Talk:Livestock crush

message: The Livestock Controller does not appear to do anything better that currently available crushes and this inclusion looks like self promotion. Cgoodwin (talk) 07:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did have some trouble working out the principle of this thing from the web-page, but I think the different element is that the floor rocks from side to side, preventing the animal picking up its feet to kick.  You're right that the length and wording of the text was self-promotion, but it's an interesting available feature, like compressible sides and winches – have a look at what I've done with it.  Presumably the rocking mechanism can be locked, or how would you get the animal to go in?  Or have I completely misunderstood the principle?  --Richard New Forest (talk) 10:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the same principle of manipulating the environment to keep the animal tractable, there are devices that turn the animal on its side.  Ditto solid high sides so the animal cannot see, with access ports for the handlers' use.  In the US, Temple Grandin is a widely recognized authority on these things.  --Una Smith (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Livestock controller"

message: I am a little uncomfortable with the "cattle" in the article title;  how about Livestock crush?  This device is used for large livestock (cattle, horses) and small versions are used for small livestock (calves, sheep, goats).  I can see going one of two ways:  generalize this article, or have separate articles on cattle crushes, horse standing stocks, etc.  They have more in common than not, so I prefer one general article about what they all have in common, plus discusses variations of custom and function. --Una Smith (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me – those for sheep, horses etc are essentially the same thing (I ought to have thought of that to start with...) Richard New Forest (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't spent a lot of time in either of these articles, but for the purpose of clarity and possible redirects, let me toss in USA terms (at least, western USA terms).  What I think you are calling a "cattle crush" (or livestock crush, if you wish) is a "squeeze chute" in the western United States.  (At least, growing up on a ranch, that's what everyone in Northern Montana called it).  I am assuming that "crush" is UK usage.  As for "livestock," sure, why not -- I know someone who used these to hold domesticated bison calves for vaccinations and such (quite a circus, too; the little boogers can practically jump out of one =:-O  ) A standing stock (or simply a "stock") is, as Una has said, about the only safe piece of equipment that horses get put into for restraint - there's one at every veterinary hospital and many of the larger horse farms. While I can't say I can cite to a source, I suspect that a horse, with its long legs, could be severely injured in a squeeze chute.  If you haven't broken these two pieces of equipment into separate articles, the horse stock really should not be in this one, IMHO. My two bits.  Montanabw(talk) 03:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it named Livestock crush (or even Livestock restraints)? as we also have the same crushes/chutes that are used by cattle and horses in rodeos and these should be mentioned, too. Not sure where sheep/goat handlers should go though? Cgoodwin (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Restraints would include hobbles and legs tied up and perhaps also twitches, so that's not a great choice.  I am okay with calling the box a "crush" (I have no good argument in favor of "standing stock" or "stock") although crush seems to be a largely Australian (and NZ) term.  I found an Irish manufacturer of "horse stocks"...  A North American squeeze chute is an Australian cattle race (a chute) with a squeeze crush at its end ... do Australians use the conveyor belt contraption?  I think part of the confusion is that for cattle (beef cattle, not dairy!) the crush is almost always connected to a race, even if it is a portable crush, simply because beef cattle are too wild to handle individually.  I bet in the UK they call the corridor thing a race, not a chute;  chute is French for race, and both chute and race are widely used to refer to (wait for it...) a flume.  In parts of the US, I know there are cattle chutes, calf chutes, and sheep chutes, none of which are stocks.  A chute may be nothing more than a corridor that directs animals from a pen (yard) up a ramp into a truck. --Una Smith (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh, and besides "livestock stock" would be a really ugly title.  --Una Smith (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, "squeeze chute" redirects here.  A cattle race is the tunnels and passageways that lead animals to a crush.  In my part of the USA, interestingly, we call some runs a "chute,"  at least some designs like the caged area used for calf roping or a bucking chute used for bucking horses. There is sort of a regional variation too.  Sometimes a chute is the same thing as a cattle race, other times, it's a dead end area used for loading, we also might say "runs" or "runways."  Montanabw(talk) 08:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: Several images on the page do not display.  That is because they are not on English wikipedia nor on Commons.  They are on the French, Spanish, and German wikipedia, used on articles now interwiki linked to this article).  They are waiting for someone to move them to Commons.  I dislike that job;  would anyone here care to do it?  --Una Smith (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: Just a comment that all the new images seem excessive and redundant.  WP is not a Gallery or a scrapbook, commons is... Montanabw(talk) 23:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many images