Jump to content

Talk:Sus (genus): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Pig diet: Reply
Requested move: new section
Line 476: Line 476:
==Merger proposal==
==Merger proposal==
[[User:117.201.52.155]] has posted a merger proposal template on this article, suggesting merging [[Domestic pig]] and [[Pig]] (I have copied the template to this article as is usual in this situation). Can we please discuss at [[Talk:Domestic pig#Merger proposal]]. [[User:Richard New Forest|Richard New Forest]] ([[User talk:Richard New Forest|talk]]) 10:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
[[User:117.201.52.155]] has posted a merger proposal template on this article, suggesting merging [[Domestic pig]] and [[Pig]] (I have copied the template to this article as is usual in this situation). Can we please discuss at [[Talk:Domestic pig#Merger proposal]]. [[User:Richard New Forest|Richard New Forest]] ([[User talk:Richard New Forest|talk]]) 10:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

== Requested move ==

{{movereq|multiple=yes
|current1=Pig|new1=Sus (genus)|current2=Pig (disambiguation)|new2=Pig}}

[[:Pig]] → [[Sus (genus)]] — Discussion of a request to merge [[Pig]] into [[Domestic pig]] found issues with the current arrangement of pages. The article about the genus occupies the page name [[Pig]] and consequently attracts content about anything and everything to do with pigs, but other articles exist and the result is content forking. [[Special:Contributions/69.3.72.9|69.3.72.9]] ([[User talk:69.3.72.9|talk]]) 02:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

* [[Pig (disambiguation)]] → [[Pig]]

Revision as of 02:57, 13 September 2010

Swine

"Swine" is the generic term for several closely-related species, wild and domestic, just like "bovine" is a generic term, "ovine" is a generic term - related to sheep, "canine" is for dogs, "feline" is for cats, and I don't know the term for goats. "Wild boars" are swine.

General early stuff

Visit [1] , theres loads of great stuff on pigs, have a read and remember that its probably going to have what you need, check it out!Pigs rule !!!!1 yeah dude!!They tend to live on farms and roll around in the mud

I remember hearing something about kieran having many more taste buds than humans (10,000 ), it was up in the millions, would be nice to have facts on their tastes.

According to this site "Tongue contains 15,000 taste buds. For comparison, the human tongue has 9,000 taste buds." Same thing for this site.

Do we really need quiteso many pictures on this page?!yeah dude!!!!!!!

Not really - I think one or two pictures are enough in almost all cases. For people on modems (like me), all these pictures take too long to download. I think we should keep one of the pictures (I would pick "sow with piglet" with "sow and five piglets" as my second choice) and dump the rest. The image pages could be linked to from the article, if people really think they're useful. --Camembert

Is anybody planning on putting a taxobox on this page like on other animal pages? -- Zoe

I'm unsure of how to best add a link to P.I.G. to this article. a little blurb at the end of the article? Crackshoe 01:38, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A disambiguation page would, i think, be a bit overkill. Crackshoe 01:40, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think there should be list of famous and fictional pigs. thealexfish 9:33, 5th of April, 2004

What exactly is "snuffly"? Joyous 01:57, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

This site I think has been locked, becuase I saw earlier someone had been messing with it and posting immature things. -User: Robin63 1/8/07 7;04 pm


Rossami: Minor correction regarding your sweat gland revision comment: while it is true that pigs are not the only mammals without sweat glands (the naked mole rat similarly has no sweat glands), dogs do in fact have eccrine sweat glands, but only on their nose. There's a nice obscure fact for ya, huh? -- ClockworkTroll 06:55, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Anonymous: Actually, dogs have them both on their noses and the pads of their feet.

Anyone interested in improving the content of the agricultural information on Wikipedia, here is your opportunity. Livestock has been nominated as a Collaboration of the Week. H2O 23:52, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

More pictures

I didnt think pigs were that interesting until i had to resarch the javan warty pig and the javan is great and interesting!

Ranting

I am going to rewrite the last paragraph (Health Issues) since it contains NO sources for a number of ludicrous claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparviere (talkcontribs) 21:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV issue

(The following cited section of the article was removed 09:28, Feb 18, 2005 by: 128.155.18.240 Paul August 21:31, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC))

Please read the following section in the article:

Mother pigs on factory farms in the U.S. live most of their lives in individual crates 7 feet long by 2 feet wide.

through to

At the slaughterhouse, improper stunning means that many hogs reach the scalding water bath (intended to soften their skin and remove the hair) alive.

This information may be correct but the writing style and content is biased, in my opinion. Although the living and slaughtering conditions of intensively-farmed livestock is arguably questionable, these sections are biased towards the animal rights cause. I suggest that the information is re-written and placed in a separate article, perhaps something like Intensive pig farming methods. The existing article should have a link to the article where this information is included.

The section covered should be replaced with the following statement(or similar):

the living conditions and slaughtering methods employed for pigs under intensive farming conditions is subject to criticism as causing unnecessary cruelty by many animal rights campaigners (add some links, including ones to the new page if the information is added to a new article).

Alternatively, a section within the article concerned with generalised methods of pig rearing and slaughter is as good and may include references to 'allegations of unecessary cruelty' by animal rights groups. As most pigs are reared under intensive conditions in developed nations, this is appropriate if balanced by a statement that 'traditional methods are generally employed in less developed nations and many regard this as more humane.

More generally, this article could include a lot more information on this animal.

I request a collaboration with the author of this section to resolve these issues if the suggested changes are not considered fair. Talk to me!

I have edited this entry because the last section in the old version was deemed excessively critical by a peer. Cute pics--ChrisJMoor 02:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree there is a problem with balance regarding the mentioned section. I thinkChrisJMoor's suggestions sound fair and any would probably be an improvement. Paul August 04:10, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking that down, Paul August. Slightly too much information for the context as well, I thought. The problem with getting unbiased primary source information on raising and slaughtering methods is that easily-accessible sources tend to have an agenda; animal rights groups, quite possibly, tend to present worse-case conditions as widespread without proof. Trade sources tend to whitewash allegations of cruelty and are a bit secretive.

How about a section of the article dedicated to the global Swine Industry? It should refer to both factory farming and traditional operations. Some generalised details of these operations would be intersting, as would minority operations such as selective breeding and medical research. A small section dedicated to the critiques of such industries and which special interest groups cite them is important for a balanced perspective. It is probably worth mentioning the role of pigs in experimental xenotransplantation and (briefly and simplistically) why this is controversial.

I have little canonical data on the above topics, but if I can find enough I will start on this section myself if no one else bothers. In the meantime I'll see if any other livestock articles need NPOVing. --ChrisJMoor 20:11, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If by: Thanks for taking that down, ChrisJMoor is refering to the deleting the section in question, that wasn't me. That was done by 128.155.18.240. In fact, I don't think it should necessarily have been removed. I think this information should be included here or somewhere, as long as it is factual (and sources cited) and as along as it is NPOV'ed somewhat (providing context, adding balance etc) in line with what Chris wrote above. Paul August 21:31, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

they should tell how long they live and where they lived most of the time

Truffles and Pig Genitals?

Color me stupid, but this statement about truffles smelling like boar genitals seems either unfounded (too disgusting and expensive for primary research for me to investigate) and furthermore POV.

what are you on abaout?

Pig's Orgasm

Reference to the removal of a miscellaneous fact. Although some people may doubt the length of time over which a pig may orgasm some basic research will validate this fact, further more this research will reveal that the pig orgasm is in fact made up of four distinct phases. In future check facts before they are removed as not doing this prevents others from discovering unusual information.

  • So, if basic research will confirm the claims about a pigs orgasm, I'd like to see that information in this article. I'm actually having a tough time finding any reliable online sources confirming or deying the claim or providing any details. People cite this "fact" so often, it would be nice to have a good, informed, complete and preferably footnoted/cited reference on the matter. -ken, with no username; 10/13/05
    • Someone else can decide if this belongs in the actual article, but here's what I've got. My friendly neighborhood librarian found some fairly useful information in Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia. In amidst discussing such interesting reproductive behavior such as "mutual grooming of genitals," "male nuzzling of the sides and vulva of the female" and "Males tend to salivate excessively" it notes that, "There are multiple mounts before intromission, and copulation sessions may last from 15 to 30 minutes. Adults will copulate several times per day." It also mentions that in most species "males associate with females only during estrus."; quotes Wrom:

I'd just like to throw in that I just watched the Dirty Jobs episode with the pig farm, and if this is referring to the male pig, it seems unlikely. No mention of it was made in the show, and the process of obtaining the semen did not seem to take a noticeably long time. Mike Rowe was leaning over while it occurred, if he had had to lean for a significant period, he would have shown signs of a sore back--he showed no such indications when they went to impregnate the female pig. 209.163.146.88 02:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is technically WP:OR, but yeah, definitely it is not 30 minutes. Um, sad to say, but in a moment of inattentiveness, my new pet pig (who will be fixed next week) managed to get my cat to hold still long enough to uh, finish his business, and I can tell you it took more like 30 seconds than 30 minutes... --66.67.213.241 16:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

people, people, so uninformed. the "30 minutes" number everyone has been quoting has always been in reference to the female pig's orgasm.

it seems odd/unlikely that she'd keep orgasaming once the male pig had already done its business and wandered off. (taking into account the post that said it took more like 30 seconds for the male to finish up). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.138.62 (talk) 01:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cervix of the human female descends into the vagina with each contraction of the orgasm. This causes sperm to travel directly through the cervix. If something similar happens in a female pig then I think there exists plenty of reason why the female pig would continue an orgasm for longer than it takes for the male to orgasm. excuse me?

"Therefore"

I don't get the comment about "Muslims can't eat blood and *therefore* can't eat pigs"--can someone explain why the "therefore" necessarily follows? Some information is missing in this sentence. (Unsigned comment by 129.127.28.3 (Talk | contribs), 13:10, November 4, 2005 (UTC))

And as long as there is a discussion of Muslim restrictions, why not one of Jewish restrictions?
Good idea! This is one thing about which Jews and Muslims agree! Steve Dufour 04:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonoymous- Accually, Muslims just cant eat pork. I live in a muslim country(although I am not from it) and they eat a lot of lamb and chicken.

Why is Pig Haraam? Is it because it has Weak Kidneys - which are unable to purify the blood efficiently? And the impurities created during metabolism remain in the blood and flesh in large quantities? And blood constantly gives nutrition and oxygen to the body parts/flesh and takes back impurities? Is blood Haraam because it carries and contains Impurities? And so is the flesh of swine? Can anyone answer these questions? - Talmid —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talmidne'eman (talkcontribs) 06:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of "hog" in the U.S.

The article says hog is a synonym for "wild pig" in the United States. Really? I thought that Americans (at least, farmers and other professionals, perhaps not laymen) used hog generically to mean an individual domestic pig, while pig was used as a synonym of piglet. Certainly the animals referred to at family farm hog pen and hog lot are domestic, not wild. --Angr/tɔk mi 14:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are hog farmers' associations in the U.S., and I don't think they are raising wild pigs. I'm changing it.

Coleopterous 20:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

how many pigs does it take to supply NFL with footballs

Anonoymous- was that a lame joke or just a plain stupid question??

Heh, incidentally, the answer is zero. "Pigskins" haven't been made out of pig skins for nearly a hundred years. It's all synthetics and leather, depending on the league. If I recall, the NFL uses the latter -- so the question is, how many cows does it take? heh... ---66.67.213.241 12:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pig, in mechanical engineering, short for 'Pipeline pig' , a device for cleaning pipelines

Pipeline pig, a device that can be passed into a pipeline, often bullet shaped, for cleaning. More elaborate pipeline pigs integrate technology that can perform integrity checking and other maintenance tasks.

A device that moves through the inside of a pipeline for the purpose of cleaning, dimensioning, or inspecting.

Intelligent?

The statement that pigs are particularly "intelligent" is highly evocative, but actually makes little sense. Perhaps "easily trainable" would be preferable. All animals learn at the same rate. Trainable behaviors tend to be limited to variations on normal behaviors. Thus, a dog can be trained to bark, but a pig cannot. A pig has a large behavioral repertory and is easily rewarded and thus is easily trainable. Dogs are inherently highly social and their packs are hierarchical; presumably this enables them to take on a master as a leader and to become loyal and eager to please. This is not the same as "intelligence", whatever intelligence is. Birds are not popularly considered intelligent (hence the epiphet "birdbrain"), yet corvidae can show seemingly creative problem-solving abilities. I suggest changing "intelligent mammals" to "easily trainable animals" (the superlative applies more broadly than to mammals alone). Myron 16:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Easily trainable animals" is a terrible alternative description. Pigs ARE smarter than dogs, it is a fact. The fact that many people eat them does not negate the fact that they are intelligent animals. Please consider reading the book The Pig Who Sang to the Moon: The Emotional Lives of Farm Animals by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson. He provides many references. His section on pigs is highly informative. --Revolución hablar ver 05:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pigs are clearly very smart. To say they are smarter than dogs, well, what do you mean by that? They are intelligent in different ways.
I mean, it's not like you can have them both take the SAT and see who scores higher :D --66.67.213.241 16:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing the intelligence of two species is contentious because the results are dependent on the test used. As someone said, they may be intelligent in 'different ways' as well. To say they are intelligent among farmed animals is fair comment I think. 'Easily trainable' may also be fair comment but this merely the result of high intelligence - use the most direct term. As for saying they are more intelligent than dogs - provide a citation from a serious study and qualify the statement with 'may...according to some studies'--ChrisJMoor 22:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about something like: Pigs are considered by some pig owners and afficionados to be very smart, although an animal behavior scientist would say merely that they are "highly trainable" or "easily trainable," arguing that "smart" is a vague term, not measurable in animals inasmuch as they cannot be given standardized intelligence tests such as the SAT. Nonetheless, some who keep pigs as pets claim that pigs are smarter than dogs, citing their ability to ...."

The thing is this Wikipedia entry on pigs is not meant to contain all and only scientific knowledge on and approaches to understanding pigs. It would be quite appropriate for nonscientific things to be included such as that some people love their pigs, while others consider the pig a vile animal. In Europe, a boar's head--often the name or sign of a tavern---is a symbol of hospitality; a (whole) boar on a shield is a symbol of bravery or courage. IN England, for example, the boar was the personal symbol of King Richard III. A scientific-only approach is not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. It is wrong to insist that because scientists would not use the word smart, that it may not be used here, when in fact that is the language of the reader. It is appropriate, however, to provide the reader with a scientist's view. Therefore is it appropriate to report the facts that some people love pigs; some people hate pigs; scientists would not use the word smart to describe pigs. There are some scientists who think thatthere s no such thing as love. Should that be a reason not to say that people love their pigs? No. But it could be mentioned in passing--if the article gets to that level of detail. It could also be mentioned that dogs and animals who seem to love their owners are thought by some scientists to be merely very good at exhibiting the behavior that gets them free food and shelter--i.e. that domesticated animals such as dogs cats and domestic pigs have no feelings for their owners but are merely good at faking it, like certain professional humans who provide companionship in exchange for ready money.

The fact that one would easily find reading the discussion page more informative on the subject of pigs than the article itself shows that these facts do belong in the article.

However it is quite disturbing that a user would on the basis of being unconvinced announce "I'm deleting it." (See above.) There seems to be a Wikifascism emerging. Is there an entry on that topic? Maybe there is not enough bandwidth for the history page on such a topic.

BTW if someone has permission to edit, would you consider adding a link to Wild Boars in Britain? RUReady2Testify 16:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only animal with sweat glands?

The page all about pigs is very factual,fantastic pictures, but I would like to make one correction. Pigs aren't the only animals without sweat glands, the naked mole-rat also doesn't have any. Over all, the page was wonderful. I am only new to this website, so I am hoping that all articles are at an equal standard.

Anonymous(Fuzzy Duckling)yoyo dog

Pigs eat a human child.

Never thought this would ever occur:

Sky news story

It would be good to get this into the article just to show the extreme behaviour of a pig.

Pigs do not behave extremally. The owners had probally not feed the pig in a while and the pig was very hungery. I know about pigs and how the behave and so does my dad. User:broncofreak12321 —Preceding comment was added at 16:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually pigs frequently behave extremely. I heard about a case in which a group of pigs took over a farm and began practicing Communism and battery farming which also goes to show the intelligence of pigs. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was a Movie for a english class it was called Animal Farm. A pig ("The General")was the leader and he died so 
another pig "Snowball" made plans to have a better functioning farm. They over throw the farmer and 
become abondent with crops and make a animal "Ten Commandments". They live happily for a time. But another Pig

"Napolion" raises some dogs/puppies and kills "Snowball". He then runs a dictatorship. u need to watch it some time. User:Dursely —Preceding comment was added at 19:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually from George Orwell's book, Animal Farm a satire of Russian Communism, as Jupiter Optimus Maximus knows only too well. Behave yourself, by Jove, or the ice pick will be yours! Hostiensis (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extra info!!! I talked with my dad. ok pigs r very playful and they play with thier mouths. thats because they dont have hands. But! VERY BIG BUT!! But if they get a taste of blood then they can become cannibalistic they were probably just playing with him and they got a taste of blood and .... Perfect ex. of how playful pigs are. I have a white x barrow and when i scratch him behind his ears he rolls over and he also plays a sort of tag like game with me. User:Dursely —Preceding comment was added at 19:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sus species

Sus barbatus (Müller, 1838)

Sus bucculentus† (extinct)

Sus cebifrons (Heude, 1888)

Sus celebensis (Müller & Schlegel, 1843)

Sus falconeri† (extinct)

Sus heureni Hardjasasmita, 1987

Sus hysudricus† (extinct)

Sus philippensis (Nehring, 1886)

Sus salvanius (Hodgson, 1847)

Sus scrofa Linnaeus, 1758

Sus strozzi† (extinct)

Sus timoriensis Muller & Schlegal, 1845

Sus verrucosus (Müller, 1840)

The domestic pig, feasiblely is a sus scrofa hybridized specie descent . Sus scrofa x sus hysudricus†? ,sus scrofa x sus bucculentus†? Anselmocisneros 05:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

domestic pig, pig (genus sus), wild boar, feral pig.

domestic pig, pig (genus sus), wild boar, feral pig. This articles are having confusion. I think that someone or a wikiproject must clarify. This one is encyclopedia. It must not to be wrong. genus sus is not only pig. a wild boar is not a domestic pig o a feral pig a feral or wild pig is a domestic pig specimen. Today they are put in "wild boar" article. Anselmocisneros 13:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

corkscrew shaped penis?

Everyone coming to this page must clearly have one question, and I think we're sadly failing to answer it.

Let's try and find, and add discussion, about the porcine penis and its unusual erect shape. 63.107.91.99 19:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it turns out that it is almost impossible to find a picture of a pig's "item." Which is too bad, because, as horrifying as it may be, it really is something everyone should see once in their life. I've never seen anything like that before... --66.67.213.241 16:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At great personal risk, I have obtained a non-copyrighted picture of an erect porcine member. I know it is not copyrighted because I took it myself. Piggy goes to the doctor this Wednesday, but I figured in the meantime, I might as well contribute to the pantheon of human knowledge... even if it's in a way nobody should ever contribute.
(Now if I can just figure out how to upload a picture...) --Jaysweet 01:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And here it is:
Does this belong in the article? There is no other place on teh interwebs where you can find a comparable photo, I know people who have checked.... --Jaysweet 01:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its a bit big for the main article as it is, in my opinion. You are of course absolutely right - its noteworthy and interesting and offhand I cannot find any other equivalent pictures. The morphology probably relates to the mating system used by pigs and is adapted to scrape rival's sperm from the female. Either that or it helps to guide the penis towards the opening of the cervix if pigs have that adaption - not sure there. All good stuff for the article - you can also try at the penis article and help to offset its anthropocentric bias.--ChrisJMoor 22:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I left the resolution high so people can manipulate it as desired, e.g. maybe a close-up of the "main event" for demonstration. My understanding of the unique morphology is that the cervix of the female pig actually has the inverse shape, and it helps them interlock or some such thing... But I don't have any [[WP:RS] yet. I intend to do so eventually, but we'll see. Actually, right now, I am very busy dealing with the challenges of having an un-neutered pig in my house, as it turns out... heh... like every single thing he can reach becoming rapidly broken. --Jaysweet 01:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across this talk page. I don't have time to contribute to the article, but I could do a quick search for relevant material. It's generally safe to say that anything that intrigues us has intrigued others. And this applies especially to the world of sex and reproduction. Indeed, prior to the development of DNA analysis, entymologists had a long history of differentiating some species by genital morphology, which often turns out to be unique. Morphology remains of central interest of course. On pig penises, here's some refs to start with, some of which provide comparative diagrams.[1][2][3][4]

I would recommend that the best way to incorporate the information within the article would be in a section on reproduction. That is a valid section, and if the information in it is presented in an informative rather than voyeuristic manner, it adds to the article. There has indeed been research on the matter, both in search of hypotheses to explain the extant anatomy and physiology (e.g. Birkhead[1]), and from more pragmatic perspectives of farm reproduction and veterinary science.[2][3][4] These sorts of sources also provide answers to questions like intromission time. For example, Hafez & Hafez state that "intromission lasts for up to 7 minutes".[2]

Among the descriptions in the refs presented here, Frandson et al's description of the erection of the pig penis is useful for the general reader. Erection of the penis "consists of lengthening the penis by straightening the sigmoid flexure, much as a bent garden hose tends to straighten when water pressure increases".[3] That's a useful, accurate, and understandable analogy that any reader can visualise. Frandson et al don't mention this, but the analogy also points to something long noted by those studying morphology in nature. That is, in nature, some shapes are ubiquitous (i.e. everywhere you look). Primary amongst these are tubes and spheres, or spheroids. Many structures in human anatomy consists of tubes and spheres, or spheroids, from neural tubes to our appendages, our heads, gonads, cells, microtubules within cells, rhibosomes, the list goes on. So the analogy of the pig's penis to a garden hose is descriptively useful, especially since at the conceptual level, the mechanism is the same - hydraulic pressure within a flexed tube, in the pig's case, the sigmoid flexure. The diagram in the Knox ref[4] shows the sigmoid flexure well enough, if nothing better can be found.

There will be more, and perhaps better references out there. But one has to start somewhere, and these alone would be good enough.

  1. ^ a b Birkhead, Tim (2000), Promiscuity: An Evolutionary History of Sperm Competition, London: Faber & Faber, ISBN 0-674-00445-0, retrieved 20 July 2010
  2. ^ a b c Hafez, B., & Hafez, Elsayed Saad Eldin (editors), ed. (2000), Reproduction in farm animals (7th ed.), Baltimore & Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, p. 10, ISBN 0-683-30577-8, retrieved 20 July 2010 {{citation}}: |editor= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
  3. ^ a b c Frandson, Rowen D., Wilke, W. Lee, & Fails, Anna Dee (2009), Anatomy and Physiology of Farm Animals (7th ed.), Iowa: Wiley-Blackwell, p. 411, ISBN 978-0-8138-1394-3/2009, retrieved 20 July 2010 {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. ^ a b c Knox, Robert V, "The Anatomy and Physiology of Sperm Production in Boars" (PDF), SwineReproNet Publications: Extension Publications, University of Illinois, retrieved 20 July 2010

relation to hippos

The reference to pigs' relationship to hippos is somewhat ambiguous and could be misleading. It needs clarification along the lines of Wiki's own article on hippos, which states:

"Until 1985, naturalists grouped hippos with pigs, based on molar patterns. Evidence, first from blood proteins, then from molecular systematics, and more recently from the fossil record, show that their closest living relatives are cetaceans — whales, porpoises and the like .[2] Hippopotami have more in common with whales than they do with other artiodactyls (even-toed ungulates), such as pigs. Thus, the common ancestor of hippos and whales existed after the branch-off from ruminants, which occurred after the divergence from the rest of the even-toed ungulates, including pigs. While the whale and hippo are each other's closest living relatives, their lineages split very soon after their divergence from the rest of the even-toed ungulates." -IstvanWolf 14:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article was a near duplicate of this article, so I redirected it here.--Isotope23 20:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sound

I've recorded some pig noises. I don't know if we want to use them so I'll stick them here Secretlondon 15:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trichinosis

There hasn't been a case of domesticated pig-caused trichinosis in this country (the USA) for decades, according to at least one radio show I heard. Is there a source for this article's assertion?CarlFink 23:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why you can't believe everything you hear on the radio! I did a quick web search and although pig-caused trichinosis is secondary to trichinosis caused by wild bear meat, it is still prevalent. Mantatory reporting only started in 1986, and although there are few cases, they seem to occur in hog raising areas. I don't see that the existing text is alarming or innacurate, but if you want to look up references and document that pig-caused trichinosis is rare - go for it. Bob98133 13:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New section

I wanted to add a new section to the article, but it needs an expert to look at it first:

Nomenclature

The English language has a large number of words describing or related to pigs of various descriptions, most of which are used in this article. For the clarification of the reader, here is a brief definition of such terms:

Pig
Any even‐toed ungulate of the Sus genus.
Sow
A female pig.
Piglet
An infant pig.
Boar
Swine
(collective noun?)
Hog


  • This is not correct.
A sow is an adult female hog that has farrowed (given birth) at least once. A female hog that has not farrowed is called a Gilt. [2] According to the NPCC a Gilt must be sexually mature.
An uncastrated male hog is called a "Boar".
A castrated male hog is called a "Barrow" [3]
Producers use the terms "swine", "Hog", and "Pig" differently. Among producers "swine" is a general term, "Pig" means an immature animal (synonymous with "feeder pig"), and "Hog" means a market weight animal. [4]
A piglet is also known as a "shoat" though this term generally applies only to recently weaned piglets, also known as "weaners". I don't think the term "infant" is appropriate.

I am not sure that a glossary is necessary within an article. That's what wikilinks are for. --Doug.(talk contribs) 20:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, I'm not sure these terms are all appropriate for this article. These apply to, and are used in the article, Domestic_pig.--Doug.(talk contribs) 17:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pig heart transplant

anyone know about pig heart transplants?Wiki wiki1 06:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


144.139.131.44 06:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have! As unusual as it sounds, it is quite common. The pigs are genetically modified so that the organ will be excepted into the human body; since the human immune system is so complex.

as well as heart transplants, pigs skin can also be used to transplant onto burns victims.

Pigs are actually one of the cleanest animals, as strange as this sounds and their genetic makeup is actually quite similar to a humans.

This is the reason pigs organs can be used for transplanting into humans.

do male pigs have a corkscrew penis?

do male pigs have a corkscrew penis?```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.233.34 (talk) 07:05, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

See: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_060.html DMacks (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sus bucculentus

it says "Sus bucculentus † (extinct)." but if i click on it, i get the following:

"Indo-chinese Warty Pig From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Sus bucculentus) The Indo-chinese Warty Pig or Vietnam Warty Pig (Sus bucculentus) is a species of even-toed ungulate in the Suidae family. It is found in Laos and Vietnam."

which seems to suggest its not extinct. i dont know which is correct but its confusing. it may well just be that the other article is lacking in clear information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.138.62 (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of Hampshire Sow and Piglets

I removed the recently added [[:Image:Sow and Piglets.jpg|thumb|left|150px|A sow and her piglets]] and put it on the page Hampshire (pig). It's placement needed work and there are enough pictures here, particularly of domestic pigs. I couldn't find a good place for it at Domestic pig, but noticed that Hampshire (pig) was calling out for a picture and this sure looks like a Hampshire sow to me.--Doug.(talk contribs) 04:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pigs in Slang

A new phrase is around and about with young people today. "Oinky Howard", is the new phrase started over an online gaming server known as "Xbox Live", this term seems to meen nothing, we are further investigating this.

Pig Brain

do we really need the pictuyre of that pig brain there? its rather irrelevant `` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Internet fraud (talkcontribs) 08:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually some people eat pig brain. User:Dursely —Preceding comment was added at 19:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

Most sections on animals contain an evolution section. I'm curious what animals are related to pigs, and what their common ancestors are, assuming this is known. If it's not known, I guess that should be mentioned instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.122.167 (talk) 07:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pigs

Do pigs have veins like humans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.109.208.168 (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the bleeding I have seen in shooting pigs intraveniously, I would believe so. 64.250.203.132 (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pig/Hog hair

Hog hair is used for artist's brushes. Its worth a mention. --78.86.159.199 (talk) 10:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mention sow?

I don't know the best place to add it, but shouldn't the fact that a female pig is called a sow be mentioned somewhere in this article? The disambiguation page Sow directs to here, but I couldn't find sow being explicitly mentioned as a female pig anywhere in the article (and didn't want to add it in randomly in a poor locale). -- Natalya 22:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, a sow has birthed. A gilt has not, and a barrow has been neutered, while a boar has not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.250.203.132 (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mnamed

{{editsemiprotected}} The genus should probably be "named" instead of mnamed from Porcus.

Blogtim (talk) 05:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, the whole sentence was fairly inelegant and poorly-formatted - I've reworded it. Thanks for letting us know. ~ mazca t|c 20:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


http://img229.imageshack.us/my.php?image=porkchoptyt0.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.54.224.2 (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I help to maintain the 'most vandalized' page and, having looked at the revision log of Pig, believe that it no longer merits inclusion on the page, so will be removing it. Please do not hesitate to re-add it if IP vandalism becomes a problem again. Hadrian89 (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Also pig is pronunced "Moo" in Thai. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.39.27.39 (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC) they can fly for 10,000,100,010,00l miles over any where and don't worry they don't die —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berrybear212 (talkcontribs) 00:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Easily turning into wild boars?

This is a nicely detailed page, but what i'm missing is, that when escaping into the wild, feral pigs can quickly turn into wild boars (or just closely reseble them) in just a few generations. I mean, the next generation will look more similar to wild boars, with darker and thicker fur. However, I don't know of any scientific journals detailing it. Maybe someone else does?

Ways to say "Oink"

I think we should compile a list of ways that the English "oink" is said in other places. I think it's of interest for linguistics. Thomasmallen (talk) 03:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

defacement

Proxytoaster (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC) The section "cheryll wise king of the pigs" with content reading "Cheryll likes to lick pigs all day" is an obvious defacement, and should be edited/removed.[reply]

Call for the standardization of the product.....

I just did some searches

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+Aspergillus+fumigatus+pigs&btnG=Search --222.64.223.101 (talk) 04:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+Aspergillus+fumigatus+pig&btnG=Search --222.64.223.101 (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+airborne+bacteria+pig&btnG=Search --222.64.223.101 (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=airborne+bacteria+swine&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1 --222.64.223.101 (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+Escherichia+coli+swine&btnG=Search --222.64.223.101 (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=Escherichia+coli+K88+pig&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1 --222.64.223.101 (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How old?

How old do pigs become? __meco (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sources are hard to come by, but it looks like the average wild pig gets to 4 or 5 years old, some make it to 8 or 9 years. When cared for by humans, maybe 30 years. Supposedly the oldest pig ever lived to be 68. I can't find any source on this I would be willing to put in the article. Abductive (reasoning) 17:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know if pigs can or will run down steep grades ? Do they go into water over their heads? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.96.231.115 (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pig Manure/Biogas

Pig manure has the highest yield of methane than any other common animal for Biogas producing digesters. perhaps this should be included somewhere . They get a bad wrap in the environmental section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.169.81 (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breeds of domestic pig

A useful addition to this page would be a list of domestic pig breeds. Wikipedia has one or two pages on pig breeds e.g. Gloucestershire Old Spots but no list of breeds. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take back this comment there is a list of domestic pig breeds. Perhaps the link should be in the article Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pigs as pets

there should be an article or at least a section about pigs as pets-anyone up for it?Roxy:Pkid (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are articles on miniature pigs and pot-bellied pigs... And keeping them as pets is mentioned a couple of times in this article... I have no strong opinion either way, but I can kind of see how there is no section or article at the moment. TastyCakes (talk) 01:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since there are already mentions in this article, and a separate article about the pigs most often kept as pets, I would be against a separate section about pigs as pets. In sheer numbers, pigs used for food dwarfs any other use. I think it would be a good idea to create a new article for Pet Pigs and link to it from this article. There have been a lot of issues, laws, etc about pigs as pets that would be distracting in this article but could make for an interesting separate article. Bob98133 (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a section for pigs as pets already in the domestic pig article. Steven Walling 17:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

gluttons

It is appalling that gluttons such as myself should be considered neither social nor intelligent. The pig is a fine creature, not only for its implementation and grasp of social mores but also for the very fact that it is capable of such. The pig eats what it must to survive. Any suggestion that its additional caloric intake results in poor social skills or lower intelligence shall be removed from the introduction of this page post haste. Aodeo (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pig diet

Look now, it is a fact that domestic pigs do eat human feces.(wild pigs are also known to eat dung of other animals). It may not appeal to some people but a FACT is A FACT. So Why should this fact be hidden? Because it doesn't appeal to pork eaters? Go and see this in any village in India. If you think only Indian pigs eat poop, put a plate of feces in front of an American domestic pig (maybe they are not allowed to eat), and see for yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.3.4 (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I would call recycling. --77.4.73.231 (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
59..., if you have a reliable reference for this, feel free to add it to the article. However, simply saying that it is a fact does not make it so. Bob98133 (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we need a ref, though I believe it is true: in some parts of the world village latrines are normally located on a platform above the pig pen. Richard New Forest (talk) 10:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fact there is a reffed article: Pig toilet. This says it's limited to Goa in India, but I have seen it in documentaries about South East Asia; it is described for Korea in the article about the Jeju Black Pig. Richard New Forest (talk) 08:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

User:117.201.52.155 has posted a merger proposal template on this article, suggesting merging Domestic pig and Pig (I have copied the template to this article as is usual in this situation). Can we please discuss at Talk:Domestic pig#Merger proposal. Richard New Forest (talk) 10:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

PigSus (genus) — Discussion of a request to merge Pig into Domestic pig found issues with the current arrangement of pages. The article about the genus occupies the page name Pig and consequently attracts content about anything and everything to do with pigs, but other articles exist and the result is content forking. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]