Diamonds Made From Horse Hair

To begin, I have to start by saying that this is not a joke. There are actually a select few companies around the world that claim to be able to create “memorial diamonds.” These jewels are called such because they are created by using the carbon that can be extracted from cremation ashes or hair.

When you think about it, the idea of manufacturing diamonds isn’t that far fetched. Since the 1950’s, scientists have been able to “grow” diamonds within a controlled laboratory setting. In nature, diamonds begin as carbon, which is compressed by the earth and heated to extremely high temperatures. Instead of waiting millions of years for nature to take its course, scientists have perfected the HPHT technique, or High Heat and High Pressure over Time, within a laboratory.

According to an article on TheHorse.com, a three-day event rider named Ronald Zabala-Goetschel is planning to have a diamond made from the hair of his horse, Che Mr. Wiseguy. The pair will be representing Ecuador at the World Equestrian Games next year. To read the remainder of the article please visit http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=15124

Phoenix Diamonds, located in the United Kingdom, is a company on the forefront of new technology and research concerning laboratory-made diamonds. In fact, last year they created the world’s first diamond to be produced from carbon in the umbilical cord of a baby.

Phoenix insists that these man-made diamonds are not fake, but have all of the same properties as traditional mined diamonds. On the company’s website they even offer diamond certification by the UK Assay office to ensure that the diamond you receive is real and not cubic zirconium or moissanite.

They say the process itself takes about 12-14 weeks, which can vary depending on the size and color of the diamond being created. The most common color is canary, but they can also make diamonds in shades of blue, white, amber, green and red. The size ranges from .25 to 2 carats depending on the amount of original material provided.

Approximately 100 grams of cremation ash or 35-40 grams of hair is required to produce a canary diamond and 500 grams of ash or 100 grams of hair is needed for a blue diamond.

And now, comes the question of cost. To my surprise, Phoenix’s memorial diamonds do not cost as much as one might think. While specific rates may vary, the base-rate cost of a brilliant cut canary is 5950 UK pounds per carat, or approximately 10,950 USD. The base-rate for a blue diamond is 10,950 UK pounds per carat, or 18,179 USD.

For more information you can visit Phoenix Diamond’s website at phoenix-diamonds.com or their blog at phoenix-diamonds.blogspot.com.

The Psychology of Conformity

As I sat in my social psychology class yesterday, something the professor said caught my attention. The lecture was on the psychology of conformity, and more specifically how being part of a group can influence an individual to act or think differently than that person might do if he or she were alone. In this way, conformity is not just acting or thinking as others do, but also involves a change in behavior or beliefs as a result of real or imagined group pressure.

            I thought about the correlation this might have to showing, judging and the horse industry in general. Because the experience of showing horses revolves around the objective opinions of a select few, the effect of conformity on people in group settings might be a phenomenon worth taking a look at.

            A person can publicly conform, or be compliant, which means that he or she publicly conforms to an expectation or request, but may still privately disagree. On the other hand, a person can privately conform and actually internalize or accept the beliefs of others as his or her own. 

            Many different experiments have been done that examine the psychology behind conformity, but one in particular I found to be very interesting. Solomon Asch did the study in 1951.

The basic setup involved seven people who sat together at a table and were shown 18 different cards. On each card there were four vertical lines of different lengths. One line was called the standard line and the other three were labeled A, B and C. The job of each person at the table was to pick whether the A, B or C line was the closest in length to the standard line. On each card the lengths of the lines changed, so on the first card the correct answer could be C and on the second card the correct answer could be A, and so on. The pictures on the cards were drawn so that the correct answer would be fairly obvious.

            The experimenter would show the group the first card and starting with person number one, each person would give their answer in order, from person number one to person number seven. What the seventh person didn’t know is that the other six were in on the experiment. Before the experiment began, the six participants were instructed as to what answers they should give to what questions. On six of the eighteen cards they were told to give the correct answer. On the remaining twelve cards they were told to each give the same incorrect answer.

            So, let’s say the correct answer to card number one was A, then each person would give their answers in order from person one to person seven. If written down it would look like this: correct answer- A #1-A, #2-A, #3-A, #4-A, #5-A, #6-A, #7-A. If by chance, card number two was one of those where the six people were instructed to give the wrong answer it might look like this: correct answer- B #1-C, #2-C, #3-C, #4-C, #5-C, #6-C, #7-?. Would the seventh person give the obvious correct answer of B, or the follow the group and give the incorrect answer of C?

            The goal of this experiment was to see if someone would purposefully give the incorrect answer in order to conform to the group. The original predication was that the seventh person would always give the actual correct answer and never the incorrect one just to conform to the group. However, the actual results showed that 37% of the time the seventh person would go along with the other six people and purposefully give the incorrect answer.

            It is important to remember that the cards were designed in such a way so that the answer would be pretty obvious, so it is safe to assume that the seventh person was well aware of the correct answer and just chose to give the wrong one. Now 37% may not seem like such a large number, but when the original prediction was that the seventh person would conform 0% of the time, the results are significant. Also, if you round 37% to 40% then one could say that almost half of the time the seventh person knowingly gave the incorrect answer to conform to the group.

            To test whether or not the seventh person truly knew the correct answer, at the experiment’s end, the other six people would be dismissed and the seventh person would be asked to go through the 18 cards one more time. The seventh person gave the correct answer 100% of the time.

            When asked later why they gave the wrong answers when they were in the group setting, the responses included, “I didn’t want to appear different,” and “I was worried about what others would think.”

I’m not sure if this is just me, but I found these results to be kind of shocking. To think that almost half of the time a person knowingly gave the wrong answer just to be like everyone else is a little disturbing.

Now granted, our system for judging horses is much more objective than the line length test, therefore determining the “correct answer” when placing a class would be much harder to pinpoint. However, it did give me a new perspective on how easily people can be influenced to make the wrong decision when they are in a group setting.

As a side note, experimenters noticed that people were much more likely to conform when the group had 3-4 people instead of 7. It kind of makes you wonder how this phenomenon might affect our “3-4 person” groups within the world of horse showing…

Texas Department of Agriculture proposes new rules concerning Texas Equine Incentive Program

Gene Richards, Assistant Commissioner for Marketing and Promotion, says that for the first five years the proposed rules are in effect, the benefit will be to provide an incentive for owners of Texas-bred horses to enter foals in Texas horse events.

            He hopes that this will encourage further development of the horse industry in Texas and enhance the quality of certain breeds of Texas-bred horses.

            Richards says that the collection of incentive fees from owners of stallions will lead to an increase in state revenue. That actual increase will be based on the number of breeders of Quarter, Paint and Appaloosa horses whose stallions have bred more than five mares during the 12 month period preceding the filing of a breeders report with their respective breed associations.

            The owners of eligible stallions will initially pay a $30 fee to the program per mare bred.

            In order for a foal to be eligible for the program it must have been bred in Texas, the foal’s stallion must stand stud in Texas during the entire breeding season, the mare must conceive and foal in Texas and a registration report must be filed with the TDA.

            Beginning on January 1, 2011, a point system will commence for the granting of incentive awards to be paid to the owners of eligible foals. The amount and type of incentive awards will be based on the funds that are available on a calendar year basis.

            For the owner of a foal to receive incentive awards, the foal must be a Texas-bred horse, the program fee must have been paid, the foal must participate in Texas horse events, the foal must be at least two years old to accrue points for sanctioned events other than racing, and the foal must be at least three years old to accrue points in racing events.

            Participation in this program is not mandatory, however the owner of a stallion that has bred six or more mares in the 12 months preceding the breeding report may elect not to participate in the program by submitting a written notice to TDA 30 days before the breeding report is due. If you are an owner of a stallion that has bred six or more mares and you choose not to participate in the program, please complete and return the Opt Out Form before Oct. 31. This form will serve as written notice to the agency that you do not wish to participate in the program, allowing you to opt out for one year. A new form must be filled out each year you choose to opt out.

The earliest possible date of adoption for this program would be November 8, 2009.

            Texas stallions owners are encouraged to visit www.texasagriculture.gov/equineincentive to read the full text of the proposed rules, look over the frequently asked questions and access the forms to opt in or opt out of the program.

If you have any questions regarding the Texas Equine Incentive Program you can contact Amanda Lyles, state marketing coordinator for livestock, at (512) 463-7560 or TexasLivestock@TexasAgriculture.gov

            Any comments on the proposed rules of the program should be submitted in writing to Gene Richards

    Assistant Commissioner for Marketing and Promotion

                Texas Department of Agriculture
       

    P.O. Box 12847
      

    Austin, Texas 78711.

Comments must be received no later than 30 days from the date of publication of the proposal in the Texas Register, which was October 9^th. 

John Ward Earns Million Dollar Rider Status

The National Reined Cow Horse Association honored John Ward as the newest Million Dollar Rider at the opening ceremonies of this year’s Snaffle Bit Futurity Open Finals.

Along with receiving the signature memorial Carol Owens bronze, Ward joined the ranks of previous Million Dollar riders like Bob Avila, Ted Robinson and Jon Roeser.

Ward won his second NRCHA Snaffle Bit Futurity title on the home-bred Black Pearl in 2008. His first championship was ten years earlier with Masteroani.

            When Ward was notified of his new Million Dollar Rider status he said, “This is great! That means that no matter how I do at the Futurity, I still get a prize on Sunday!”

            A big congratulations also goes to Ted Robinson, Pat Hubbert, Jon Semper, Smokum Oak and Jernigan Peake on being inducted into the NRCHA Hall of Fame.