Talk:Ruminant

message: __TOC__
- Maybe I just don't explore enough Wikipedia pages, but this article is quite strange.  A brief synopsis of the topic (thanks to those who contributed to it), and then a section on an irrelevant issue of whether the bible is in error when it refers to rabbits (note: not a "Ruminant"!) as an animal that "chews the cud".  Two of the three external reference links in the article are links to religious apologetics (of rather poor quality) that essentially (after a bit of handwaving), conclude that "in a sense", or that "it would be hard to deny", that rabbits do chew the cud (because they eat their own poop) and so the bible is not in error.  I don't see how the inclusion of this section can be defended as germane to the article topic.  Rabbits are not ruminants, and so the question of whether they metaphorically "chew the cud" by eating poop so as to be consistent with what the bible states is irrelevant.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.79.247 (talk) 20:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

message: Ruminants contains different components to their digestive systems than monogastrics, it is made up of a mouth, oesophagus, crop, stomach, gizzard, small intestine, caecum, large intestine and anus.
-Oy, the above poster is talking about birds, and not ruminants!  A bird's gizzard contains pebbles ingested to mechanically grind down food, because birds have no teeth to chew food in the first place, never mind a second time, as ruminants do!64.114.125.128 Rootlet (talk) 02:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Are we sure camels chew a cud? (Ruminate).  My confusion lies with how Camels are apparently not kosher, yet they have cleft hooves, and here it's claimed they Ruminate.  Is there a difference between being a Ruminant and chewing a cud? njaard 21:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Camels 

message: Camels and other camelids (alpacas, llamas, etc) are technically "pseudo-ruminants" with three- (not four-) chambered stomachs, called C1, C2, and C3. 
Do camelids chew cud? Yes. When camelids spit at you, they are spitting their cud.
Perhaps a separate wikipedia page about Pseudo-ruminants is required. (comments by User:AslanEntropy|talk)
Please refer to pseudoruminant - it could use good contributions!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AslanEntropy (talk • contribs) 17:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Camelids are Pseudo-ruminants 

message: The Colobini ruminate as well Black-and-white colobus, Red colobus and Olive Colobus (Procolobus), so do Red Kangaroos. Kersti Nebelsiek 00:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ruminatant

message: Here's just two objections to the recent change.
* Objection #1: Here's a quotation from the cited article, Do Rabbits Chew the Cud?: Carles (1977) compared cows and rabbits and reached the conclusion that rumination should not be defined from an anatomical point of view (the presence of a four-part stomach), but rather on presence of an adaptation for breeding bacteria to improve food. On this basis he stated that "it is difficult to deny that rabbits are ruminants." In other words, some guy of dubious credibility says we should abandon the anatomical, scientific point of view in favor of one that is only concerned with the end result. Hey, while we're at it, maybe we can redefine people with weak bones as avians.
::How is the modern English definition of ruminant a factor here? --Ed Brey 17:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you explain that the cecotrope goes down a second time without first somehow being raised up? At so you other claims, do you have any sources do back them up? The statement beginning with "The plain meaning of the text is unmistakable..." is an ad hominin attack that I'd ask you to retract; it basically says that anyone who doesn't see it your way is close-minded. --Ed Brey 17:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I appreciate your desire to improve the article and your examination and questioning of the sources, but how do you justify introducing unsourced material and other guideline violations as an improvement? I've reverted to the properly and sourced formatted version while the discussion continues. --Ed Brey 17:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For a single, simple topic, this is true, but for complex, multi-point topics like this, threaded comments help greatly in maintaining context. Do you have any ideas for a "best of both worlds"? --Ed Brey 17:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I referenced the article because it provide insight into the meaning of the Hebrew word in question. --Ed Brey 17:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think that there is any dispute that the Hebrew word deals with reingestion by the same organism (versus your example of two organisms). However, you assertion that the method or raising should be takign narrowly could use less subjective justification than "simplest explanation". Could you elaborate? --Ed Brey 17:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I appreciate your desire to scrutinize the reliability of the sources, since reliable sources are so important to Wikipedia. What do you see as the pros and cons of each of the sources? --Ed Brey 17:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm open to whichever view(s) the evidence supports, and I would hope you are too. A NPOV solution is always possible (see examples); content removal is not the best answer. --Ed Brey 17:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: There is a refutation for this argument. If you'd be so kind to rephrase the argument in more precise and less offensive language, I'd be happy to provide it. --Ed Brey 17:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: For the science behind rabbit dropping reingenstion, see the references in Cecotrope and Rabbit. --Ed Brey 18:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion

message: Never mind previous edit, rereading text, it is clear that not all ruminants are ruminatia, so makes sense for two articles.  Removing merge tags. Montanabw(talk) 20:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think some of the text still refers to the taxon; for example the following sections: "Classification", "Abundance, distribution, and domestication", and "Ruminant physiology". I think some of the papers used here use the phrase "ruminant" to mean the taxon, adding to the confusion. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Ruminantia? 

message: The article should say more about the microbes involved in the digestion, as "bacteria, protozoa and fungi" is a bit too general. And I think archaea are missing here. Icek (talk) 07:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which microbes? 

message: I think a diagram would help make this article much clearer. does anyone know where to get one? Nacnud89 (talk) 06:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagram? 

message: This section of the article is fairly ignorant of the role of ruminants in nature.  While commercial farming has most definitely contributed to climate change, it is not the fault of ruminants.  For millions of years, ruminants have roamed the earth.  If left up to their natural instincts ruminants, in the natural cycle, actually improve the land and capture carbon in the very grasses they are eating.  Regenerative farmers have proven, very successfully, that when ruminants are managed correctly to mimic their natural instances they build soil health, make grasslands flood, erosion, and drought-resistant, and are carbon natural/negative.
Commercial farming has forced ruminants, like cows and sheep, into an unnatural environment to try and force more production out of them in a quicker timeframe.  Time = Money.  They also feed them feed they were never meant to eat like silage or grain.  For an animal that is a large mobile sauerkraut vat, feeding them a large amount of already fermented feed or grain upsets the rumen cycle and causes things like excess methane production.
This section should be updated to show the difference between commercial ruminates and wild/regeneratively managed ruminants.
:To repeat what someone told me when I first joined Wikipedia back in 2008 - Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit (smile) ;)  I hope you have a chance to improve the article some time when you're not too busy. Good luck! Cougroyalty (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ruminants and Climate Change Objections