I have to admit this whole exchange is rather perplexing given that you seem to be posting with the intent of negating what I'd said, but still haven't said anything that is not in support of my original answer. Are you just misunderstanding what I posted or... ? I'm quite confused.
The strawberry farmer -- who has small, leafy plants and soft fruits -- keeps his geese out of the field until
after his harvest is through so that they do not damage the crop. The farmer who uses them in the corn field waits until the corn is too large for mechanical cultivation at which point the stalks, too, are no longer tender or leafy, not appetizing or at great risk by the geese; again so they don't damage the crop. Both supports the idea that they are not trustworthy in gardens filled with small, leafy plants or crops of soft fruits and vegetables.
Likewise, in neither instance have you alluded that the geese are being supervised when they
are let out after the crops are no longer considered to be in danger of damage by them, which, again, further supports my point that having to supervise them non-stop while they do their job in a large commercial setting is not an efficient use of neither man nor goose power.
There must be confusion in here somewhere -- on your part or mine -- but I'm having a hard time figuring out
where.
I've gone back and read my post and don't see where I was unclear. Was it this sentence? "Personally, I wouldn't recommend them as weeders on field or garden crops." I thought the fact that it was preluded by four sentences explaining their attraction to small, leafy and/or soft things would serve to give it context, but perhaps not? Maybe it should have read: "Personally, I wouldn't recommend them as unsupervised weeders on field or garden crops that are small, leafy, bearing soft fruits within their reach or in a small, leafy or soft fruit bearing stage of growth during a point in the growing season where the loss of those leaves, plants and/or fruits would be detrimental to the production and profitability of said crop." That just seemed overly cumbersome and repetitive though given that, in the context of the rest of the post and in things that are terribly obvious to anyone with common sense the rest of the added verbiage was already clear. But maybe not?