Talk:Livestock crush

disadvantages of using a cattle crush in agriculture

"Livestock controller"
The Livestock Controller does not appear to do anything better that currently available crushes and this inclusion looks like self promotion. Cgoodwin (talk) 07:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I did have some trouble working out the principle of this thing from the web-page, but I think the different element is that the floor rocks from side to side, preventing the animal picking up its feet to kick. You're right that the length and wording of the text was self-promotion, but it's an interesting available feature, like compressible sides and winches – have a look at what I've done with it.  Presumably the rocking mechanism can be locked, or how would you get the animal to go in?  Or have I completely misunderstood the principle?  --Richard New Forest (talk) 10:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * On the same principle of manipulating the environment to keep the animal tractable, there are devices that turn the animal on its side. Ditto solid high sides so the animal cannot see, with access ports for the handlers' use.  In the US, Temple Grandin is a widely recognized authority on these things.  --Una Smith (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge of Cattle crush with Stock (cage)
The article should not be merged, as cattle crush in at least the British Isles, New Zealand and Australia is known as that, and stock is not used here in the same context. If any merge is to be considered it should be into a new stockyards article where cattle tables, dips etc could be included. Cgoodwin (talk) 07:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, keep in mind this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. If the article title is Stock (cage) does that mean the article scope should exclude UK, OZ and NZ?  How about Spain, France, and Germany, where the thing has still other names? --Una Smith (talk) 07:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there some other discussion elsewhere about this? I see no proposal for  a merge, nor reasoning (nothing at Talk:Stock (cage)).


 * Looking at Stock (cage), I am not clear about where (if anywhere) the term "stock" is used: I don't think it's in use in North America (squeeze chute), and not in Australia, New Zealand or the British Isles (crush). Is it perhaps a literal translation of a non-English term?  Either way, it is essentially the same thing, and one thing must have one article in WP.  The stock article is a very brief stub, and could easily be merged into this article (cattle crush), just by adding it as a synonym (the pictures would also be useful here).  Richard New Forest (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the standalone devices shown on Cattle crush are not squeeze chutes, because they are not chutes. In the US, standalone devices for holding livestock for treatment are standing stocks, commonly called stocks.  this and this and this are elements of a squeeze chute, albeit a strange one. --Una Smith (talk) 02:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have just Googled stock cage and all the references I saw related to birds, photos or vehicles. This is an English version of Wikipedia and I agree with Richard New Forest. Cgoodwin (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Stock" also means off-the-shelf, hence the confusion re Googling "stock cage". The "(cage)" in Stock (cage) reflects the need to disambiguate all the many things called stocks.  "Standing stock(s)" also means the number(s) of animals in an area, so a disambiguation would be needed there too.  Would you prefer Standing stocks (restraint)?  For many sources that mention these devices, try this Google search. --Una Smith (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I bought(at great expense) and use "crushes" LOL and I do not see a need to make a merge to a cage. Repeating the line of Richard: "The stock article is a very brief stub, and could easily be merged into this article (cattle crush), just by adding it as a synonym (the pictures would also be useful here)".Cgoodwin (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

My understanding was that a crush was the same as a squeeze chute (which was why I put it in in the first place...), but if it's also (or instead) called a stock cage then that's fine. Either way it seems to be one thing.

What's the difference between a stock cage and a squeeze chute? Is a squeeze chute a kind of stock cage, is a stock cage part of a squeeze chute, or are they just regional terms? Someone explain please... If they are just different names, this might cover it: "A cattle crush (in British Isles, New Zealand and Australia), or in North America a stock cage or squeeze chute..." Richard New Forest (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A squeeze chute is an improved form of a cattle crush that has a hand lever or hydraulically operated parallel squeeze that can move a large animal to the centre of the crush. See: http://www.warwickcrush.co.uk/ or http://www.steeraust.com.au/steer/cathand.htm#I4 Cgoodwin (talk) 09:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The thing isn't called a "stock cage"; it is a standing stock, or simply stock.  I stuck in "(cage)" simply to disambig the article, there being so many other things called "stock".  A squeeze chute is a subset of chute in which typically the animal is moved onto a conveyor belt that "high centers" the animal on its belly, leaving its legs dangling in a groove.  This terminates at a device that momentarily (a) squeezes the animal from the side and (b) clamps the animal's neck or neck and head, so that it can be killed without injury to itself or people.  That terminal device arguably is a kind of standing stock or cattle crush. --Una Smith (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have merged Stock (cage) here, and also created Standing stock (disambig) with a link here.

Title
I am a little uncomfortable with the "cattle" in the article title; how about Livestock crush? This device is used for large livestock (cattle, horses) and small versions are used for small livestock (calves, sheep, goats). I can see going one of two ways: generalize this article, or have separate articles on cattle crushes, horse standing stocks, etc. They have more in common than not, so I prefer one general article about what they all have in common, plus discusses variations of custom and function. --Una Smith (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me – those for sheep, horses etc are essentially the same thing (I ought to have thought of that to start with...) Richard New Forest (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't spent a lot of time in either of these articles, but for the purpose of clarity and possible redirects, let me toss in USA terms (at least, western USA terms). What I think you are calling a "cattle crush" (or livestock crush, if you wish) is a "squeeze chute" in the western United States.  (At least, growing up on a ranch, that's what everyone in Northern Montana called it).  I am assuming that "crush" is UK usage.  As for "livestock," sure, why not -- I know someone who used these to hold domesticated bison calves for vaccinations and such (quite a circus, too; the little boogers can practically jump out of one =:-O  ) A standing stock (or simply a "stock") is, as Una has said, about the only safe piece of equipment that horses get put into for restraint - there's one at every veterinary hospital and many of the larger horse farms. While I can't say I can cite to a source, I suspect that a horse, with its long legs, could be severely injured in a squeeze chute.  If you haven't broken these two pieces of equipment into separate articles, the horse stock really should not be in this one, IMHO. My two bits.   Montanabw (talk) 03:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that it named Livestock crush (or even Livestock restraints)? as we also have the same crushes/chutes that are used by cattle and horses in rodeos and these should be mentioned, too. Not sure where sheep/goat handlers should go though? Cgoodwin (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Restraints would include hobbles and legs tied up and perhaps also twitches, so that's not a great choice. I am okay with calling the box a "crush" (I have no good argument in favor of "standing stock" or "stock") although crush seems to be a largely Australian (and NZ) term.  I found an Irish manufacturer of "horse stocks"...  A North American squeeze chute is an Australian cattle race (a chute) with a squeeze crush at its end ... do Australians use the conveyor belt contraption?  I think part of the confusion is that for cattle (beef cattle, not dairy!) the crush is almost always connected to a race, even if it is a portable crush, simply because beef cattle are too wild to handle individually.  I bet in the UK they call the corridor thing a race, not a chute;  chute is French for race, and both chute and race are widely used to refer to (wait for it...) a flume.  In parts of the US, I know there are cattle chutes, calf chutes, and sheep chutes, none of which are stocks.  A chute may be nothing more than a corridor that directs animals from a pen (yard) up a ramp into a truck. --Una Smith (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and besides "livestock stock" would be a really ugly title. --Una Smith (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, "squeeze chute" redirects here. A cattle race is the tunnels and passageways that lead animals to a crush.  In my part of the USA, interestingly, we call some runs a "chute,"  at least some designs like the caged area used for calf roping or a bucking chute used for bucking horses. There is sort of a regional variation too.  Sometimes a chute is the same thing as a cattle race, other times, it's a dead end area used for loading, we also might say "runs" or "runways."   Montanabw (talk) 08:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

How about Crush (stock)? --Una Smith (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Images
Several images on the page do not display. That is because they are not on English wikipedia nor on Commons. They are on the French, Spanish, and German wikipedia, used on articles now interwiki linked to this article). They are waiting for someone to move them to Commons.  I dislike that job;  would anyone here care to do it?  --Una Smith (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What is it called?
Here are some "finds" on the Web. --Una Smith (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"horse stock", "horse handling stock":      

"cattle stock":  

In OZ and NZ at least it is a horse crush. See:

www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/192939/simple-horse-crush.pdf

www.advancedstables.com/untitled4.html

www.agnesbanksequineclinic.com.au/pdfs/crush-design-aug-06.pdf and so on. Cgoodwin (talk) 04:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Cgoodwin, do you agree we are talking about the same thing? --Una Smith (talk) 05:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * HELP!!! I GIVE UP!   LOL!!   How about we call the article "various pipe contraptions for holding recalcitrant critters?"  LOL!!!   Montanabw (talk) 05:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, basically, I didn't check every link, but Una's #1 and #2 are definitely what we yanks think of as a "stock" or "horse stock." The important thing here is that horse stocks don't grab the animal's head the way a squeeze chute does.  Cgoodwin's first link looks like a kind of homemade horse stock, and the advanced stables photos look like stocks used at private horse farms, though the ones at a vets usually have the overhead bars, to which the horse is sometimes secured, particularly if it is prone to rear.  It looks like one of the images in the agnesbank pdf also have the tall upright supports.  So yeah, horse stocks and horse crushes are basically the same thing, though a lot of USA models have solid sides that don't swing out, you just have to lead the horse in and out via the front and back (I notice the Priefert design has swing-out sides, though, so getting less and less different all the time).  Problem with this article title is that the term "crush" incorporates both cattle and horse designs in UK English, while in the USA, we use "chute" for cattle and "stock" for horses.  Arrgh.  No idea what the solution is, but I guess maybe "cattle crush" is good enough and maybe Horse stock or horse crush could be a name for a new article, with assorted wiki cross-linking, redirects, etc...??   Montanabw (talk) 08:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Re squeeze chute... This is the same problem I noted above. In short, for cattle the crush/stock almost always is an integral part of a race/chute (see Cattle race).  Even if the crush/stock is  a portable unit, for livestock not used to handling it is used in or at the end of a race/chute.  Squeeze chute redirecting here is appropriate because this is the page that (currently) best describes a squeeze chute.  (That is why in this article it appears as squeeze chute:  the bolding marks an implicit anchor of a redirect.)


 * Right, and horse stocks usually do not have a run attached, we just lead them in unless they aren't even halter-broke. And BTW, I have no real opinion on what to name or rename anything, just pick one name and redirect everything else, I guess.  "Livestock crush" may be as good as any, but if two articles then Crush (stock) or Stock (crush) would work equally well.  Now, what I need is an Orange Crush!  Montanabw (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Too many images
Just a comment that all the new images seem excessive and redundant. WP is not a Gallery or a scrapbook, commons is... Montanabw (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)