Jump to content

Talk:Livestock grazing comparison

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Livestock Unit)

The table is rubbish

[edit]

It has no units!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.217.140 (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Rename and merge

[edit]

This article is currently called Livestock Unit, and it covers various measures of livestock equivalence going under this name. However, there are other measures of livestock equivalence with different names, which are really exactly the same thing: for example Dry Sheep Equivalent, Animal unit, Ruminant Livestock Unit, Unité Bovin Tropical and Unité-Gros-Bétail.

It seems to me that the important material for this article is the way in which different animals are compared, not the particular scheme used, nor its name. Effectively the current situation is like dealing with the whole topic of length under the title "mile": there are several different definitions of "mile", but there are also many other measurements with other names which all measure the same thing.

I therefore propose that Dry Sheep Equivalent and Animal unit are merged here. The article would then be renamed with a more general title that covers the whole concept. I can't find a widely used umbrella term, so I think we have to go with a logical name such as Measure of livestock equivalence, or Standard stock unit (the latter is used by this FAO paper: [1]) Richard New Forest (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any comments...? How about simply Livestock equivalence? Richard New Forest (talk) 09:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Animal unit and Livestock Unit have more in common than with Dry Sheep Equivalent, which I would prefer to see kept separate as it a common term in OZ and is also used as a basis for calculating property values and labour usage.Cgoodwin (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That argument really applies to each of them: I might prefer to keep Livestock Unit separate, as it's a common term in the UK and is used as a basis for all sorts of things here. Surely DSE really differs only in one significant respect: the size of the base unit? As I see it we'd have sections in the article for DSE and each of the other major variants, and the Oz-specific aspects would be dealt with there. Richard New Forest (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See the NZ unit I've just added to the article (called by various names: Ewe Equivalent, Stock Unit or Livestock Unit). This is very similar indeed to the DSE, and I can't see how it can be kept separate from it – and it doesn't really make sense to have one article for sheep-based units and another for cattle-based ones. Any further thoughts? Richard New Forest (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about a single article here covering the concept, with sections for each of the major types and then the comparison table? Any of the types that have too much material to fit in a section here would then also have their own articles, with "main article" links. At the moment the material in Dry Sheep Equivalent would easily fit in a section – do you think it's likely to get much more? Richard New Forest (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think the title "Animal Unit" needs to be the main article title, as I know that in the USA the Forest Service and the BLM both use the term "animal unit" as well as range scientists and such, and thus here it is a term of art. If "livestock unit" is the official term in the UK, though, I won't kick all that hard, then I guess we can either figure out which article came first and use that name with a redirect from the other, or else just play rock, paper, scissors. Or something. But at any rate, I wholeheartedly agree with merging. Montanabw(talk) 22:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is potential for the material in Dry Sheep Equivalent to be expanded as indicated in the recently added links, which even include kangaroos. Australia is a very large livestock producer and this is a very significant term here. It should stay as a separate article.Cgoodwin (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Animal Unit has similar issues, sometimes it addresses deer, elk, etc., when balancing public grazing leases. Also, our "AU" is based on 1000 lbs of animal, though they jerk around the weights to factor in grazing patterns: [2] it's a little goofy--all horses are 2 AU even though they don't all weigh 2000 lbs! Maybe there is just a need to leave these articles as is, though I must admit both AU and Dry Sheep Equivalent aren't all that long and COULD be merged...? Not a moral issue, however! Montanabw(talk) 00:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them can theoretically include all grazing animals, so that's not a difference between them. Equines are usually given a nominal weight more than their actual weight, because they have less efficient digestion and so need more forage – but that's no excuse for assuming they're all the same size.

I don't think the merged article should be called either "Animal Unit" or "Livestock Unit". These are not really terms of art for the same thing but defined units which measure the same thing, like "mile" and "kilometre". What we need is a term for the thing they are measuring.

Cgoodwin, I don't understand your argument. The Australian unit is of course very important in Australia, but it's not used at all anywhere else; the equivalent goes for the UK unit and indeed most of the others (apart from the FAO ones). However, they are all measuring the same thing, and if we keep all the articles separate and they all describe the concept fully, we'll have duplicate articles. I think we really need more justification for two (or more) articles covering the same material.

However, it would be nice to come to a consensus... How about this:

  • One article covering the thing-we-are-measuring, with sections for all the major types. To be called something like Livestock equivalence.
  • Redirects for minor units, or those with minimal or no unique material, such as Tropical Livestock Unit (Unité Bovin Tropical). (I'd put the UK unit in here, as I don't feel particularly defensive about it, and anyway "Livestock Unit" is a term used for several quite different units such as the much smaller NZ sheep one.)
  • Separate articles for units with too much material for a section. These articles would not go into the concept in detail (instead referring to the Livestock equivalence article), but they would expand on any unique features.

How does that sound? Richard New Forest (talk) 13:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am OK with the concept of merging ALL of the articles (or at least all of the short ones) into a single article with a "generic" name. I just wonder if "Livestock equivalence" is the right name, as we are, in essence talking about the carrying capacity of grazing land, correct? Would a name like carrying capacity (animal) work better? (Not saying it IS better, just wondering if it would be more logical and in line with scientific lingo) Clearly, the use of redirects will work for those who search for AU or LU or whatever local term is involved (I didn't even know about tropical livestock units, but that is kind of cool to know...) Montanabw(talk) 21:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be OK, but "Carrying capacity (livestock)" might be better: "animal" seems a bit close to the ecological concept. Or "Livestock carrying capacity"? Although thinking more about it, the units are usually defined as feed requirements rather than carrying capacity directly (so as to include housed and other fed livestock). Livestock feed requirement comparison? Any other suggestions?
I was planning to add the TLU, and also the Unité-Gros-Bétail (used in mainland Europe) once we've got the title sorted out; also knock out some of the very similar UK variants. I wonder what they use in South America, China, Japan etc? There's probably nothing published in English. Richard New Forest (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem is at this stage none of these articles mentions the various classes of sheep (which often have totally different requirements) and land usage, which is required if it to address the livestock situation in AUS, which is totally different to the European situation. See: DSE. Incidentally the DSE article was written long before the others, too. I also do not see the point in lumping them together and calling it something different. I don't have any problems with the smaller sheep rearing nations being put together.Cgoodwin (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what do you think of my latest proposed variation, at the bullet points above? That would allow you to keep the DSE separate if you really want to. Greater detail on sheep is actually quite a good example of material that's too detailed to include in the general article. In fact it is included in the UK schemes (we have about a third as many sheep as Oz in a country a thirtieth of the size, so I make that ten times more sheep here...). For clarity I'd omitted the detail on sheep, but we could include it if you like. Do you have any suggestions for the title of the general article? Richard New Forest (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If CG wants DSE separate, we can include a summary in whatever the final article is with a "main" link. Though it's awkward I think that maybe your long title at least has the elegance of specificity -- or maybe something shorter like Livestock grazing comparison would work? I really have never looked into the question if Animal Units get used in the US for much other than grazing allotments... I say let's chew on it a bit and see if anything more brilliant comes to mind, then if not, go for it. Montanabw(talk) 03:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done as far as I can as per discussion above: LU article renamed Livestock grazing comparison, minor or similar units omitted, other major units included. Animal unit and Dry Sheep Equivalent articles left as they were, except for links to this article and removing merge proposals. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not direct

[edit]

This link doesn't lead directly to the article, but rather to the home page. Change it to the link for the exact article. 11.^ Cornforth, I S and Sinclair, A G, Fertiliser Recommendations for Pastures and Crops in New Zealand, 2nd Ed (New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture, Wellington, New Zealand, 1984), quoted in A History of the Stock Unit System, New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture 4.248.222.68 (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Livestock grazing comparison. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Livestock grazing comparison. 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) 17:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Livestock grazing comparison. 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) 09:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Livestock_grazing_comparison&oldid=1195403826"