Talk:Livestock/Archive 1

Clarifications

Cattle dogs are rarely used for mustering, as their name implies they are heelers and not what is required when mustering. Kelpies and their crosses are the most popular stock dogs as they are hardier, will head and heel if necessary. A lot of mustering is now done with some form of vehicle ie. Utes, motorcyles or quads. Branding may be by a fire brand or a freeze brand. I have personally branded hundreds of calves without any infection and damage to them. Ear tags on the other hand are often torn out in plants and/or fences leaving a long tear in the ear. They, too, often strike the eyes when stock are flicking their ears to hunt flies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgoodwin (talk • contribs) 03:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey folks. Big typo in the "Origins of Livestock" section. Dogs were domesticated 45 years ago? Wow! - Kilgore Trout 02June2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.155.16.95 (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

big changes

Made come big changes to livestock page, including uses and types. Please continue to improve.

EastNile 04:49, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The definition of the Swedish translation livdjur is animals that are useful when alive, such as cows that give milk or stallions used for insemination, as opposed to animals that are only useful when slaughtered, such as swine or cattle raised for beef. Doesn't this distinction exist in the English word livestock?

Not really. In english, pigs or steers are considered to be as much livestock as dairy cows or sheep are. Gentgeen 01:06, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What about Fish? they are often raised on a commercial basis for all kinds of purposes, especially the meat

Definition of livestock

I'm not sure the above query is resolved. I suspect that yes, technically livestock is animals useful when alive. I'm not sure all the animals listed should be included. But then again, I think that cattle, regardless of whether for meat or dairy production, are classified as livestock. So in summary, we don't have a good definition of what is, and what is not livestock. Zoney 12:56, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Some might consider catfish and other captive raised fish to be livestock. H2O 04:00, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I suspect we'd have to draw the line before all that - perhaps just a sentence noting such opinions, with a link to fish farming (or whatever it's called). I think most types of fish can be farmed - certainly there's farmed salmon. We don't need a whole list on this page I suggest. It's not as nice/good for you as grabbing what you can out of the water - but it's sort of more sustainable. zoney ▓█▒ talk 12:42, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I added a link to aquaculture, we need that at a bare minimum. H2O 14:00, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here are some common definitions of livestock and their sources:

"Domestic animals, such as cattle or horses, raised for home use or for profit, especially on a farm" from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.
"The horses, cattle, sheep, and other useful animals kept or raised on a farm or ranch" from Random House Unabridged Dictionary.
"Any animals kept for use or profit" from WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
"Domestic animals, especially horses, cattle, sheep, and pigs" from Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version), © 2000-2006 K Dictionaries Ltd.

It seems that livestock can be any animal kept for a useful purpose: which in most practical cases refers to "domesticated" animals. On the Wikipedia "List of Domesticated Animals" page they make a distinction between domestic animals that have significantly "altered as a result of being under humans control for many generations" and those that were semi-domesticated animals or wild animals that were under human control (captive). I think this is a good precedent to follow.

I don't know why animals in all of those categories are listed on the "List of Domesticated Animals" page, though, that seems to be the job of the "livestock" page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.32.100 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 25 Apr, 2007 (UTC)

Another definition of "livestock" - from Saunder's Comprehensive Veterinary Dictionary, 2nd ed, D.C. Blood & V.P. Studdert (both of the University of Melbourne, Aust) - "agricultural animals; animals kept for profit". By contrast, companion animal is defined as "dogs, cats, pleasure horses, birds, mice, guinea pigs and more exotic species kept by humans for company, amusement, psycological support, extrovert display, and all of the other functions that humans need to share with animals of other species; companions who will not take emotional or psycological advantage of the person and will, for the most part, stay faithful." I believe the second part is a touch tongue-in-cheek...and it definately rules most cats of my aquaintence out of the "companion animal" category.Kerani (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might look at the article on cattle. The word "cattle" means "head" and is the same root as "capital" and "chattle". Legally, it refers to personal (chattle) property, which means whatever is portable and isn't sold with the land, the other main class being "real property." A tree is real property, and so are the apples attached to it. Until they are picked, at which point they become chattle property (same with crops). Okay, so basically, "livestock" goes back to this legal idea of farm/food animals that are personal property and not part of farm real estate. Often, free-roaming birds like chickens were considered part of the land since they were too difficult to catch. Caged birds are a relatively recent thing. Wild game on the land, including game birds, fish, deer in the forest, etc, were obviously not livestock and were sold with the land, as being attacked to it, in the real property way. The example of mustang horses is recent and confuses the issue, but in the common law, mustang horses would have been considered to be like deer in the woods, and part of the land. So that's where the basic legal idea comes from, and why the law (when it defines this) tends to define livestock as the cattle/chattle personal property farm animals easily removed, and leaves out all those small farm animals (birds, fish, squirrels) that are attached to the land so closely that they're regarded as real estate themselves. Pets, of course, would be chattle but not livestock, simply because they're not farm/food animals. S B H arris 01:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other proposed areas of coverage for this article

The following areas should be mentioned, at least briefly, and links given where relevant. Of course this will be general, as there are entire textbooks on the subject. H2O 04:00, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Livestock feeds
Housing
Breeding and typical breed organizations
Livestock shows, fairs
Expand animal health care, veterinarians
Livestock marketing, auctions, commodities markets
Transportation of livestock
More history and geography

Of course, nothing useful at feed, show (fair), fair, veterinary (doesn't even mention livestock animals - despite a list of other types e.g. companion) or market. It appears not only is livestock not covered well, but unusually there's not even good pages on subtopics. zoney ▓█▒ talk 14:11, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

environmental impacts of ranching/farming/raising livestock.Pedant 21:23, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)

Profit

While the previous wording was perhaps, not careful enough, merely including "economics" as a factor does not go far enough. The whole point to livestock, in this day and age, is profit! That's what the whole shebang boils down to! Now, I suggest we put this across somehow (obviously without implying farmers are greedy).

There's no piece either about the fact that farmers (unless large-scale big farmers) find it hard going in Western countries to make a living from it - so much so that both the EU and US heavily subsidise their farming sectors. Meanwhile, those in the developing world struggle to get their goods sold in these markets, and get a pittance for it. There's no discussion of the whole mad screwed up "system". I mean, really, there's something fundamentally wrong with someone "giving up farming" in Ireland, while there's people going hungry, and people attempting to farm on infinitely poorer land. There's something crazy about farming having to be subsidised in the West!

zoney ▓█▒ talk 00:04, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the system is screwed up, and I am philosophically opposed to subsidies, as are many farmers I know, but I don't know how to fix the system. It's kind of like trying to kick a drug habit. Most people want cheap food and clothing. There is an article that addresses this issue, agricultural policy, and there is an entire field of study agricultural economics (a teeny stub). It think a mention is warranted as to how ag policy affects livestock production, but it's impossible to adequately cover the subject in this one article. H2O 02:16, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

subsidies sometimes take the form of "paying farmers to NOT grow tomatoes etc, at least in the US, so subsidies don't really increase food production, just profit...Pedant 21:26, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)

I think NPOV demands that we treat subsidies with caution. There are justifications for subsidies such as maintenance of the countryside, national security in the event of a war, and even the mere fact that a lot of people in a democratic country want to continue buying subsidised local produce. I'm not going to start a debate, though, just remember NPOV. PhilHibbs 17:19, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There are reasons but not always justifications for subsidies... you cannot buy subsidised local produce if the produce is 'being paid not to be grown', but as far as that goes there's the whole ethics of 'meat is murder' etc, and I think even that can be treated NPOV-ly, (but obviously not by me, sorry) but, though I completely agree that there are issues with the profit end of livestock raising, I think the environmental impacts are just as important,

such as diseases that have been traced to pig farms' sewage overflow and similar causes, diseases that actually were created by having animals in crowded unsanitary conditions, being legally fed an 'acceptable amount' of their own feces, and "rendered" byproducts of other slaughtered animals...

maybe a mention of rainforests and african jungles being cleared for more livestock raising land, as well as the slaughter of 'competing species', such as the extinction of the black rhinoceros caused by poaching that competing species to make more graze available for cattle and for their meat and 'horn'...

and also some mention of the more modern trend towards preserving wildlife while still raising stock... like villages in the Sahel defending their crops from nighttime elephant raids by building deep ditches backed by fences, and the whole village gets up at night to make noise and drive the elephants away rather than simply slaughtering them --

and African ranchers raising half the amount cattle their land could support, in order to allow the wildlife and their habitat to recover from their depleted state.

(if all of that can be touched on briefly, I think it would improve the article) I'd be willing to supply raw data, if someone can make it not sound so disgusting... I don't think I can.Pedant 04:49, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

You guys need to be careful with your POV. Farmers are definitly not greedy, they are making their living like everyone else. Also, the average farmer does not get much money from goverment sources. -Chris141496 (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, livestock may simply for survival, in communities where there is no use for money or trade. Also, in small numbers for personal use, when there is no alternative, there is no economic factor, but only a factor of food etc. directly.

Table needs work

Is poultry livestock?

Britannica says poultry isn't livestock, but we're listing it as such. Which is right..? Tom- 21:43, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think in its most general sense, livestock would include poultry, but I think in common practice, poultry is treated as a separate category, with both livestock and poultry falling under the ag category of animal science. I think an even more questionable entry is "dog". --H2O 00:22, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dict.org says not used technically; any animals kept for use or profit - quite how one interprets the not used technically bit I'm not entirely sure, but I guess it means in the industry and we'd need to note that.

Whereas my Oxford Reference Dictionary says animals kept on a farm regarded as an asset which certainly would seem to rule in chickens etc. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 01:11, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Most of the ag related websites I am seeing, including university ag departments, show poultry as closely affiliated with, but separate from livestock. Here is a typical farmer-oriented website: farmworld -- I made some changes - hope ya'll like 'em. --H2O 02:21, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I still fail to see why one would treat poultry different than goats, cows or sheep, in this article. The poultry class includes many different animals, but thats no reason not to include these. It just seems an artificial separation to me. I want chicken tonight! Walden 12:07, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

As part of my efforts on the H5N1 related pages, I read a great deal of scientific literature on poultry raising practices and poultry are very very definitely called "livestock" by scientists and policy makers and corporations. WAS 4.250 18:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that may be true, in common parlance however ducks, geese, chickens, etc are not considered livestock, I think most people would consider livestock to be cattle and pigs. -- Librarianofages 00:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halt one minute, the object of an article is not to say what most people think. It is to tell the facts. If poultry is not livestock, so be it. If its not, you have to be okay with that in the article.-Chris141496 (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the argument that poultry are not livestock. I suggest a note to that effect and a link. I'll see if I can do it.Mzmadmike (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

west nile and horses

I heard on CBC radio today that horses can't be the source of human infection of west nile. The host was talking to some vet about why farmers risk not giving their horses the vaccine. This is after several deaths (of horses) due to the virus. The only source is avians, particularly crows. Horses can die of the disease but apparently they can't pass it on to humans because there is a small amount of virus in the blood stream. I don't know if this is accurate but as a whole, humans know little about the virus. I reccomend removing or putting a side note on the horse transmission of disease section. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 06:16, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

minnan:Cheng-siⁿ

What's that link at the end all about? PhilHibbs 17:14, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia house style guide, links to foreign language pages should be directly germane to the page. There should probably be an English language description to provide some context.

To allow the person who added this link to add the proper explanation, I have moved it here:

Would the author of this link kindly step forward and explain what it is? --DV 07:55, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The author of this link, Donarreiskoffer has added it again with no explanation. I will continue to be courteous and move it back here, with the polite request for an explanation of what it is:

Please see the Wikipedia house style guide, regarding links to foreign language pages.

--DV 20:13, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Donarreiskoffer hasn't replied yet, but here is a theory of what is wrong. It appears that someone is trying to add links to translations of this article. There appears to be a way to add links to the translations in such a way that they don't appear in the article for a reader, however in this case, the link entry for "minnan" is broken in some manner to defeat the mechanism which hides the language links from the reader.

Since the other links besides the "minnan" link appear to work correctly when I preview them, I am restoring all but the "minnan" link back to the main article page. If anyone can fix the link to the "minnan" page, please let me know what the problem was. Thanks. --DV 06:13, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware that there was a discussion on the talk page. I thought the language links were accidentally removed. I did only check the language I understand (Dutch, German, Spanish) and suppose the others were also ok. Apparently I went a little to fast. But I see that you have already solved the problem. Thank you. By the way, I only contributed once to the article Livestock, I is not true thta I KEPT adding the language links. Donar Reiskoffer 07:10, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, Donar Reiskoffer. As for you not being the original author of the broken link, I neglected to search the history far back enough to realize that another user, A-giâu was the original source of this contribution.

After much struggle trying to decipher what language he was trying to support, lo and behold, it turns out his user page documents a bug with the page parser that is causing the link to the language he is using to wrongly appear on the main page read by readers. Donar, thanks for helping to solve the mystery. --DV 07:39, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Stock shows

I inserted a mention about stock shows and fairs, but it needs help from someone else more knowledgeable. --H2O 19:10, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is the spelling of this article to be in British or American English?

Examples:

"labor" or "labour" (currently the latter)
"plow" or "plough" (currently the latter)

--DV 07:23, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It began as British spelling, and is not a US topic, so it should remain in British/International spelling. zoney ▓█▒ talk 07:58, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for following up on making the spelling consistently BE, Zoney. I didn't catch "civilisation". The online http://www.dictionary.com doesn't clearly mark that spelling as the British English version (it only has the notation, "Cf F. civilisation" listed next to "civilization"). Can you please point me to a better online reference source to check for these? Thanks. --DV 09:33, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The 'z's are quite often used in non-US English, in fact many British dictionaries use them (many international organisations however, do use "s" consistently, e.g. the EU). To see an example as to how widespread the "s" spelling is, google for "organisation" vs "organization". Remember to explicitly search only English though (French uses organisation also). 's' is usually specifically a non-US spelling, and as such, ensures US spellings don't creep in. zoney ▓ ▒ talk 18:41, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Poison collection ?

"Poison Collection - Some poisons are collected during food consumption and are not released from the body. Such poisons are accumulated in increasing amounts the further up the food chain a species is. For example, insecticides sprayed on plants won't kill the plant nor the mice eating the plants. A hawk eating those mice might be killed by the accummulation of the insecticides taken in by its prey." Maybe I'm ignorant, but I don't understand what this has to do with whether or not something is livestock. Are you saying that livestock don't tend to accumulate toxins, because they are low on the food chain? If so, please reword it so it is understandable and make this more relevant to this article --H2O 20:47, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

H2O, I'm not sure what this contributor intended either, because hawks are not a type of large land-based mammal, which the list is predicated upon, and it's also not clear how "poison collection" is a prerequisite for domesticating an animal into livestock. Unfortunately, the wording of one of the other examples, "Danger" also reverses the sense of the list, such that the intent of the list seems a bit unfocused.

Rather than delete the "poison" example outright, I have simply reversed its sense (along with "Danger"), to fit the intent of the list (Prerequisites), and also picked a large land-based mammal which might plausibly eat a mouse, to replace the odd "hawk" example.

However, if this list were to consist of reasons something is not livestock, the list would be endless, so the relevance of this item indeed depends upon how one interprets it, and I wouldn't feel bad if someone else chooses to delete it. --DV 06:43, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think this whole list of "Prerequisites for livestock" sounds pretty speculative. It sounds nice, but "wikipedia is not a place for original research". I would like to see some references to back up these notions. --H2O 07:01, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The whole notion of safety seems very speculative. I had a boar hog with 2 inch tusks try to bite my hand once. I pulled it back just in time. I would never get in the pen with him. He was huge and if he ever knocked me down it would have been the end of me. Bulls can be very dangerous, not to mention some of the other animals listed. --H2O 07:07, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The poison section was an elaboration of why we don't use carnivores for food animals. Hawks are the specific example I know of where this poison accumulation happens. I don't know that there are other species/poison combinations that actually do this. BTW- I'm a programmer, not a biologist.

I do like the rewording. Much better. Hrm, well before it got deleted. --TomCerul 15:42, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Don't know if this is germane to the issue, but many poisons are concentrated in fatty tissues, so poisons such as DDT and other less notorious ones, can be uptaken into the food chain, especially if animals are fed their own feces and rendered animal byproducts, more and more poison concentrates in the meat and the milk as this cycle continues, until it ends up in humans, especially important being that it ends up in human milk, and infants are particularly susceptible to poisons...

so a "large land-based mammal which might plausibly eat a mouse" need only be a cow or steer, and be fed using the common (almost universal in the U.S.A) practice of feeding animals parts of other animals and feeding them feed intentionally (and legally) mixed with their own feces...

or be fed hay or grain which was raised on land poisoned by insecticides and herbicides (also quite common and almost universal in the U.S.A)

or drink similarly tainted waterPedant 05:04, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

Prerequisites for livestock

I recently discovered that most of this information is duplicated in an article called domestication. I think we should remove most of this section and link to this article. --H2O 04:20, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Went ahead and did it. Also rearranged a bit. --H2O 05:52, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think the deleted text ought to be copied to domestication (on a quick look, I couldn't see it there - apologies if it is already). I see there is a table of dates of domestication in that page too - are the two tables consistent? Should they both be removed and a new page, say Date of domestication of livestock be created to which both pages can link? Alternatively, should livestock just be merged with domestication? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:37, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Don't think they should be merged: not all domesticated animals are livestock (parakeets and kittens), and not all livestock are domesticated (herds of bison bison bison raised in Colorado are not domesticated) (wild mustangs are considered livestock, and are sold at livestock auctions, prior to domestication, sometimes they are never domesticated, and are exported for slaughter or as meat). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedant (talk • contribs) 05:09, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Animal Welfare

There’s very little here on the rights and wrongs of animal welfare. The way livestock are reared is a hot issue in the UK and there are regular demonstrations against the worst practises. eg the banning of the farrowing crate for pigs, the debate over free range v battery hens, the de-beaking of birds to name a few. Lumos3 12:57, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't know why you would ban a farrowing crate. Years ago I raised pigs. We did not use farrowing crates. The sows would often step on and crush their own young. --H2O 20:22, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

absolutely some mention of all of those issues seems suitable, if it can be described neutrally, I can't even talk about talking about it without getting agitated, but I would be pleased to see some mention of that in the articlePedant 05:12, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

These issues should be included, but in an introductory fashion, as they are already covered in other articles. --H2O 20:22, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

More specific definition - your thoughts, please

I'm relatively new to editing Wikipedia, though I have made some additions & minor changes as an unregistered user.

What do you all think of this definition? I felt that its fairly inclusive and explanatory.

"Livestock refers to domesticated animals that are kept or raised in pens, houses, pastures or farms as part of a agricultural or farming operation, whether for commerce or private consumption. Such animals may include goats, sheep, turkeys, chickens, beef or dairy cattle, horses, hogs, camels, donkeys, rabbits or any animal kept in an inventory that may be used for food, fiber or pleasure. There are some minor disagreements that the term may not appropriately apply to wild animals such as deer, elk or quail that are raised for release on hunting preserves or for slaughter, or to domesticated birds such as chicken or turkey. Generally, aquaculture (the raising of fish, mullusks, shrimp or other water-borne invertebrates) is not included within the term livestock." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mink Butler Davenport (talk • contribs) 14:43, 5 Sep, 2004 (UTC)

"As well, while honey bees or bee keeping have not been classically thought of as livestock, its importance to the agricultural community in the United States was recognized by being included in the definition of livestock for crop insurance purposes in H.R. 2559, the "Risk Management for the 21st Century Act," which was passed by the House and Senate, and signed by President Clinton, June 19, 2000." - a government definition is always helpful (or scary, depending on your perspective) --H2O 19:05, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to include such a technical definition in the introduction? It would seem more suitable to simply mention that bees can also be seen as a form of livestock, then get into the details of American law later in the article.

Peregrine981 22:08, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't add it and I agree with you. I was trying to merely state, however unclearly, how the government has a tendency to muck things up. --H2O 18:16, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think the supporting info about the honeybees should be added to the footnotes at the bottom. It doesn't belong in the introductory paragraph. --H2O 18:25, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind is that the term "Livestock" has a legal definition in some, perhaps most jurisditions. For example, the definition in Nevada Statute is as follows:

NRS 205.219 “Livestock” defined. “Livestock” means:

1. All cattle or animals of the bovine species;

2. All horses, mules, burros and asses or animals of the equine species;

3. All swine or animals of the porcine species;

4. All goats or animals of the caprine species; and

5. All sheep or animals of the ovine species.

NRS 501.003 “Alternative livestock” defined. As used in this title, “alternative livestock” means the following species, including subspecies, of the family Cervidae, if they are born and reared in captivity and raised on private property to produce meat or other by-products of animals or as breeding stock to produce alternative livestock:

1. Fallow deer (Dama dama).

2. Reindeer (Rangifer tarandus).

3. Rocky Mountain Elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni) that have been certified not to be hybrids with other cervid species or subspecies using the most current and scientifically accepted genetic tests available.

I don't know how or if this sort of information should be incorporated into the article, especially because the legal definition will vary a good bit from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but it's food for thought. Toiyabe 21:59, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You could add that "In some jurisdictions the term "livestock" has a specific legal meaning." and leave it at that.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exotic animals

why are camels considered "exotic"? Someone in Asia would not consider them to be exotic. --H2O 18:31, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this is a sign that perhaps a page doesn't represent a world view, rather than just a Western one. -- Librarianofages 23:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antelope anyone?

It has come to my attention that the noble antelope may be also a form of livestock. I was reading through the wiki and came across the antelope section and thought that they might be kept as livestock. I did a google search and the "i'm feeling lucky button" came up with this business website for exotic livestock. Interesting. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 00:26, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Enviromental Impact

This article ( http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2062484.ece ) says livestock has the biggest enviromental impact bar none. Any thoughts on the inclusion in the article?--Energman 15:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would support inclusion of this article. -- Librarianofages 23:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get some more citations here? 24.61.47.29 22:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph, the phrases "At first" and "the 18% figure that placed on the sector as major contributor" are confusing. Is the following what is meant? And is this accurate?

According to the United Nations report "Livestock's Long Shadow," "...livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, a bigger share than that of transport."[3]. Of this, 6% is due to deforestation for pasture.[3] In the U.S. in particular, the [United States Environmental Protection Agency] in its "Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2006"[1] found that "In 2006, the agricultural sector was responsible for 6 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions" (section 6.1). By way of comparison, transportation in the US produces more than 25% of all emissions [citation needed]. Telecomom (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on editing this page, this work is also part of a class assignment at the University of Washington Bothell.Staceyse (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Agriculture or Livestock Proposed

~~I've proposed a WikiProject Agriculture, though I would scale it down to Livestock if I could get more interest. Please comment or sign up at: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Agriculture~~--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done See Wikipedia:WikiProject Agriculture--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of livestock

Since when were dogs and cats considered livestock? The dicdef of livestock I get is "farm animals regarded as an asset". Dogs arguably fit this if you are speaking of working dogs, but cats? Surely not. VanTucky ^talk 17:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll dispute that the term livestock "generally does not include poultry". As discussed above, usage and understanding varies widely, but farming usage includes poultry, both in my understanding and as per dicdef. "sometimes does not include poultry" is likely to be more accurate. Imc (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that poultry should be included be included here as there are chicken, duck and at least turkey farms. See also: http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/livestock Cgoodwin (talk) 03:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that poultry should be included as livestock, and possibly bees and farmed fish, but that dogs & cats are not livestock. Kerani (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Way only mammals?

Shouldn't there be Chickens, ducks, Silkworms, and Ostriches? Or are they on a page I did not find? Smurai Cerberus ☃ 13:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mad cow statement

"Diseases could spread by feeding cattle animals that have been eating cattle, this was the case of mad-cow disease outbreak. The F.D.A is now looking to change it's feeding rules. ^[1]"

The first part is nebulous (at least to me) in that they "could", but no examples have surfaced. The second part also seems incorrect; mad cow apparently was transmitted by feeding beef meat meal to cattle, and the original infection probably came from sheep. Thus, the restriction on feeding ruminant products to ruminants was implemented.Gigemag76 (talk) 01:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental impact section needs thorough revision

This section contains numerous misleading and erroneous claims.

The article states: “In 2009, Worldwatch Institute released a report which revealed 51% of Greenhouse Gas emissions were from the animal agriculture sector.” The extreme figure lacks scientific credibility due to multiple problems in the calculation method, including inconsistent application of GWP figures for methane, inconsistencies in emissions inclusions, and inconsistencies in treatment of foregone effects. These inconsistencies contributed to extremely large error. The Wikipedia statement should be deleted. (Note Wikipedia's verifiability precept that "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.”) More credible figures could be presented, e.g. those of Steinfeld et al. (2006) and Gerber et al. (2012) of the FAO for the combined livestock (including poultry) and livestock products sectors, which can be compared with figures for all agriculture from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007, 2014) and Tubiello et al. (2013) of the FAO Statistics Division. These figures are 18 % (for 2001-2004) and 14.5 % (for 2005), 10-12 % (for 2005), 10-12 % (for 2010), and 12 % (for 2011), respectively. Figures from the first 2 sources are based on LCA methods that differed in some respects. Figures from the last 3 sources appear consistent with the sectoral assignments of emissions used in reporting under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
At present, the article acknowledges only one GHG mitigation method. It involves methane. To avoid giving readers a distorted impression regarding mitigation, it would be appropriate to indicate that there are numerous mitigation methods, not only for methane, but also for nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide, that are applicable in the livestock and livestock feed sectors, as discussed in several reviews.
The “Climate change and air pollution” subsection mentions methane only in relation to animal manure, ignoring the principal animal-related emission source: enteric fermentation, from which methane emission exceeds that from manure management by a factor of about 9 globally, according to FAOSTAT. It might be of some interest to comment on geographical trends. For example, from 1980 to 2012, methane emissions from enteric fermentation in livestock decreased 15 percent for the US and Canada combined (despite a 38 percent increase in population), but increased 86 percent in China and 19 percent globally (FAOSTAT). The Wikipedia article claims that methane persists for “long periods of time”. However, Dlugokencky (of US NOAA) et al. (2011) describe the lifetime of methane as “relatively short”. Atmospheric lifetime of methane is only about 9 years, far less than that of CFC-11 (45 years), nitrous oxide (121 years), CF4 (50,000 years) and many other (but not all other) GHGs, according to the IPCC 5AR (5th Assessment Report). Although a single lifetime figure does not apply to carbon dioxide, the atmospheric lifetime of methane is also much shorter than the lifetime of carbon dioxide (Wuebbles and Hayhoe 2002). The article claims that methane is the second most abundant greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide. However, it is the third most abundant, after water vapor and carbon dioxide. The article gives a GWP figure of 25 for methane, but does not identify this as a 100-year GWP. Also, that figure has been superseded by recent IPCC 100-year GWP estimates (34, with climate carbon feedbacks, 28 without). There is no acknowledgment in this “Climate change ...” subsection that despite anthropogenic emission of methane, its contribution to climate change is currently small, because in the decade 2000-2009 inclusive, about 99.5 percent of total methane emitted was subject to degradation, resulting in an average annual increase of only about 6 Tg methane in the atmosphere, compared with an average annual increase of nearly 15,000 Tg of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (IPCC 5AR, The Physical Science Basis, Ch. 6).
The article’s “Water shortage” subsection fails to note that most water use for livestock and poultry feed production is “green water” use, which is sustainable, and in many cases (e.g. on most US pasture and rangeland) such water cannot feasibly be reallocated to other kinds of agricultural production, because of agricultural land capability/suitability limitations. Rainfed production of forages and feeds for livestock does not contribute to water shortage. Water shortage associated with livestock production tends to occur due to unsustainable use of, or competing demands for, water withdrawn from surface and groundwater sources. Withdrawn water accounts for a relatively small fraction of the water used in production of livestock forages and feeds, in comparison with production of orchard crops, vegetable crops, and some other crops. Even if the subsection heading were changed from “Water shortage” to “Water use”, the differing implications of rainfed versus irrigated agriculture should be acknowledged.
Citing a 1997 webpage that presents press release content, the article states: “it takes 100,000 liters of water for a kilogram of grain fed beef, compared to wheat, which takes 900 liters.” The 100,000 liter figure for beef is not confirmed by independent sources, as it is the result of an egregious calculation error. Several years ago, its author abandoned the extremely erroneous feed consumption estimate which was the basis for its calculation and published a different figure (which was no less problematic, as it was based on a misinterpretation of USDA data). Some credible estimates have been in the range of roughly 20,000 to 40,000 L for every kg of beef, with the same water use, most of which is associated with feed production, also yielding both non-food products from cattle and important terrestrial environmental values. Published “water footprints” for beef meat (calculated by partitioning beef-associated water consumption among only a few major products of beef-yielding cattle) average about 15,700 L/kg for mixed grazing-industrial systems and 10,200 L/kg for industrial beef systems (Mekonnen and Hoekstra 2010), which are the predominant systems producing grainfed beef. Mekonnen and Hoekstra estimate an average of 7477 L per kg of live beef-yielding animal for 1996-2005. With recovery of 0.402 kg boneless beef per kg live mass (USDA AH 697), this estimate yields a figure of 18,900 L for every kg of boneless beef produced (i.e. without partitioning water use among beef cattle products).
Citing the same 1997 webpage source, the Wikipedia article claims that 50 % of US grain production and 40 % of global grain production is used to feed livestock. The cited source does not say 50 % and 40 %; it says “More than half” and “nearly 40 percent”, respectively, and we are not told where or when those figures originated. The Wikipedia claim says “is used”, implying that the figures are current, although the cited source is dated 1997. There was apparently no attempt to verify the claim (by consulting other sources) or to find more recent sources. For the 5-year period 2009 through 2013, USDA Agricultural Statistics 2013 indicates that 35 (not 50) percent of US grain production was fed to US livestock and poultry. Grain and distillers grains (a by-product of the ethanol industry) fed to US livestock and poultry were together equivalent to roughly 43 percent of US grain biomass production during that period. (USDA figures are arguably the best available for the US.) FAO figures for various years have indicated less than 40 percent of global grain production being used for feeding livestock (including poultry). For example, an FAO publication indicated 32 percent for 1990-92 (de Haan et al. 1997). For 1997, the estimate compiled from FAO data by Delgado et al. (2002) was 31 percent of the FAOSTAT total for grain production in 1997. An FAO estimate based on figures for about 2006 (Alexandratos and Bruinsma 2012) was 33 percent of the FAOSTAT figure for global grain production in that year.
The water pollution subsection states: “Fertilizers that often contain manure are used to grow such crops (as cereal and fodder) that have phosphorus and nitrogen in them, 95% of which is estimated to be lost to the environment. The pollutants then cause dead zones for plants and aquatic animals due to the lack of oxygen in the water.” The meaning of the 95 % figure was obviously misunderstood. [It was taken from a brief comment by Pelletier and Tyedmers, where it had nothing to do with phosphorus, and pertained only to certain N from synthetic N fertilizer sources. Schlesinger (2009. PNAS 106: 203-208) provides information relevant to the comment by Pelletier and Tyedmers, and might be usefully consulted before writing about N from synthetic N fertilizer sources.] Also, contribution to hypoxic (“dead”) zones represents only one of several fates of N and P “lost to the environment”. The article states ”The lack of oxygen is known as eutrophication...” It is not. Lack of oxygen is known as anoxia, and a deficient level of oxygen in a biotic environment is known as hypoxia. Eutrophication refers to nutrient enrichment.
The land degradation subsection provides information only for Botswana. It would seem appropriate to provide a global and/or US perspective, if possible, consistent with much other geographical coverage in the article.
Although several adverse environmental impacts are identified, only one beneficial environmental impact of livestock production is mentioned in this section. This may lead some readers to infer that there are not several beneficial impacts. Schafhirt (talk) 04:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are they livestock?

I'm somewhat in agreement with Kingofaces43 that some of the animals added to this list perhaps should not be. Wild animals raised for commercial purposes are something of a gray area. Now, in my state, we have a definition of "alternative livestock" [1] that includes, basically, farmed deer and other normally wild "cloven-hooved ungulates" -- so I do wonder how far we want to go here. Discuss? Montanabw^(talk) 04:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concur; this list is becoming inclusive to a point that strongly waters down its information value. (This particularly concerns recent additions by Dennis the mennis, which seem to have been included on a rationale of "has once been kept in a game park".) I see that clarification has been attempted several times already on this talkpage, so maybe we ought to try and finally push through to some binding (for purposes of this article) definition.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe start with looking at the sources. I added a "refs" column to the chart. I might also suggest that "a critter some people eat" does not make an animal "livestock" and to that end, I recommend we remove the cat as a start. Yes, in some parts of the world, people eat cats. That does not make them "livestock." Montanabw^(talk) 08:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the etymology of "cattle" relevant to "livestock" article?

@ Montanabw - I do not see why the etymology of assorted terms other than the title of the article should be considered relevant. "Cattle" is a separate article, and we would think it bizarre to have the etymology of "livestock", "swine", "animal", and "domestic" over there. Let's focus, please. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks from the content and sources that there are times the two terms have been used interchangeably, and more to the point, that a lot of people think that "livestock" means just cattle... but it's not a moral issue. I'll be the first to say that bit is not copperplate prose, but the fuzziness of what is or is not "livestock" is a legitimate discussion to include in the article. Montanabw^(talk) 03:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The prose quality is not the issue. Nor is it relevant to the Etymology section that people use synonyms and each synonym has a Wiktionary's worth of etymology in its own separate right. The section is purely about the etymology of the word livestock. We should remove the (small) part that is about the etymology of the word 'cattle' which is certainly off-topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fairly relevant to me; etymological information about "livestock" may well include a note about the historical and usage differences between this term and what is often treated as a synonym. The current few sentences stay within the realm of what I'd regard as an informative aside. Current state looks good to me. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I've said what I think with good reasons. Personally I'd move the off-topic bit to a footnote at least. Will think about it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

^ Pollan, Michael. This Steer's Life. New York Times Magazine. March 31 2002.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Livestock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111218171807/http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html to http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 17:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Livestock. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 09:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Camels

Why are "Camels" listed as a single entry, when they are clearly two totally different species (Dromedary and Bactrian). There are multiple different entries for the different types of bovines so why not for the camels? --Hibernian (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Major overlap

I'd have thought that Livestock would talk about stock, the animals themselves (and we indeed have a list of types), while Animal husbandry would talk of their breeding and rearing, as it does. I therefore don't really see why Livestock spends a high percentage of its space overlapping with Animal husbandry, and indeed with subsections of that article such as animal husbandry's environmental impact: basically, that is off-topic for an article about livestock themselves, and it's already much better covered in the linked articles. I therefore propose to cut down this article to focus on the topic, and to replace the subsidiary coverage with brief summaries of the related articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology section

Adding an etymological section, as the one for cattle, would considerably improve the article --Backinstadiums (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Pollan, Michael. This Steer's Life. New York Times Magazine. March 31 2002.

[1]