Talk:Skeletal system of the horse

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 February 2021 and 28 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Blfaubion.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm no Equus expert, but I believe the diagram has a typo in it's labelling of the 'Malar (cheak) Bone'. Is this meant to be 'cheek'? I have no means to edit the picture, so hopefully a fine editor will be able to. 203.24.137.199 (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

It seems to me that the joint therapy and corticosteroid stuff might fit better in their own categories. Banning a substance for use in competition because of changing behavior is a topic worth discussing, but doesn't really have anything to do with the skeletal system of the horse. Maybe an equine osteoarthritis section? imho --Getwood (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I think you're right. It's worth a search to see if there are articles on the topic yet, and if not, creating a new section here, with an eye to moving it into its own article when it gets big enough? Montanabw^(talk) 05:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's what I was thinking. Probably "arhritis (equine)" or osteoarthritis. Either would allow for wear and tear degenerative joint disease, septic arthritis, and immune-mediated stuff. This would obviously be incomplete without the inclusion of nutraceuticals, steroid use, etc.--Getwood (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'd start it as a subsection here, and go for it! Montanabw^(talk) 06:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Do you mean "here" as in this talk page to get it started? Then once it appears as if it could stand on its own we could apply the high voltage to zap it to a life of its own? I'm still clunking around trying to figure out the best way to do things.--Getwood (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

My thinking is to start an "osteoarthritis" section within the Skeletal system of the horse article, then when it gets to be long enough not to be just a stub, give it it's own article. If you create it, I'll play with the formatting and wordsmithing stuff. Let me look at what is there and see if I can create the section and then you can add material. But if I don't change anything, just remember Be Bold. I really won't be evil if you mess up, though I might edit mercilessly (grin) Montanabw^(talk) 20:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Flax seed meal contains approximately a 2:1 ratio of omega-3:omega-6. Rice bran does contain omega-3, but in a ratio of about 1:35 omega-3:omega-6. Rice bran is otherwise a good source of energy, and also contains many anti-oxidants. This is one reason why it is used with flax seed meal, which is prone to rancidity in the absence of an antioxidant. --Getwood (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

That makes sense, but my only point is that rice bran is the other quality major fat supplement source in pelleted feeds, there are some products that only use rice bran. No argument that ground flaxseed is higher in Omega-3, but check out, for example, Empower versus Alliance and then this article, which claims that rice bran is higher in Omega-3 than many other things that are used to supplement fat. Not an argument, just throwing this out for further chat. Montanabw^(talk) 08:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's a nicely written article. Don't get me wrong; I'm not anti-rice bran. And, sure, it has more Omega-3s than corn oil. But,[1] and [2] would allow for a breakdown as such: rice bran is 37% linoleic and 1.9% linolenic. Rice bran also is 21.1% saturated fat and 39.6% monounsaturated. Flax seed meal is 13.3% linoleic and 56% linolenic. Flax is 10% saturated and 21% monounsaturated.

In my mind, rice bran is a common, and good nutritional source for horses. Certainly better in its omega 3:6 ratio than corn oil. But in terms of omega-3 supplementation, I can't see how 1.9% vs. 56% omega-3 is comparable. My vote is: rice bran belongs in equine nutrition, but not in omega-3.

On the nutrition topic, have you fooled around with Purina's calculator? [3] It's obviously biased towards calculating only for Purina feeds, but it seems pretty good. Platinum Performance also has a good site, although certainly also not unbiased. I like their products, and feel they do a good job of quality control.--Getwood (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

In terms of rice bran being the main additional ingredient in flax supplements: We have clients who buy flax seed in bulk and grind it in a coffee grinder daily. Again, though, rice bran is great for stabilizing the oxidation-prone flax oil. It is a good feed that contains other important nutrients. But in terms of discussing omega-3, I think it is a bit misleading to put rice bran and flax seed in the same sentence almost as equals. When I talk about omega-3s with my clients, I talk about looking for supplements which contain flax. If people think they are getting the same benefit from rice bran, they will be disappointed.--Getwood (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

That makes sense. In the context of heavy-duty Omega-3 for the joint issues, I do see what you are saying. OK, we can toss rice bran, but maybe clarify wording a bit to make your point above clear in the article? Montanabw^(talk) 23:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

"The 3rd metatarsal is about 1/6 longer than the 3rd metacarpal." Can someone check this? Sisson and Grossman "The anatomy of the domestic Animals" says that the metatarsal is 5/6 of the metacarpal. --Lmalena (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Generally all hind leg bones are somewhat longer in horses. But can you provide additional citation on your source? Montanabw^(talk) 19:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Moving from my talk: (Montanabw^(talk) 17:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC))Reply

Ah. The three links all claimed to go from system to, shall I say, subsystems or components: but in fact all three linked redundantly to the same 'parent system', so they were at best misleading (and 2 of the links were in fact overlinks). It would be better to have redlinks for these missing 'components', so a future anatomist-editor can see what needs doing and create articles as required. If a back-link to the parent article is wanted, it should be a "main" or "further" link, not three Easter Eggs that look like different links to (non-existent) subsidiary articles. I shan't comment further, but such is my reasoning. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think it might be helpful to add anchor links and I'll do that, but it is not on the front burner to create articles about every bone in the equine anatomy where the structure is so different as to be difficult to include in the analogous human skeleton articles (we did an equine section in navicular bone, and it started an editing dispute because the bone in the horse is not even the same bone as the one in the human). We do have pastern, fetlock and some general articles such as the limbs and also back (horse). Your thinking is well-taken, but I am not certain it's worth creating a bunch of stubs when we have an adequate article to cover them as an overview. Montanabw^(talk) 17:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough, and thank you for the detailed answer. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply