Talk:Polled livestock

To do (2006)

• Complete list (I started it, but I'm not even sure what breeds are naturally polled since many of them don't say)
• Find some history on polled cattle
• List advantages and disadvantages
• Cite Sources (always the most important one)

Dukemeiser 17:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Polled gene is a redirect

can this article be moved to polled gene as a section, /*cattle*/, and similar section created for sheep?

I don't really think there is sufficient material for two articles.

The article Poll Merino has a good discussion of the poll gene (espec. as relates to merinos) Garrie 02:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Definition and title

"Polled" means without horns, naturally or not. A polled animal may have had its horns cut off, may have been disbudded (the horn buds burnt out when young) or it may be naturally polled. The term "naturally polled" is only needed because it is one of several kinds of polling. The definition and article title are therefore inaccurate.

I've removed breeds from the list which are not normally polled naturally.

I think there is probably a need for the following articles:

• Polling gene, covering cattle, sheep, goats and any others in which it occurs or may occur (Polled gene is currently a redirect back to Polled cattle).
• Polling (animal husbandry), covering methods of removing horns or preventing their growth.
• List of naturally polled cattle breeds – the nearest to what this article is at the moment.

A similar list for sheep breeds might well be too complex, because it would have to cover all the various arrangements – polled in male and female, in female only, in neither, or with multiple horn pairs. It would be better to cover it in List of sheep breeds --Richard New Forest (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Poll (livestock) versus Polled livestock

These articles should not be merged, the content is extremely different. They both could stand expansion, but the difference is almost like comparing apples to "road apples" LOL! The poll on an animal is, depending on who you talk to, either the poll joint between the occipital crest and C1, or another name for the occipital area itself. Polled livestock are animals that normally could have horns but don't. Horses, for example, have a poll, and it is very important in riding, but they cannot nor never could be polled livestock! Montanabw^(talk) 07:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Number 57 16:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

---

• Polled livestock → Naturally polled livestock
• new disambiguation page → Polled livestock

– Polled livestock, and consequently many other articles that link to it, are mix-and-matching breeds of naturally polled (genetically hornless) livestock, with livestock that have been polled, i.e. subject to surgical livestock dehorning, and these are not related topics except etymologically, even if some sources confusingly use the same term for both of them (see also Poll (livestock), about that part of the head but without reference to horns or hornlessness at all). This article focuses mostly on, and needs to focus exclusively on, livestock that are (innately) polled, not livestock that might "get polled" by someone; we don't have articles on categories of any X to which some Y "could" happen. Failure to follow WP:NOT#DICT here is causing a genuine problem, of what should be an encyclopedia article about one topic trying to be a dictionary entry about conflicting meanings of a term, with the result that the reader doesn't know which meaning we intent when linking to the article, which is a mixture of article and disambiguation page. Because the phrase "polled livestock" has two distinctly contradictory meanings in reliable sources, the current title fails WP:PRECISE.

Whether we move this to Naturally polled livestock or even just Naturally polled, we should then have a simple disambiguation page at Polled livestock, distinguishing between Naturally polled livestock and animals subject to Livestock dehorning, plus listing Poll (livestock) as a see-also. This would be a distinctly useful exception to WP:TWODABS, because henceforth any linking to Polled livestock will result in a DLP bot notice, allowing the editor who did it to instead link to the proper article easily.

Regardless of the move, every livestock article that makes reference to that variety being "polled", without clarifying whether this means naturally polled or traditionally subject to dehorning (some breeds are are, some not), needs to be tagged with {{clarify}} until sources are checked and the text clarified. It's a very major difference.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Polled gene redirects here, reinforcing that the content here is supposed to be about the genetics. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

This problem was actually flagged as early as December 2007(!), but no formal rename proposal was made.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: This article is short and there is no need to spin off the content. In the real world, the term is used to describe both kinds of animals, so it is appropriate to discuss both. Not enough content really to break into two articles and why create a dab for two stubs? If the article was quite long and well-sourced, there might be a case, but not at this point. Montanabw^(talk) 03:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. I fully agree with Montanabw. In Britain polled tends to mean naturally polled. Other cattle are referred to as dehorned or disbudded when horns have been removed. This can all be covered on one page. The clarification is needed regardless of whether this move happens.Charles (talk) 09:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Provisionally oppose. It's a perfectly reasonable suggestion, but I don't see the need for it at present. I would however defer to the opinion of Richard New Forest and other experts in this area. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

  I agree that Richard is the expert, and note his comments at #Definition_and_title above, which are relevant. (The gene article would be a good one to create) Also, if the article got longer, a spinoff might be justified later, but it isn't now. Montanabw^(talk) 19:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The situation was rather different when I made those earlier comments, and I'm not sure they're terribly relevant now... Richard New Forest (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose This would be overly specific and isn't reflected by real-world usage of the term, a fact which is cited already in the article. Steven Walling • talk 22:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose (Though I am certainly no expert!) There is clearly huge overlap between natural polling and dehorning, and arguably they are both artificial removal of horns, simply using different methods to achieve exactly the same result. We seem to be suggesting one article for naturally polled animals only, incorporating artificially polled animals into the dehorning article. Surely this will lead to much overlap and potential for confusion? My feeling at the moment is that this article should cover the rationale of having polled animals, mentioning both routes to the end. Then the dehorning article should cover the process, but omit all or most of its rationale section (which I do seem to have a vague recollection of having contributed to...). Otherwise we could merge dehorning here (thus have only one article), but that might also make a rather confusing article as it would be covering the subject from two rather different directions. If there was ever enough material for an article on the polling gene that could become an article on its own too, but I don't think it justifies it at the moment. Richard New Forest (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Opposed: I am not considered an expert either, as not being scholastically papered, but having worked on a farm with cattle, a cattle farm, a dairy farm, and have raised livestock including cattle (both horned and polled) beginning as far back as 1972, I can tell you there is general confusion all around.

If a person of one race were to have offspring with a person of another race these offspring would be a mixed race. This would not be considered unnatural except possibly to racists.

To confuse polled, be this by what may be referred to as "natural" (that I suppose could include by creation or evolution) or introduced (purposefully bred) by Selective breeding (artificial selection) to obtain a pure-breed to have the trait of being polled , or genetically altered, would be good content for the article.

True: A polled animal can not ever be "de-horned" as animals that have had their horns removed are still considered horned (just removed) not polled. Tell that to dictionary.com right? WAIT!!

• If a reference indicates that a horned animal with the horns cut off could be called polled then I am grossly mistaken because a reference could never be wrong, especially a dictionary, but then again there is always a chance right?

To determine if an animal will be horned, polled (smooth-polled), or scurred (scurred-polled) is gene dependent. The editor above in the Definition and title section was really close but got side-tracked by introducing sheep into the picture. I am more experienced concerning horned versus polled cattle but some research will likely conclude the resulting traits are the same and can be covered in the same article. The editor above in the Poll (livestock) versus Polled livestock section was correct as a horse cannot be polled nor referred to as naturally polled so the articles are different.

• • This article needs a rewrite with references to clear things up. The lead incorrectly states ... also to naturally horned animals which have been dehorned. Natural polling occurs in cattle, yaks, water buffalo and goats, and in these it affects both sexes equally;.... Inheritance of a polled gene can be examined in Zygosity, that explores the alleles of genes specifically Homozygous, that in cattle (and probably others) would be homozygous (PP) polled (dominant) and Heterozygous that would be heterozygous (Pp) horned. The gene would be the determining factor and not the sex but using Natural polling and naturally horned means exactly what in the lead? The proposed title being "Naturally polled livestock" would be misleading as all polled animals are actually naturally hornless by birth? It could be explained that "true" homozygous polled cattle can never be horned, or even have scurs, which can be explored in the article. I submit that an "unnatural" act would be cloning but what do I know? If the above is correct then polled cattle being considered the "artificial removal of horns" would not be, arguably or otherwise, correct.

Suggestion: the nominating editor can determine I know a little something of the subject and withdraw the nom or we can let the RM play out. "IF" it is not merged I will edit the article to make more sense of the subject and of course provide references. Otr500 (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.