Talk:Animal husbandry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Genetics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Genetics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Genetics 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Zoo (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Zoo, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to zoos, aquaria, and aviaries 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Agriculture (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Education (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


I'd like to preface this by saying "I'm a COMPLETE MORON" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC) 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. (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
There's only one person here who immediately got really defensive... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2012 (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. (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? -- Obsidin 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)

Missing Etymology[edit]

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? (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:

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

Monkey Breeder?[edit]

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 (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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 • talk 22:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Missing the point[edit]

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 (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[edit]

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 (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Material doesn't belong here[edit]

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 Wikipedia: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)


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)
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)
Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Speciesism? 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

Proposed merge with Good husbandry practices[edit]

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)