Horse poop

TheOracle said:
This forum does have a weird obsession with poo, but in any case:

Beyond your grass, it has been estimated that a single gram of dog waste can contain 23 million fecal coliform bacteria, which are known to cause cramps, diarrhea, intestinal illness, and serious kidney disorders in humans. EPA even estimates that two or three days’ worth of droppings from a population of about 100 dogs would contribute enough bacteria to temporarily close a bay, and all watershed areas within 20 miles of it, to swimming and shell fishing.

Dog feces are one of the most common carriers of the following diseases:

Click to expand...

Thanks for the informative **** post - follow up question: Do you happen to know which is the least dangerous / most nutritious animal poop you can encounter? This is purely for education purposes obviously.
 
ubersonic said:
Nope, they pointed out there was a difference, it wasn't until post #38 that anyone thought to actually explain to the OP what the difference was.
Click to expand...

Posts 11 and 13 (and possibly others - I only looked for an earlier example, not every earlier example) explained what the relevant difference between dog faeces and horse faeces is. Post 38 advocated veganism. That's a very different thing to explaining what the difference between dog faeces and horse faeces is.

EDIT: I'll belabour the point, since that seems to be necessary:

Here's post 11:

~>Dg<~ said:
to put it simple terms.horse poop you could rub in your face no issues. do it with dog poop you could end up blind.
Click to expand...

As you can see, it explains the most relevant difference between dog faeces and horse faeces - toxicity to humans. It's a very simple summary of the difference (and says so), but it is an explanation of the difference.

Here's post 13:

Angilion said:
The difference in toxicity is very much relevant to the difference in law, so it's silly to dismiss it. More dangerous substances are more controlled than less dangerous substances, which makes a lot of sense.

Also relevant is the number of horses and dogs. Horse faeces used to be a major problem back when horses were extremely common and there was literally tonnes of horse faeces per day in cities, but now it isn't because there aren't very many horses.

Your initial premise of "Horse poo is just as bad as dog poo" is simply wrong, so the conclusion you drew from it is also wrong.
Click to expand...

Which also explains the most relevant difference between dog faeces and horse faeces - toxicity to humans.

11 and 13 come before 38, so 38 was not the first post to explicitly mention toxicity to humans. Nor was that the main point of post 38, which was promoting veganism and was factually incorrect anyway as a result. Which I addressed in post 105:

Angilion said:
IIRC, the main problem is a parasite that doesn't infect horses...

...erk, there are half a dozen of them. Roundworm is the one that can cause blindness in humans and that's the one I was thinking of. There's a whole load of bacteria too but that's common to faeces from different species, including horses. The key difference is that strains adapted to horse digestive systems haven't jumped species to humans. It's not so much about what they eat as it about which specfic types and strains of bacteria can infect them. For example, human faeces is very dangerous to humans in terms of bacterial contamination and it doesn't matter what the human who's the source of it eats.

Horses have probably been the root of some diseases in humans, though. It's a risk of domesticating any animal - the more contact, the more chances for a pathogen to jump species.
Click to expand...

You are simply wrong - diet is not what makes faeces toxic or not toxic to humans. Human faeces from a vegan human will still be toxic to humans. Canine faeces from a vegan dog (dogs are carnivores, but are versatile enough to live on a suitable artificial vegan diet if forced to do so) will still be toxic to humans.
 
Last edited:
Angilion said:
Posts 11 and 13 (and possibly others - I only looked for an earlier example, not every earlier example) explained blah blah blah
Click to expand...
As you're not reading the posts you quote I'm probably wasting my time, but in the hope you're not simply strawmanning I'll try again to reiterate: Yes many posts did point out to OP that there was a fundamental difference between dog/horse feces I have stated as such, however it wasn't until post #38 that anyone actually thought to explain to the OP why there is a fundamental difference between dog/horse feces that gets them treated differently. That's what I found funny.
 
ubersonic said:
As you're not reading the posts you quote I'm probably wasting my time, but in the hope you're not simply strawmanning I'll try again to reiterate: Yes many posts did point out to OP that there was a fundamental difference between dog/horse feces I have stated as such, however it wasn't until post #38 that anyone actually thought to explain to the OP why there is a fundamental difference between dog/horse feces that gets them treated differently. That's what I found funny.
Click to expand...

Of course I read them. I wrote one of them.

You're moving the goalposts. Initially you claimed that post 38 was the first post to explain what the difference is. Now you're changing that to claiming that post 38 was the first post to explain why there is a difference. That's a very different claim - did you read the earlier posts that explained what the difference is and realised you were wrong?

Post 38 was an incorrect explanation of why there is a difference, an explanation that would be dangerous in some circumstances. I've already explained why the statement in post 38 is not true.
 
Angilion said:
You're moving the goalposts. Initially you claimed that post 38 was the first post to explain what the difference is. Now you're changing that to claiming that post 38 was the first post to explain why there is a difference.
Click to expand...
Really? Looks like why to me...
ubersonic said:
Kinda crazy it took until post #38 for somebody to point this out lol.

I mean there were loads of people telling the OP he was wrong but not why.
Click to expand...
 
ubersonic said:
Really? Looks like why to me...
Click to expand...

And also what.

ubersonic said:
Nope, they pointed out there was a difference, it wasn't until post #38 that anyone thought to actually explain to the OP what the difference was.
Click to expand...

Regardless of which thing you switch to, you're still wrong. Post 38 didn't explain either what the difference is or why the difference exists. I'll repeat myself:

Angilion said:
Post 38 was an incorrect explanation of why there is a difference, an explanation that would be dangerous in some circumstances. I've already explained why the statement in post 38 is not true.
Click to expand...
 
Uncle Petey said:
This has to be front runner for the most pointless and pedantic argument of the year so far.
That's pretty impressive for a geek forum.
Click to expand...
It's a bit like goal of the season, you think you've seen the winner but another may come along to blow this one away.
 
I guess as well one of the factors here is that it's rarely in the middle of a pavement unlike the excrement of dog.
 
Malevolence said:
Tell me about, especially somewhere like this at 0200. So nigh on pitch black too.
Click to expand...

Around 2005 I was on a regular 13.1 mile run and in that area the road dips into a hollow and comes back up.
On this evening it was raining very heavy and the road was about 2 foot deep in water but I ran through to my 6.5 mile point and turned round (I couldn't get any wetter).
On my return a lorry driver saw me just about to go through and told me to stop and just climb on the back until we're through it but I said it was OK.
It was when I ran through he informed me the flood was in fact raw sewage :)
At Barlaston I made my way to the canal and jumped in to clean myself.

Anyway, when I was little my Nan used to send me out with a bucket if a horse poo'd in the road so she could put it on the back garden.
I never did that with dog poo and some of it used to be white.
 
Em3bbs said:
Poo is clearly serious business.
Click to expand...

There have been wars over poo. Well, sort of. It's been a factor in some wars. That was bird poo though, which used to be a very valuable substance. So valuable that the USA declared that it owned every unoccupied island with lots of bird poo on it and could annex any of them at will. Obviously that was just to create a legal facade for annexing territory (this was the "manifest destiny", i.e. very directly imperial, phase of the USA), but it was explicitly about bird poo.

Really, that happened:

http://americanhistory.si.edu/norie-atlas/guano-islands-act
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom