Edit source Page

Talk:Animal husbandry

From Appropedia

Disagreement re... giraffes (???)[edit source]

User:KVDP: This article contains some important issues (such as methane & animal husbandry) which need numbers and sources to make them more valuable.

But... who raises giraffes, other than zoos, nature parks and game reserves? And okapi? Rhinos? All the other wild animals mentioned here? These are rhetorical questions - don't answer them here, but either provide a source when writing about unorthodox things like this, or just don't add them. (Sources need to show not just that someone does raise giraffes or gerenuk for meat, but it needs to back up the claims made - if you're saying that these can be good choices, show why - does it have a lower environmental footprint? Do the animals have a different impact on native grasses? Details, facts!)

I guess the most important issue I focused on for this is their diet, ie they indeed consume grasses. For protecting the natural vegetation (grasses), we need to keep the grazers intact, as the local ecosystem needs to remain operational (we hence also need predators too, although these are a bit less important than the grazers). Re the lower environmental footprint: that depends, I think the biggest issue here is whether the cows are fed with grain, soy, ... or simply grass. Another major difference would be whether the cow is eaten (meat) or whether the milk is drunk. In the latter case (milk + fed on grass), I doubt the effect in regards to greenhouse gas emissions will be lower. However, protecting the environment is more than just reducing GhG emissions, it also means protecting natural environments, an in this regard, raising native animals is a better option.
Regarding the details/facts:I found some straightforwarded data on the environmental effect of cattle, ... although no data is available on the animals I'm proposing here (so it's not yet possible to compare the 2). There was allready some info available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_vegetarianism and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_meat_production but it was not accurate enough (ie didn't compare the co² output of 1 kg of meat nor co²/protein or kcal. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Environmental_impact_of_meat_production#Livestock_Farming_Systems_and_their_Environmental_Impacts

And stop implying that native is necessarily the suitable or appropriate choice, without considering the whole context. We have discussed this, but the article still assumes this, and it is not demonstrated, and there is not even a case made for this assumption.

Indeed I am focusing a bit much on native species. I just always mention this because if it is going to be done anyway, it's worth doing it immediatelly as good as possible (I'm just decribing the way on how I would go about on things). A related reason is that as it's the most natural way to go about on things, it's also backed by environmental organisations.

Please stop adding content that you do not understand and have not fact-checked.

We need to come to an agreement about how you edit, as these problems continue to occur and we have to spend time trying to resolve them - I find this very frustrating. If you try sourcing each claim you make, that might be a good start - could you try that?

I'll try to add more sources in future articles, part of the reason why I don't add so much sources on Appropedia (as on Wikipedia) is because allot of references are allready on Appropedia, and I just assumed that people would also read these (and thus agree with the claims automatically) if they were researching an article.

I have removed the following section - I haven't gone through the whole article to remove all problems:

Note that cattle is discarded alltogether/not included in the list since it isn't a native animal anywhere (it is a species crossed by the human population, from the aurochs -itself now extinct-). the same is true for the zebu. Animals such as pheasants (which do not eat much plants, but rather berries, nuts, grain) are also not included in the list. The wild turkey also eats nuts, berries, grasses (it's an omnivore) but still consumes allot of grasses aswell.

The ancestor of the domestic pig, or rather the wild boar (Sus scrofa) is also not included in the list because, although it does consume grass aswell (actually omnivore), the many different subspecies (Sus scrofa scrofa or the european wild boar, Sus scrofa cristatus: (indian), Sus scrofa leucomystax (eastern), Sus scrofa vittatus (malaysian, Northern and Central Europe, the Mediterranean Region (including North Africa's Atlas Mountains) and much of Asia as far south as Indonesia) would lead us too far, and too much text would need to be placed on the map.

Other grazers in grasslands can also be considered, not necessairily living off grass, but ie off shrubs, trees, ... An example is the giraffe, gerenuk, dik-dik (all feed on acacia).

Also note that many other animals can be added, ie: rhinoceros, hippopotamus, deer, antelopes (ie impala, Ugandan kob, Topi, hartebeest, ...), other gazelles (Thomson's gazelle, ... ), common eland, springbok, blackbuck, Tibetan and Mongolian gazelle), alpine ibex, zebra, okapi, the European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus), muskox<ref>Muskox native to the Arctic areas of Canada, Greenland, and Alaska]</ref>, cottontail rabbit (genus Sylvilagus; 13 species), and the Amami rabbit.

Re the zebu/cow: these are indeed decendants of the aurochs, if I mention a claim like this you can be certain it's correct (I have then checked it myself). Reference at wikipedia. Any of the other claims are correct aswell, again I didn't back it up with references though but they're available at wikipedia.

Thank you --Chriswaterguy 20:08, 18 June 2012 (PDT)

My concern wasn't the ancestry of the zebu and cow being the aurochs - that's an easy claim to check. (However it doesn't hurt to have a reference, and if you're not sure, it's better to have it. I suggest always adding a {{w}} link to Wikipedia in such cases.) My concern was with saying or implying that they are undesirable in comparison to giraffes, zebras etc.
I never stated they are undesirable, and I'm sure that many farmers/ranchers would prefer them over the native fauna. I just find that they are the best solution as they marry preserving the natural landscape/ecosytem with attaining some revenue/food. Before writing this article, I saw the documentary "Afican Hunting Holiday, see http://web.archive.org/web/20190219131737/http://documentarywire.com/african-hunting-holiday , http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/louis-therouxs-african-hunting-holiday/ Somewhere in the documentary was mentioned that these parks also breed cattle and I believe also use them as animals for food (though it's not their main activity). After reading the texts again on the docu, I saw that the ranchers were Piet Venter, and Piet Warren, the first one appearantly owns "SA Hunting", see http://www.sahunting.co.za/
BTW the reason why I write a specific article at Appropedia is often because is what I'm describing is generally not in wide use (ie niche activities). I for example would never write anything about raising cattle, for one offcourse because I don't agree with it (I'm not the only one that's opposed to it btw, read http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_cattle_affect_the_environment ), but also because it's just allready so well detailed in many on-line articles. Because it is such a niche activity, there is also often not much references to be found about it.
Re "I just assumed that people would also read these (and thus agree with the claims automatically) if they were researching an article." I see what you're saying, but don't make that assumption. References should be given in the context where the claim is made. It may be that (1) the reader doesn't know if there are sources or where they are, or (2) whether you have correctly interpreted the sources, or (3) whether the sources are themselves correct. I see claims you make and I doubt there are sources for them - but if you place the source right there, it saves this fuss and time-wasting - I can look at the source rather than getting frustrated with you. (And that's definitely preferable - you have passion, and I'd love it if we could use your energy and enthusiasm in a more constructive way, and certainly would rather not be frustrated.)
Re native species, and "it's the most natural way to go about on things, it's also backed by environmental organisations" - I think the full story will be much more complex. It would be good to have a well-sourced and detailed article on this, with each fact or claim backed up by a source. I'll be surprised if there's a lot of support for raising the common eland, Mongolian gazelle, etc, but I don't know. If the reader can see exactly who is making the claim, then they can address it, and either accept the reasoning or question it, or add an alternative perspective.
After searching a little further, it actually does seems like there is some support for raising such animals. See http://www.motherearthnews.com/nature-community/native-animals-protein-content-wheat-zmaz74zhol.aspx Appearantly, it can be upto 6x more profitable, and milk by some of the animals contains more protein, minerals, butterfat. I expect the same is true for the meat of specific native animals aswell. See also http://web.archive.org/web/20110402035943/http://mb.com.ph:80/node/308109/da-tap-native-animal though this is about domesticated variants of native animals.
Thanks --Chriswaterguy 02:10, 19 June 2012 (PDT)