Talk:Animal husbandry/Archive 1

Conservation
The section Conservation doesn't seem (to someone such as myself who knows nothing about animal husbandry or Vechoor cows) to have anything to do with animal husbandry -- not, at least, as it is currently written. If the salvation of the Vechoor cow is appropriate here, the relevance should be made explicit. Otherwise, perhaps the section should be moved to a different article.

One-dimensional Tangent 03:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bible
Random reference to the Bible? Does not provide support to claim world's oldest profession, many civilizations existed before the Bible, perhaps something from those civilization's documents instead of the Bible. --Countchoc 18:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Pictures
What's with the picture set chosen for this article? Too many pictures, and few have anything to with the idea of animal husbandry as a science per se. MKV 05:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Long title
Section 2.1's title is wayyyy to long. I've changed it to something smaller. It also seems biased, to me, and might be considered for a rewrite to NPOV. - Howryn 14:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed POV section
I just cut out the following from the article. It is way to POV (alarmist i.e. "pushing hybridization with such zeal" also "has become another serious and alarming cause of genetic pollution") and barely touches on animals since much of the text refers to plants. This section should focus on animals and tone down the rhetoric. David D. (Talk) 03:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hybridization, Genetic engineering, Genetic pollution and Food security




 * In agriculture and animal husbandry, green revolution popularized the use of conventional hybridization to increase yield many folds by creating "High yielding varieties". Often the handful of breeds of plants and animals hybridized originated in developed countries and were further hybridized with local verities, in the rest of the developing world, to create high yield strains resistant to local climate and diseases. Local governments and industry since have been pushing hybridization with such zeal that several of the wild and indigenous breeds evolved locally over thousands of years having high resistance to local extremes in climate and immunity to diseases etc. have already become extinct or are in grave danger of becoming so in the near future. Due to complete disuse because of un-profitability and uncontrolled intentional, compounded with unintentional cross-pollination and crossbreeding (genetic pollution) formerly huge gene pools of various wild and indigenous breeds have collapsed causing widespread genetic erosion and genetic pollution resulting in great loss in genetic diversity and biodiversity as a whole.
 * A Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) is an organism whose genetic material has been altered using the genetic engineering techniques generally known as recombinant DNA technology. Genetic Engineering today has become another serious and alarming cause of genetic pollution because artificially created and genetically engineered plants and animals in laboratories, which could never have evolved in nature even with conventional hybridization, can live and breed on their own and what is even more alarming interbreed with naturally evolved wild varieties. Genetically Modified (GM) crops today have become a common source for genetic pollution, not only of wild varieties but also of other domesticated varieties derived from relatively natural hybridization.


 * It is being said that genetic erosion coupled with genetic pollution is destroying that needed unique genetic base thereby creating an unforeseen hidden crisis which will result in a severe threat to our food security for the future when diverse genetic material will cease to exist to be able to further improve or hybridize weakening food crops and livestock against more resistant diseases and climatic changes.

Another problematic section
What does this have to do with animal husbandry? It uses plant examples and really does not seem to fit with the article. It's and bit like a rant too. David D. (Talk) 03:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Genetic erosion in agricultural and livestock biodiversity


 * Genetic erosion in agricultural and livestock biodiversity is the loss of genetic diversity, including the loss of individual genes, and the loss of particular combinants of genes (or gene complexes) such as those manifested in locally adapted landraces of domesticated animals or plants adapted to the natural environment in which they originated. The term genetic erosion is sometimes used in a narrow sense, such as for the loss of alleles or genes, as well as more broadly, referring to the loss of varieties or even species. The major driving forces behind genetic erosion in crops are: variety replacement, land clearing, overexploitation of species, population pressure, environmental degradation, overgrazing, policy and changing agricultural systems.


 * The main factor, however, is the replacement of local varieties of domestic plants and animals by high yielding or exotic varieties or species. A large number of varieties can also often be dramatically reduced when commercial varieties (including GMOs) are introduced into traditional farming systems. Many researchers believe that the main problem related to agro-ecosystem management is the general tendency towards genetic and ecological uniformity imposed by the development of modern agriculture.

Sexist
Who else notices the fact that in this context "husbandry" is used to mean taking care of/raising and training an animal?? We should use more neutral phrases to describe the concept of raising animals in the 21st century people...
 * Why? It isn't sexist to use the terms "mankind" or "human" to describe our species, even though (gasp) they both have the word "man" in them! The meaning of the word isn't the same as the meaning of its components. The same applies here. The use of the word "husbandry" isn't sexist and it isn't male-centric, and you don't need to be so defensive. 75.208.221.246 (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There's only one person here who immediately got really defensive... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.201.7.21 (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I know I'm a decade late, lol, but it couldn't have been 75.208.221.246 because they were simply telling the truth (at least on "mankind" and "human" being gender neutral). 2603:6011:9600:52C0:3455:6EC3:5EF8:DE58 (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I can agree that 'husbandry' does not seem to be the best word to use, but seeing as I do not have a better alternative... Perhaps someone has a better word. The terms "mankind" and "human" describe species, yes. These words common component 'man' can be used to indicate both the species as well as the male gender. I can not however recall any context in which 'husband' indicates anything other than (gasp) the male gender. 187.117.136.208 (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * See our Wiktionary entry on "husband". The original Old Norse compound word húsbóndi (literally "housefarmer") simply meant (roughly) "master of the house" indicating someone who owned a house and took care of matters pertaining to it. It is comparable to the more modern English word "homesteader".


 * It was only in the 13th century that it eventually replaced the Old English word for "[married] man": wer (cf. "werewolf"), the counterpart of wīf.


 * But there is another context which preserves the original meaning. It's considered archaic in the US and seldom used, but it's very much alive in British English. As a verb, "to husband" means "to manage" or "to care for" and that is the sense used here. It does not, in any way, refer to the male of the species.


 * You could compare it with the word "nurse". Its original meaning is quite feminine - it referred to the act of feeding a child with breastmilk, itself derived from the Latin word for feeding. Yet it now means one who takes care of children, the sick, or simply taking very good care of something/someone. Are you now saying that the profession Nursing is sexist? --  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   21:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that something should be changed. The human species of man has the word 'woman' for the the female, and 'child' for the young, and even 'boy' and 'girl' to further but not so essentially distinguish the young, but none for the male. That is a sad oversight. Perhaps we could coin the word 'heman' to clearly distinguish the male from man's other forms.  Of course, the word 'husband' was adapted from its use for animals and other resources, and (not very respectfully) applied to the human male in its protection and service of his family as well.Wikidity (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * In English, this is the common usage. We are not here to change the English language. If you use other terms, nobody will find it except through the redirect you create. Don Lammers (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The word "husbandry" is sexist and implies that men are in control of the ownership of animals. The concept is an old one founded on the knowledge humans learned from raising animals, but the so-called verb "to husband" is more complex than any of the replies indicate here. When humans discovered that males actually do contribute biologically (prior to this understanding, it was thought A. that males were merely feeding babies with their "milk"--as it semen is described in Sumerian love poems, B. that males merely coagulated menstrual blood, but added nothing new to the fetuses created, and C. that collective male spirits were able to activate a pregnancy, but all of these ideas probably came after it was widely accepted that women were magical and could create mini-humans out of their own bodies the same way plants are magically fertilized--at least to the naked human eye--and propagated), they also figured out that they only need a few males to propagate any species, so began castrating both animals and human males to turn them into more docile and more controllable servants or enlisted them in their standing armies. Evidence points to the distinct rise of androcentric values (which lead to the Patriarchy rising before the Common Era) around 4000 years ago: 1. when 1 man is reproducing for every 17 women who is reproducing, which demonstrates that men with more authority were blocking men with less authority from having access to heterosexual intercourse; 2. laws against polyandry (women marrying more than one man; law by King Urukagina of Lagash in 2375 BCE) are enacted, the traditional Sumerian qurshu ritual wherein sacred sex is used to connect humans to the divine is changed to a heiros gamos ritual, wherein sex with Inanna (through her high priestess) transforms a mere mortal man into a king with divine right to rule, and 3. incest, which the ancients were finally figuring out caused birth defects, is first (that we know of) outlawed in 1750 BCE by Hammurabi. Sometime around this era, the concept of "husband," which literally means a man "bound" or "bonded" to a house, and houses in those days belonged to the women, since lineages were traced matrilineally, was born. Men were transformed from sometimes lovers to men who could claim, legally, to "own" the rights to both their women and their livestock. In fact, many of the legal documents we have from this era are about men paying off their debts to more powerful men by selling them their wives and/or their children. Ruth J. Heflin, author of Pitiless Bronze: How the Iliad Symbolizes the Rise of Androcentrism (unpublished). — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrandmotherMuhawt (talk • contribs) 08:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, and I understand your feelings, but that isn't how Wikipedia works, nor are its talk pages to be used as forums. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Missing Etymology
I really don't think this is the kind of "animal culture" that the animal communication page was meant to link to. Maybe somebody should fix that? 75.208.221.246 (talk) 22:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement regarding the link from animal communication; it is my belief that with the addition of a section regarding etymology we may mend the dissolution between what the phrase meant in the past, what the words mean currently and what it could mean in the future. Between those scholars dedicated to the preservation of knowledge, those persevering conservationists that know what it means be married to their work, and those linguists tending to the wholeness of a sprawling web of knowledge mayhaps these sources could help:

http://www.medievalists.net/2013/09/03/a-medieval-how-to-book-for-shepherds/

https://studioloperyn.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/dogs20140719.pdf

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A00884.0001.001?c=eebo%3Bc%3Deebo2%3Bg%3Deebogroup%3Brgn%3Dmain%3Bview%3Dfulltext%3Bxc%3D1

https://books.google.com/books?id=pQj8AQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

DrQueGSeuss (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)DrQueGSeuss

Monkey Breeder?
Why should "Monkey Breeder" be listed under "See also" when there is no page? It's like a sign-post pointing to a town that doesn't exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.167.199.125 (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In general, red-links are valuable because some day an expert, or more likely an interested layman, will notice the missing page, create it, and start filling it with content. Tempshill (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sheep / Goats
Coming from an agriculturial background, we know that a goat will not eat anything the human has touched. He/she will either spit it out or get sick. Why is this? Is it because the sheep versus the goat are very widely apart in the Evolution Chain? Certainly there is a huge difference in their eye construction.

MacOfJesus (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Belated reply. I have never heard of that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

My father was the first to tell me this, and I, being a kid (not a goat), had to try it out, and gave a goat something I touched, food. Sure enough he spat it out.

MacOfJesus (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion
I oppose the merge, mostly because I think the article has potential to be improved and stand alone. I hate to bulk out a main topic article like Livestock when the topic here IS suitable for a spinoff. That said, I agree the article needs work and someone (not me) to work on it. As the animals said to the Little Red Hen, "sure! I'll eat the bread!" LOL! Montanabw (talk) 00:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Another apt reference is 'Belling the cat'. The gad suggests the poser perform the feat instead of just talking about it.Wikidity (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

What this page is missing
Animal husbandry isn't just horses and cows. I presume it is as old as domestication. It has a very long history that is completely absent here. One of the biggest gaps is dogs. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me  04:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually dogs and cats are generally not included in the coverage of animal husbandry, because they are not food animals. Or to be more specific: it is not clear that the initial motivation for domesticating dogs and cats was agriculture. I agree about lots of missing history though. Steven Walling &bull; talk   22:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Missing the point
This page describes randomly specific aspects of livestock management and misses the core point of term husbandry. Animal husbandry describes an enjoined relationship of mutual interdependence between the 'husband' farmer(s) and their livestock. Traditional and ancient sheep herding is a good and commonly perceived example of animal husbandry with herders migrating and living with livestock. An important element of traditional husbandry is personal attendance to with nurturing and protection of the herders' charges provided by the livestock 'husband'. Corportate absentee management of livestock operations risk depersonalizing the relationship by reducing management down to cow-calf units and pure monetary economics, but generally speaking cowboys and herders on the range insulate the stock from pure commodity management. The term animal husband and husbandry represents an personal and idealized relationship between farmer and livestock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.110.166 (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So find us a published source that says this and add it in with a footnote to the source. Let us know if you need help!  Montanabw (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Climate change
The agriculture article says that "agriculture" has a very bad negative effect in regards to climate change. This is actually very inaccurate. It should state that animal husbandry has a very bad effect on climate change, and thus the info should be available on this page aswell. This as it is one of the main reasons of production of methane gas, one of the worst GhG gases (allot more potent than CO²). In addition, I find it's useful to also mention that life in prehistoric times had allready been killed once (globally!) trough the effect of methane gas. Appearantly, the levels for this to happen were only 5x as large, excluding other gases (ie effect of CO² emissions from transport, ...) See http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/07/dinosaurs-farted-their-way-to-extinction-british-scientists-say/ 91.182.243.253 (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Material doesn't belong here
This article currently has a mass of material that duplicates other pages, which is not necessary or appropriate for a well-written wikipedia page. I'm being fought in my attempts to clean this up to meet the criteria of Good article criteria. Signing off. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Duplicating info in other pages is not in itself a problem, and in fact perhaps the other articles duplicate this one? This article has a lot of other issues, including lack of sourcing.  All you did was randomly delete things.  I suggest you go do some research and ADD to this article.   Montanabw (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Speciesism.
Why is a link to Speciesism not relevant in this article? That's like saying racism isn't relevant in an article on slavery. -- Jeandré, 2014-02-06t10:00z


 * "Speciesism" is a WP:FRINGE belief, that's why. Montanabw (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * While not supported in animal husbandry scholarship, in applied ethics it's recognized as an atrocity worse than all other atrocities combined. It's also current outside philosophy, in journals like Science and Nature. How is it fringe? -- Jeandré, 2014-02-11t09:31z


 * "an atrocity worse than all other atrocities combined"? Really?  I would suggest human genocide would rank at least a wee bit above speciesism. Seriously.    Montanabw (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Montana, regardless of how it might appear to you or others, that is not an objectively demonstrable statement. It is your opinion, whether right or wrong, and the claim that specieism is a belief let alone a fringe belief is misinformed. Visit your local university and speak to any lecturer in philosophy, bioethics, applied ethics, etc., and educate yourself, please.::: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.187.112 (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Human genocides have millions of victims. The deaths, and more importantly the pain and suffering, from animal husbandry every year is worse than that by several orders of magnitude. The pain and suffering isn't equivalent to that in human genocides since most humans are capable of more emotionally complex pain and suffering, but humans are also not capable of feeling the intense physical pain and suffering as some animals. The scale was mentioned because that's why it's one of the most important issues in modern applied ethics, and therefor, I don't think, fringe. -- Jeandré, 2014-02-13t09:35z


 * Well, if you want to argue further, we can take it to the fringe theories noticeboard and discuss it there, not here.  Montanabw (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Fringe theories/Noticeboard Feel free to either reply to what I wrote there, or even to edit my 1st sentence in the that section if you feel my version of the question isn't neutral. If you edit it, just add your signature behind mine. -- Jeandré, 2014-02-19t12:24z

Specieism is not a fringe belief. Professor Peter Singer, a world renowned and widely respected public intellectual, coined the term, and the concept is a core part of the curriculum at universities throughout the world. Singer "is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and a Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne.". To claim that the concept is a fringe belief is ridiculous, obviously biased, and clearly misinformed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.187.112 (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Good husbandry practices
Good husbandry practices is clearly a subtopic of Animal husbandry, whose article is not nearly long enough to warrant splits. --Animalparty-- (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you are correct, the material is useful, but a redirect will handle anyone looking for the GHP concept. I think you can almost do a cut and paste merge with GHP as a new section or subsection. Unless someone else has a really good reason for it to be a stand-alone, I'm OK with the merge proposal. Montanabw (talk)  17:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree That it could be a subtopic but they are not the same. Animal husbandry describe different techniques about management and care of farm animals, but it doesn´t mentioned especifics and standardized protocols like Good husbandry practices does.--Melodygar (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * One is a more technical subset of the other; I can see an argument for two articles, but at the moment, I'd rather see one comprehensive article than two sketchy ones.  Montanabw (talk)  17:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw! If you look closely, this article talks about the domestication and animal care, but GHP is not only that. Good husbandry practices focus in especific and addresses methods (a protocol). I think it should be a separate article. Maybe we should expand the article by mentioning each of these standardized protocols. What do you think about this? Thanks. --Melodygar (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Be bold and go for the expansion!  Montanabw (talk)  01:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I think GHP should at least be renamed to "Livestock Care" or "Animal Husbandry Protocol", although I still think it's a good idea to merge. Connor557 (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "Livestock care" or "Livestock management" would both be good.  Montanabw (talk)  07:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

IMO the word "good" has no place there. Just title it 'husbandry practices', don't imply subjective and/or opinion based moral claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.187.112 (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Animal husbandry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150928142200/http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/0612sp1.htm to http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/0612sp1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Animal husbandry. 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/20131221010713/http://www.humanities.uci.edu/collective/hctr/trans-scripts/2013/2013_03_10.pdf to http://www.humanities.uci.edu/collective/hctr/trans-scripts/2013/2013_03_10.pdf

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) 23:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Just an FYI
...great article, and  but you left out equine which utilizes animal husbandry. For example, Texas A&M offers it through research and education programs in equine, beef, dairy, swine, sheep and goats. See, , and for starters. Atsme 📞📧 15:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Horses are a bit "iffy". They are not completely omitted but are included in several sections. The article states "There is no single universally agreed definition of which species are livestock. Widely agreed types of livestock include cattle for beef and dairy, sheep, goats, pigs, and poultry." The article also states that it concerns "animals that are raised for meat, fibre, milk, eggs, or other products". We thought horses were not used for these purposes to any great extent, and we decided to exclude horses being used for sport and recreational purposes. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Animal husbandry is about far more than just agricultural food products. Perhaps a rename if you don't want to include the equine industry, but that doesn't make sense considering it's direct economic impact to the U.S. economy is about $39 billion, accounts for about 1.4 million full-time jobs, and it's economic impact reaches $102 billion. To that add Australia, New Zealand, South America, Africa, Europe and Saudi Arabia, all have significant horse populations. You can rest assured that most reputable horse breeding facilities employ someone who is certified in animal husbandry, and that includes vet assistants at large animal clinics/hospitals. Texas alone is enough to qualify it for inclusions. I don't see how we can have a WP article about animal husbandry without including the equine industry. I've provided more links for your convenience. They state things like "the KAES developed courses in the Animal Sciences dealing with meat animals, dairy, poultry, and horses. Early courses related to Veterinary Science were taught under one of the umbrellas of Animal Husbandry, and this: Benefits of NAIS adoption in the equine industry are potentially numerous. There's also the merit badge program. Here are a few more: India's livestock sector: buffaloes (57.83%),  cattle  (15.06%),  sheep  (7.14%),  goats  (17.93%),  camel  (2.18%),  equine  (1.3%), pigs (1.2%), chickens (4.72%) and ducks (1.94%). Hope it helps. Atsme 📞📧 18:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it certainly deserves some mention. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know about other nations, but most US state codes define "livestock" to include equines. Keep in mind that oter livestock can be working animals too -- Oxen and so on. There is a line between pets and livestock and though horses seem to straddle that line, in reality, almost all agricultural organizations list equines as livestock. I'd be glad to provide some sources. (It's sad to me that there is a horsemeat industry, but it's real and it's economically significant)  Montanabw (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Horse linked and cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Baby farming isn't animal husbandry
An editor has repeatedly inserted baby farming despite being informed that this isn't animal husbandry. The views of other editors are invited so we can reach consensus on this matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This article is about the farming of livestock and baby farming is way off-topic. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)