse and tackle after the days work was done by the horse.  Probably there were other expectations from womenfolk.  
Selective breeding of the horses gave rise to several large breeds of heavy horses that were good for this work.
Rubble was often burried in the furrows and this was happening in the eleventh century.  By the seventeenth century unglazed ceramic pipes were laid in trenches in the furrows to facilitate drainage.  These pipes drained into open ditches which were usually near the hedges.  
"Hedging and ditching" was an annual maintenance task on farms.  Materials were grown on site.  Thorn bushes could be "laid" to make the stock proof barrier and ash grew quickly and straight and was cut and might be "laid" which allowed some growth to continue or cut out and driven in as a supporting post.
The system of ridges and furrows and land drains seems to have evolved by trial and error over the centuries and made an major contribution to sustainable systems of land and water management.  Currently there seems to be renewed interest in this whole subject of managing the water table as well as the surface water, salinity and acidity.  Such things are absolutely critical to harvesting solar energy organically.
01:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: In the lead this article converts inches into centimetres, "up to 24 inches (61 cm) tall". In the "Origin" section it converts inches into metres, ""a height difference of 18 to 24 in (0.5 to 0.6 m)"
In matters like this it's important that the article is internally consistent. Personally I think for values in this range, centimetres is the better unit, but I don't know if metres is the correct academic usage or something like that so I've not changed either. Thryduulf (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A small number of inches is converted to centimetres, a larger number to metres: that does not seem all that inconsistent – it's always tricky of course as the boundaries between inches and feet and between centimetres and metres are not in the same place.  However, as the measurements are all rather imprecise anyway, could change the first to metres if it really offends you.  Richard New Forest (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Except they're not different numbers of inches - they're both 24. Thryduulf (talk) 21:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency in unit conversions 

message: I propose that we add a Bibliography section where we can place the continental reference and alsowhich is highly relevant (for England)and has a county gazetteer! Manninagh1958 (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me! Nev1 (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ridge and furrow. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140219171656/https://www.archeox.net/fact-sheets/ridge-and-furrow to https://www.archeox.net/fact-sheets/ridge-and-furrow
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I came here because the Wikipedia page of the Chanyuan Treaty between the Song ("the south") and Liao ("the north") dynasties says that one of the agreements was that, "Neither the north nor the south shall grant licenses to sow or reap furrowed fields". I'm not sure why this would be in the treaty -- my best guess us that they're saying the governments shouldn't give land that's already being farmed to other people -- but, whyever it's there, it seems to imply (to my very limited understanding) that this sort of structure existed in China too; which seems logical to me, since it should exist wherever people have used ploughs to farm. I suppose, more precisely, it would only happen where people have ploughed "with non-reversible ploughs on the same strip of land each year." Was that not done outside of Europe, though?DubleH (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  ?Eurocentric?