Talk:Horse breeding

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeHorse breeding was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 21, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed

Question[edit]

how are breed of quarter horses determined — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.216.200.2 (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quarter Horses are registered by the American Quarter Horse Association, or related organizations in other countries. The Wikipedia Article American quarter horse describes what they look like and has more info — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 21:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Embryo Transfer[edit]

I am finding it difficult to find any articles in english in regard to the viable freezing of equine embryos for transfer. can you help?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.67.1 (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try the web sites for various Veterinary colleges. The colleges of veterinary medicine at Cornell University, Colorado State University (has reporductive sciences specialty there), University of Florida, Washington State University, Iowa State University, and University of California-Davis all have good web sites with many articles about veterinary topics, and are usually searchable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 04:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Failed GA nomination[edit]

I failed this article simply because there is only a single reference, which results in the article failing criteria 2a of WP:WIAGA. Some P. Erson 20:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foaling[edit]

I think that it would be good if someone with experience in breeding horses would provide a section on the signs that the mare is soon going to foal. Maybe also include in the foaling section a list of common problems during or after foaling. Eventer — Preceding undated comment added 22:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trying for footnotes, anyone?[edit]

Hi gang, having survived the process of getting horses in warfare and Arabian horse passed as good articles, and now that I'm starting to review other articles for GA status myself, I'd like to see if those who have worked on this article would like to try for GA status again? To do so, we basically need FOOTNOTES, footnotes, and more footnotes. We should have a good list of reference books on horse breeding at the end of the article, but also plenty of citations in the text...basically think "Undergraduate Thesis." Now, I make the suggestion but admit that having done the work to find and cite sources on two other articles, I'm a bit fried, but would be glad to help if there are others also willing to come on board.
I personally think a little more organization and style editing wouldn't be a bad idea, either, but that's the easy part. Finding and citing reference material is kind of tedious, but necessary (web pages from various universities are one good online source, however!) Montanabw 00:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split this article?[edit]

Seems to me that this article is really covering 2 or 3 topics:

  • Pregnancy & Foaling
  • Breeding methods
  • Breeding & crossing bloodlines for desired characteristics

Should we consider splitting this up a bit? T-bonham 21:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet, let's clean up this one first. Better organization would do wonders, there's stuff that's redundant, wordy, and just needs cleanup. I've done some, but there's a way to go...I think everything still fits under one heading, too many separate articles on too closely related a topic can wind up with new editors coming in and adding what they think is "missing."
Once this article is in good shape, then if we want to take sections wholesale and make them into new articles, it will be easier, too. Montanabw 03:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval horses[edit]

Here's the problem paragraph from the article I referred to: <Medieval Europe bred large horses specifically for war, called destriers. These horses were the ancestors of the great heavy horses of today, and their size was preferred not simply because of the weight of the armor, but also because a large horse provided more power for the knight’s lance. Weighing almost twice as much as a normal riding horse, the destrier was a powerful weapon in battle.> 1. not very accurate, 2. not comprehensive 3. draws no conclusions and develops no argument within the discussion as a whole. Having pointed out the problem, I offer no solution!! Perhaps a brief summary and link to Medieval horses. Gwinva 12:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Is this true? <When Muslim warriors and European knights collided in warfare, the heavy knights were frequently outmanuvered.> taken from following paragraph.Gwinva 12:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken on destriers, no time to fix now! <grin> The bit on the Muslims is true, how do you think they conquered Spain if not superior military tactics? By the time they got to France, the Europeans had figured out how to stop them, but it took a while! Basically light cavalry can always outmaneuver heavy cavalry, but if you bog down light cavalry so their freedom of movement is restricted, then they are at a serious disadvantage. Note this image:

On that note, look at the riding position of the one guy with a lance near the front of the painting! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 23:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]


Umbilicus[edit]

I thought changing "iodine" to "antiseptic" would be the cleanest, since there are varying opinions about iodine vs. chlorhexidine. That way, we don't have to get into detail about the differences. --Getwood (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Montanabw(talk) 07:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closer to GA status?[edit]

I think that this article is close to Good Article status. I think it mainly needs a few more in-line references, a a few cosmetic tweaks to be ready. Good work, all. --Getwood (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible. Always a real learning experience to take one up, you learn a lot about the editing process. Go over to User:Ealdgyth's talk page and ask her do a run through, she's the goddess of WikiProject Equine Good Articles. If you put it up, brace for impact because some editors will be pretty tough, but if E blesses it before it goes, she usually catches all the big stuff. I'd be glad to help as needed, though may not have a lot of time. Montanabw(talk) 20:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other foalings[edit]

In ANZ most foalings are in a paddock which is lighted and under watch on Tb studs. Foaling alarms are also used to alert breeders to an imminent foaling. Mention may also be made about keeping baby foals from geldings etc. Cgoodwin (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of farms in the USA have gone to webcams in the barn. Many operations here foal out in big box stalls, especially TB and show horse places, and it is considered standard to isolate mares who are due to foal. I wonder how in depth we want to get, this article got slapped once for being a wikibook with too much how to. I guess I'd say if you have some good general stuff to add, toss it in! Montanabw(talk) 06:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I'll leave it for the time being. Cgoodwin (talk) 06:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have added a little on the SH foalings plus a video clip from one of the biggest studs in the world. Hope it works OK.Cgoodwin (talk) 09:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tossed the ref to a specific farm (once it starts, everyone else dogpiles on with "my farm too" stuff, sigh...). Other than that, got inspired to wordsmith a bit and add a bit more stuff in general. Feel free to tweak what I added. (One of these days, we are going to get forced to footnote this article, I fear...!) Montanabw(talk) 01:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breeding terminology[edit]

I have observed a number of breeding terms in individual Thoroughbred articles which I think are not adequately explained, or are not wiki-linked. I wonder if this article could have a section which explain some of these breeding terms. Examples are as follows: Heroic - inbred twice and (4x3); Highflyer - inbred 2x3; Pommern - inbred twice in the third generation; Barcaldine - incestuously bred (2x3); Glencoe II - extinct colonial family, C33. I am sure it would assist many lay readers of Thoroughbred articles if links to some of these terms could be established. Thanks. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 05:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Would you check Glossary of equestrian terms and see if we have anything there that is useful? Also maybe duplicate your inquiry there, as I think almost everyone on WPEQ that actively edits has that watchlisted. Cgoodwin and Ealdgyth may be of particular help in this area...maybe ask them too. Montanabw(talk) 02:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geography and destiny?[edit]

Hey CG, I'm wondering where that stuff on the notion that a horse is "bred" where conceived, not foaled originated. Like you, I agree it seems like usually it's the owner of the mare at time of foaling and the location of the mare at time of foaling that counts, but I also do know that in American Arabians, they did have a thing where a foal imported en utero to the USA was identified as an "imported" horse...which sort of goes the other way, though not entirely. However, current AHA regs also say the breeder is who owns the mare at time of foaling, and I'll have to check on the rest -- just wondering if you'd heard of any other possible breeds where things are different...? Montanabw(talk) 04:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geography and destiny?[edit]

Hey CG, I'm wondering where that stuff on the notion that a horse is "bred" where conceived, not foaled originated. Like you, I agree it seems like usually it's the owner of the mare at time of foaling and the location of the mare at time of foaling that counts, but I also do know that in American Arabians, they did have a thing where a foal imported en utero to the USA was identified as an "imported" horse...which sort of goes the other way, though not entirely. However, current AHA regs also say the breeder is who owns the mare at time of foaling, and I'll have to check on the rest -- just wondering if you'd heard of any other possible breeds where things are different...? Montanabw(talk) 04:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the breeds that I'm familiar with the breeder (who may not have had anything to do with the mating) is the owner of the mare at the time of foaling and the place of foaling is the registered country of origin. Years ago some horses were identified with (iiu) as a suffix if they were conceived overseas and foaled in another country. I don't know where the notion that a horse is "bred" where conceived, not foaled originated. Cgoodwin (talk) 04:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto here. I haven't had time to dig into the thing about importation en utero, but I suspect your understanding is pretty much the standard. Montanabw(talk) 05:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology, etc.[edit]

Explaining my recent edit: The proper term is foaled, not born. As this is explained in the sentence immediately preceding the one you are protesting to, I think this goes far enough towards WP:MTAA. The term foaled has not been a problem in the several equine articles to go through WP:FAC and WP:GAN, so I'm not sure why it should be a problem here. Dates should not be partially changed to another format (dd/mm as opposed to mm/dd), but should use numbers instead of words, so I tweaked that change. Also, it's important to emphasize that it's as close to that date as possible, not just a vague "close". I left the spelling tweaks, thanks for catching that. Dana boomer (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the double revert, Dana we were going after the same changes of Smjg's stuff at the same time, I guess. And I wholeheartedly agree. However, can't we also make it January 1, not 1 January, it's an American English article. Or else, isn't there some date template that flips it for international users? Not a moral issue, but really, can't we just use text when we aren't talking about a specific date but rather a narrative? Montanabw(talk) 21:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think wiki prefers the number to the text even when it's just in the narrative, but that could just be my faulty memory. And that's what I did with the dates (made them Jan 1, not 1 Jan) - hence my comment above about the date formatting of d/m vs m/d. Dana boomer (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To address the issues individually:
  1. The uninitiated will wonder whether the verb "foal" means to give birth, to conceive or more generally to produce a baby horse. But now that the word is explained the first time it's used, thinking about it now I suppose it's acceptable.
  2. What exactly does "possible" mean in the context of when a horse gives birth?
  3. The "date template that flips it for international users" is making the date a hyperlink, but that's discouraged except when the date is topical to the subject - I'm not sure that's the case here.
  4. WP:MOSNUM states that dates are always written as either "1 January" or "January 1". I hadn't thought about which it should be. Besides, to me, this seems to be an encyclopedia article, not a narrative. Even if it were a narrative and this warranted writing the date in words, surely it would match how you would speak the date aloud - "the first of January" or "January the first", rather than "January first"?
-- Smjg (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify what I asked earlier, I'm confused by the idea of horses giving birth as close as possible to a given date. Normally, a baby animal will come out when it comes out. At the moment, the only sense I can make of it is that either:

  • the mares somehow have control over when the foal comes out, and will aim to deliver on 1 January or 1 August
  • they are artificially inseminated at just the right time that the baby will come out on the right date or a few days either side
  • they are delivered by induced labour, ideally timed to foal on the designated date.

Can anyone enlighten? -- Smjg (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I rephrased. Humans control when horses breed and therefore see that the stallions breed mares at specific times (by either natural cover or AI, depending on whether a breed allows AI) so that they potentially foal as close to the desired date as possible. Sometimes there is all sorts of stuff involved, ultrasounds to detect the precise day of ovulation, use of hormones to trigger a heat cycle, etc. Even "natural cover" is a long ways from natural any more. (Probably TMI, but they even videotape some Thoroughbred matings to document which stallion covered which mare and when. Go figure) Hope this fixes the matter. Montanabw(talk) 22:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paddock vs field[edit]

In Australia and NZ, at least, we have foaling paddocks (myself included), NOT fields. What next polocrosse pens, instead of polocrosse fields? LOL.Cgoodwin (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL indeed, probably another one of those things separated by a common language! To me in the US, a "paddock" is a corral or relatively smallish enclosure, maybe 200 ft x 200 ft max. (My main one is about 100 x 100 ft) --Definitely smaller than a polo field! Another example, sizewise, is the "saddling paddock" at a race track, for example. What I've seen that I hear gets called a "paddock" in AU looks a whole lot like what I call a pasture or a field -- an enclosure of quite a few acres. Or am I confusing my definition of an Au paddock? On that note, I'm not really thrilled at corrals being listed at the article named Pen (enclosure) because in my mind, a "pen" is really little -- like an enclosure made out of pipe panels used to keep animals at the county fair... But as for foaling, some people out here in the wild west DO let mares sometimes foal out in the back 80, in with a herd, then wonder why they lose so many foals... =:-O sigh. The other end are the folks who have mares foal in a large box stall complete with baby alert buzzer, web cam, and the vet on speed dial. Not too many here who do an in-between thing of having a mare in an open, but sheltered area where she can foal solo but with plenty of outside room. Discussion of management variations sounds like a good idea! Montanabw(talk)

Damsire[edit]

I typed 'Damsire' into the Wikipedia, and it brings me to an article that doesn't even mention the word! Bugger. Mannafredo (talk) 09:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same has just happened to me. Annoying! Vilĉjo (talk) 11:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Horse BLP?[edit]

I'm wondering if we want to use the image of Moorland's Totilas for the "sire with a proven track record" image. Concern is that it could be deemed free advertising for a currently "hot" horse and could result in edit warring as other people seek to include their particular animal. It would be cool to have a generic image of a horse with a trophy or something instead, except I think all the shots in commons of horses with their ribbons and trophies are of ponies... better yet, maybe a famous horse that is no longer alive, to avoid the "BLP" issue.  :-P Just thinking... Montanabw(talk) 18:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO that image is perfectly justified. It's one of the best quality ones we have of a dressage stallion moving nicely, it faces left, and it's actually an individual that has proven successful. I understand your concern, but after he broke 90 % in dressage I cannot imagine how us using his image could promote him any more :P Anyways, here are a few other suggestions. Pitke (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I think if it doesn't itch, we don't need to scratch it right away, but good to find some others, maybe worth looking for some good generic image. Yeah, Tortillas is pretty cool, but I don't want even my own bias to cause trouble! Montanabw(talk) 02:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of external links to relevant websites[edit]

I note that the addition of two sites under a new category "External Links" by myself (http://www.equine-reproduction.com and https://www.facebook.com/groups/EquineRepro/) has been rolled back as vandalism by Montanabw (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Horse_breeding&oldid=568614605&diff=prev#). As both of the sites are specifically relevant to the subject matter and carry accurate information about it, I am unclear why this rollback was performed (never mind why it was referred to as vandalism!). Should those perhaps have been included under the "further reading" category, although they are not technically printed matter.

Start by reading WP:NOADS then follow up with WP:COI. Self-promotion has no place on wikipedia, and facebook groups are not reliable sources for further info. Montanabw(talk) 05:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the explanation. I can understand the reliability aspect of Facebook, but perhaps a review of the Equine-Reproduction.com site - particularly the articles section - might produce a slightly different thought process as it is totally legitimate with veterinary and related articles. Equus caballus (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a quick review, your site appears to mostly cover news about equine reproduction issues and has a lot of ads. I don't see new content that fits our WP:EL policy. It's interesting for news, but looks like it's mostly a news aggregator of materials that we should probably source to their original locations or organizations. I could see how an individual story might be a potential source or footnote citation in an article somewhere, at least if a more original source cannot be located. Montanabw(talk) 05:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please review the articles section, which is the real "meat" of the site. It can be found at http://www.equine-reproduction.com/articles/index.shtml There are currently 72 articles about equine reproduction matters. I won't list them all, but the newest three are: HOW PROGRESSIVELY MOTILE ARE THOSE SPERM? Evaluation of sperm motility with video examples using CASA; THE QUESTION OF A.I. USE IN THE T.B. INDUSTRY - A VIEWPOINT; SHIPPING SEMEN TO CANADA - A step-by-step protocol to deal with current CEM restrictions. There are also videos. ALL of the material is equine reproduction related. A significant portion of it is published elsewhere (in "hard" print). I once again request you review it, as the site is a resource used by Universities and Breeders world-wide, and the intent is to provide up-to-date accurate information about equine reproduction. The front page is a "news" page, but the "guts" of the site is informational. Many thanks. Equus caballus (talk) 03:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's what we sometimes call a "link farm". The individual articles might be useful as references, but not just an EL to the whole site, which is, I am sorry, mostly advertising. And more to the point, you DO have a commercial venture with the science of artificial insemination: http://www.equine-reproduction.com/services/index.shtml and that pretty much puts the kibash on your site going on this page. That said, perhaps you could help improve the article on AI, which needs some work? Montanabw(talk) 06:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of a "link farm" is that it is a page or site that has links to items on other (possibly connected) websites, typically with links back to the same site. This is supported by the Wikipedia definition of link farm. This is clearly not the case in the site under discussion, as ALL of the articles are hosted on the same Equine-Reproduction.com website, and ALL BUT A FEW are written by staff who work at Equine-Reproduction.com - which owns the copyright on those articles - and the rest are provided by the authors (and therefore obviously with their permission) for use by Equine-Reproduction.com and also hosted on the same site. Other than the videos (about equine reproduction) that appear at the foot of the page, and which are hosted in YouTube, all of the content is on the same location. It is therefore clearly NOT a link farm. I am unsure why you are so vehemently opposed to adding this link to the largest equine reproduction informational website on the 'net, but it is unfortunate that you are preventing others reading the Wikipedia article on the same subject from benefiting from those articles and information. Regrettably, it is clear that you have not, despite your observation to the contrary, really looked at that article page that I linked above... :( Re: the AI page - I will take a look at it once breeding season has slowed down and there's a bit of spare time, and see what can be done... :) Equus caballus (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the first page and read a couple of articles. That tells me all I need to know. I do stand corrected that your articles are hosted in house, but still, a reference to a page of links where you also have a lot of advertising is not suitable on this page. (Arguably, it would work at artificial insemination because that clearly is what most are about.) Some of your individual articles might make acceptable references in specific articles. But the overall website fails WP:NOADS and WP:ELNO (esp 1, 5, 14) and WP:EL#ADV. Montanabw(talk) 22:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Horse breeding. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Horse breeding. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Horse breeding. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do teaser stallions break down psychologically?[edit]

John McPhee writes in Draft No. 4: 'Teaser stallions do not last long. In a matter of months, they break down psychologically.' McPhee likes to get his facts right so I assume this is true. I'm surprised not to see the breakdown mentioned in the article given Teaser stallion arrives here. Ralph Corderoy (talk) 09:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Horse_breeding&oldid=1219534062"