Tradition v Science - what do you think?

[Henbug]

Does anybody have any views on this? I have a feeling that people (myself included :S) often follow traditional methods and beliefs over scientific research
ie (very condensed) research shows the following yet I think often people don't follow it or don't know about it so use traditional knowledge instead:

- for higher energy, better to feed high fat and fibre rather than cereals (I know I feed cereals)

- keeping weavers, cribbers etc seperate is unneccessary, it isn't a copied behaviour

- wool flocking is better in saddles rather than foam (I had no idea but prefered it anyway)

- no difference in hoof wall strength or health between white and black hooves (know this but would probably still keep it in mind if buying)

and I'm sure there are masses of others


so does anybody else think this might be the case? Can you think of any other examples? I'm thinking of this for a dissertation topic but worried I might be barking up the wrong tree :-D

 

[Jesstickle]

Haha, I don't know if it is relevant but I am a scientist by trade

1) I feed readigrass (fibre) speedibeet (fibre) and outshine (fat)
2) My horse weaves and I keep her next to BH because I know he won't catch it!
3) I have a saddle with foam panels
4) BH has stripy hooves and Nitty three black and one white and it hasn't ever even occured to me that they might be different!

But yes, I think a lot of people still use the old rules. I hear the one about hooves the most often, closely followed by the one about weaving!!

 

[Foxhunter49]

There are many things that science says is the best way to go and the 'old' methods go out of fashion but then some truth will be found by other scientists that the old way was more beneficial.
I follow what I think is best and what suits each horse.

 

[JFTDWS]

I go by common sense and first principles - e.g. there's no logical reason why there would be a difference in strength between white and black hooves...

I'm also a scientist by trade, which means that I am hyper critical of counter-intuitive science whether it's published or not - mostly stuff funded by feed companies or poorly designed studies (which is most of the relevant sorts of research, tbh). My scepticism also comes into play with traditional management too though...

I don't think people follow tradition doggedly - but I do think that people follow trends and fashions, which may or may not be supported by research and in some cases people seem to favour change for the sake of change, rather than because it is actually beneficial...

 

[Jesstickle]

I think I just do what works for us mostly. BH didn't do well on fibre and cereal last winter so I'm trying something else. His saddle is the one that fits and I have BH next to Nits because it would be a nuisance to have them on different sides of the yard. I actually don't give much thought at all to why I do things, I just sort of do them and see how they pan out. Not very rigorous methods I'm using I'm afraid. They'd never stand up to a proper review! Especially as I am apt to tinker as I go along and then forget where I started from!

 

[Dancing Queen]

I am also a Scientist and I dont believe in Evolution but with my horses i tend to use common sense.

 

[Oberon]

Regarding feeding - the large bowel is a vat where digestion is by fermentation of fibre.

This creates a certain pH upon which the bacteria thrives in.

Cereals create a different pH and therefore a different type of bacteria is needed.

It's rather a lot of effort to keep switching back and forth, so just sticking with fibre feeds which can be easily digested alongside the horse's forage makes sense to me.

 

[Pearlsasinger]

Does anybody have any views on this? I have a feeling that people (myself included :S) often follow traditional methods and beliefs over scientific research
ie (very condensed) research shows the following yet I think often people don't follow it or don't know about it so use traditional knowledge instead:

- for higher energy, better to feed high fat and fibre rather than cereals (I know I feed cereals)

- keeping weavers, cribbers etc seperate is unneccessary, it isn't a copied behaviour

- wool flocking is better in saddles rather than foam (I had no idea but prefered it anyway)

- no difference in hoof wall strength or health between white and black hooves (know this but would probably still keep it in mind if buying)

and I'm sure there are masses of others


so does anybody else think this might be the case? Can you think of any other examples? I'm thinking of this for a dissertation topic but worried I might be barking up the wrong tree :-D

I am guessing, partly from the content of your post and partly from the fact that you will be writing a dissertation that you are quite young, forgive me if I'm wrong. If I'm right your 'tradition' and mine will be quite different.

I think a lot of what you have cited is not tradition but 'fashion' which came into being in the 70's & 80's, (the age of plastic) when 'Science' came up with what was considered a breakthrough at the time.
Certainly wool flocking is far more traditional than foam, serge (felt) lining is far more traditional and better for the horse but how many saddles are made that way these days?

Whilst rolled oats is a traditional feed, the high cereal/high sugar feeds which are available now are certainly not. A high-fibre diet is more traditional really, in the past it would only have been very hard-working horses which were given oats - and not so many of them.

I think the old horsemen knew a lot about horses (because they spent so much time with them day in, day out), which 'Science' has tried to tell us is wrong but which is beginning to be appreciated again.
The thing which springs to mind immediately is sweet-itch, which for years we have been told has nothing to do with anything sweet but is a reaction to midge-bites. Now it seems that, in fact, horses which are fed a high sugar diet often are more attractive to midges.

 

[Blitzen]

What Dancing Queen?! You're a scientist but you DON'T BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION??!
*snorts tea through nose*
Common sense in abundance, then

 

[cptrayes]

I am also a Scientist and I dont believe in Evolution

Oxymoron number one.

I dont believe in Evolution but ....... i tend to use common sense.

Oxymoron number two.

Pray what branch of "science" are you in????

 

[Blitzen]

^^^
I'm glad someone else has noticed! It really did make me laugh!
Let me add that I too am a scientist, but I do not believe in gravity... *snicker*

 

[Shilasdair]

Oxymoron number one.



Oxymoron number two.

Pray what branch of "science" are you in????

S

 

[Henbug]

I am also a Scientist and I dont believe in Evolution but with my horses i tend to use common sense.

Out of curiosity, if you don't believe in evolution you must have an alternative theory you do believe in?

 

[Honey08]

^^^
I'm glad someone else has noticed! It really did make me laugh!
Let me add that I too am a scientist, but I do not believe in gravity... *snicker*

I snickered even more because I read it as gravy!

 

[Blitzen]

Lol!
One thing I most certainly do believe in, is gravy!

 

[Henbug]

Thanks everyone for the help, very interesting.

Pearlsasinger, yes, your right that I'm young(ish!), I've just finished a degree in Physics and this year I've changed into equine science for a masters year. I was probably thinking along the lines of more recent "traditions" and, therefore, perhaps this was an incorrect use of the word. Thanks for highlighting this, very useful, I'll definitly bear it in mind.

To cover this, I'm not planning on looking at what people do instead only if they are using the research or not. Hopefully this will cover all of the above issues. Do you think so? It may however be of interest later on to compare what research has found to what "the old horsemen" used to do. Thanks, really helpful

 

[lazybee]

I am a Scientologist and I dont believe in Evolution but with my horses i tend to use common sense.

Corrected for you.

 

[EstherYoung]

Pearlsasinger speaks a lot of sense.

Re The white feet thing - I don't know why people got hung up on the feet, it's actually the legs. White leg markings with the underlying pink skin are much more prone to mud fever/sunburn/skin reactions etc, so there is a very good reason to avoid them (says her who swore she was never going to get a horse with pink skin again and then bought a horse with four white legs, a white nose and two white eyebrows). But no, there's no difference in the hoof horn.

 

[NeilM]

Pearlsasinger speaks a lot of sense.

Re The white feet thing - I don't know why people got hung up on the feet, it's actually the legs. White leg markings with the underlying pink skin are much more prone to mud fever/sunburn/skin reactions etc, so there is a very good reason to avoid them (says her who swore she was never going to get a horse with pink skin again and then bought a horse with four white legs, a white nose and two white eyebrows). But no, there's no difference in the hoof horn.

Now that is very interesting. I knew about white hoof horn, but had never seen any science behind the old phrase about white legs.

Oh, and I am NOT a scientist (unless engineering counts), and I do believe in gravy...especially with some sausages and mash, or maybe a nice pork chop and new potatoes, or.....

 

[fburton]

To cover this, I'm not planning on looking at what people do instead only if they are using the research or not. Hopefully this will cover all of the above issues. Do you think so? It may however be of interest later on to compare what research has found to what "the old horsemen" used to do. Thanks, really helpful

Sounds an interesting and really worthwhile project! This kind of overlaps with myths and "old wives' tales", about which a fair amount has been written.

ETA: I am also a scientist and a strong believer in gravy.

 

[JFTDWS]

DQ, I would be interested to know what you do believe in regarding the origins of mankind and other species, but I promise not to snort with derision as some of the other posters are - rather rudely, I would say.

I had a lecturer at uni (a proper, good uni, I should point out) who saw evidence for God's hand in directing the development of the very same molecular machinery which to me was proof that evolution was true.

I've argued before that, whilst I believe in evolution, the natural selection itself ( or rather, mutations arise by chance, causing variation in each generation, from which only the best "fit" organisms for their niche will survive because of natural selection) is actually an intangible process - we can prove that mutations arise and that only the best fit survive, but we cannot prove that the mutations don't arise by divine intervention or divine design and we cannot prove that divine intervention doesn't decide which organisms survive within a popuation. Therefore, though there is a lot of evidence to support the theory of evolution, we cannot "prove" it. Like a lot of questions regarding gods and religion, it's arguably impossible to disprove divine intervention or existence (because they're unfalsifiable and therefore not scientific). Hence while I am an atheist by belief, I am also agnostic by virtue of philosophy of science

 

[JFTDWS]

I think I just do what works for us mostly. BH didn't do well on fibre and cereal last winter so I'm trying something else. His saddle is the one that fits and I have BH next to Nits because it would be a nuisance to have them on different sides of the yard. I actually don't give much thought at all to why I do things, I just sort of do them and see how they pan out. Not very rigorous methods I'm using I'm afraid. They'd never stand up to a proper review! Especially as I am apt to tinker as I go along and then forget where I started from!

Same, tbh. A lot of us are motivated by convenience and results, provided there is no obvious adverse effects on the horse. I can honestly say I've no idea what fills my saddles - I guess J's is probably wool because it's archaic (or maybe stuffed with straw from Noah's ark itself? ) or F's I could find out as I know the make, but as he seems happy in it, I don't really care tbh...

 

[Jesstickle]

we can prove that mutations arise and that only the best fit survive, but we cannot prove that the mutations don't arise by divine intervention or divine design

Does this mean that as I perform mutagenesis I am actually a divine being?

 

[JFTDWS]

Does this mean that as I perform mutagenesis I am actually a divine being?

Good point - my entire PhD is generating targetted (and massive ) mutations in a bacterium which really doesn't want to be mutated - I suddenly feel so much more positive about the whole thing

Just call me God of the Actinomycetes What will you be the god of, wifey?


(and DQ- this is lighthearted fun, I'm not mocking you, honestly)

 

[Ladyinred]

ETA: I am also a scientist and a strong believer in gravy.

Aaaaand another oxymoron. You don't watch enough of the Food channel. What is this 'gravy'? We have either jus or a reduction

Having sausage, mash and a reduction doesn't actually sound very tempting

 

[Blitzen]

My problem was not that DQ dismisses evolution, its that they claim to be a scientist alongside it. A contradiction in terms, surely?
Perhaps it is a typo, as someone has pointed out, and it means to read 'Scientologist'?
I'm very keen to hear which branch of science does not "believe in evolution". The God Squad can be very quick to jump and say "but God did it", and I have no problem at all with whatever they choose to believe in (I personally believe that Harry Potter is controlling our minds using an invisible sex robot), but I am yet to hear of a branch of science that claims "God did it".
This is the source of my derision. The post made by Dancing Queen made no sense at all, and they have not explained further.
Either this or I get the feeling we have been trolled?

 

[fburton]

Aaaaand another oxymoron.

OXOmoron, surely?

 

[Blitzen]

^^
Actually laughed out loud!

 

[JFTDWS]

Laura c, the lecturer I mentioned is both a cell biologist and a reverend. In my office (pure researh at a university, we're all scientists) there are two people in about 15 who openly don't believe in evolution. Therein lies my point.

 

[peaceandquiet1]

Well as a nurse I preferred to base my practice on research-based evidence where it existed, eg in the field of wound management where the doctors had to bullied into using modern methods which were also more effective and humane. In particular, I recall the change from a gauze type packing for those poor souls who had surgery for their haemorrhoids, to a dissolvable material. The "traditional" material had to be pulled out -can you imagine-and boy did those patients suffer.

So I think the same principles apply to horse care, and I think people should always question things and look for information where possble. That does not mean that I think all new ideas are good!