Cattle

"Cow" and "Cows" redirect here. For other uses, see Cattle (disambiguation) and Cow (disambiguation).

"Taurus cattle" redirects here. For the breeding project, see Taurus Project.

Cattle (Bos taurus) are large, domesticated, cloven-hooved herbivores. They are a prominent modern member of the subfamily Bovinae and the most widespread species of the genus Bos. Mature female cattle are referred to as cows and mature male cattle are referred to as bulls. Colloquially, young female cattle (heifers), young male cattle (bullocks) and castrated male cattle (steers) are also referred to as "cows".

Cattle
A brown Swiss Fleckvieh cow wearing a cowbell
Conservation status
Domesticated
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Class:	Mammalia
Order:	Artiodactyla
Family:	Bovidae
Subfamily:	Bovinae
Genus:	Bos
Species:	B. taurus
Binomial name
Bos taurus Linnaeus, 1758
Bovine distribution
Synonyms
Bos primigenius taurus Bos longifrons

Cattle are commonly raised as livestock for meat (beef or veal, see beef cattle), for milk (see dairy cattle), and for hides, which are used to make leather. They are used as riding animals and draft animals (oxen or bullocks, which pull carts, plows and other implements). Another product of cattle is their dung, which can be used to create manure or fuel. In some regions, such as parts of India, cattle have significant religious significance. Cattle, mostly small breeds such as the Miniature Zebu, are also kept as pets.

Different types of cattle are common to different geographic areas. Taurine cattle are found primarily in Europe and temperate areas of Asia, the Americas, and Australia. Zebus (also called indicine cattle) are found primarily in India and tropical areas of Asia, America, and Australia. Sanga cattle are found primarily in sub-Saharan Africa. These types (which are sometimes classified as separate species or subspecies) are further divided into over 1,000 recognized breeds.

Around 10,500 years ago, taurine cattle were domesticated from as few as 80 wild aurochs progenitors in central Anatolia, the Levant and Western Iran.^[1] A separate domestication event occurred in the Indian subcontinent, which gave rise to zebu. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), there are approximately 1.5 billion cattle in the world as of 2018.^[2] Cattle are the main source of greenhouse gas emissions from livestock, and are responsible for around 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions.^[3][4] In 2009, cattle became one of the first livestock animals to have a fully mapped genome.^[5]

Taxonomy

See also: Bos and Bovinae

 

Żubroń, a wisent and cattle hybrid

Cattle were originally identified as three separate species: Bos taurus, the European or "taurine" cattle (including similar types from Africa and Asia); Bos indicus, the Indicine or "zebu"; and the extinct Bos primigenius, the aurochs. The aurochs is ancestral to both zebu and taurine cattle.^[6] They were later reclassified as one species, Bos taurus, with the aurochs, zebu, and taurine cattle as subspecies.^[7] However, this taxonomy is contentious and some sources prefer the separate species classification, such as the American Society of Mammalogists' Mammal Diversity Database.^[8][9]

Complicating the matter is the ability of cattle to interbreed with other closely related species. Hybrid individuals and even breeds exist, not only between taurine cattle and zebu (such as the sanga cattle (Bos taurus africanus x Bos indicus), but also between one or both of these and some other members of the genus Bos – yaks (the dzo or yattle^[10]), banteng, and gaur. Hybrids such as the beefalo breed can even occur between taurine cattle and either species of bison, leading some authors to consider them part of the genus Bos, as well.^[11] The hybrid origin of some types may not be obvious – for example, genetic testing of the Dwarf Lulu breed, the only taurine-type cattle in Nepal, found them to be a mix of taurine cattle, zebu, and yak.^[12] However, cattle cannot be successfully hybridized with more distantly related bovines such as water buffalo or African buffalo.

The aurochs originally ranged throughout Europe, North Africa, and much of Asia. In historical times, its range became restricted to Europe, and the last known individual died in Mazovia, Poland, in about 1627.^[13] Breeders have attempted to recreate cattle of similar appearance to aurochs by crossing traditional types of domesticated cattle, creating the Heck cattle breed.

The only pure African taurine breeds (Bos taurus africanus) remaining are the N'Dama, Kuri and some varieties of the West African Shorthorn.^[14]

Etymology

Cattle did not originate as the term for bovine animals. It was borrowed from Anglo-Norman catel, itself from medieval Latin capitale 'principal sum of money, capital', itself derived in turn from Latin caput 'head'. Cattle originally meant movable personal property, especially livestock of any kind, as opposed to real property (the land, which also included wild or small free-roaming animals such as chickens—they were sold as part of the land).^[15][16] The word is a variant of chattel (a unit of personal property) and closely related to capital in the economic sense.^[17][18][16] The term replaced earlier Old English feoh 'cattle, property', which survives today as fee (cf. German: Vieh, Dutch: vee, Gothic: faihu).

The word cow came via Anglo-Saxon cū (plural cȳ), from Common Indo-European gʷōus (genitive gʷowés) 'a bovine animal', cf. Persian: gâv, Sanskrit: go-, Welsh: buwch.^[19] The plural cȳ became ki or kie in Middle English, and an additional plural ending was often added, giving kine, kien, but also kies, kuin and others. This is the origin of the now archaic English plural, kine. The Scots language singular is coo or cou, and the plural is kye.

In older English sources such as the King James Version of the Bible, cattle refers to livestock, as opposed to deer which refers to wildlife. Wild cattle may refer to feral cattle or to undomesticated species of the genus Bos. Today, when used without any other qualifier, the modern meaning of cattle is usually restricted to domesticated bovines.^[16]

Terminology

 

Look up cattle, cow, or bull in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

In general, the same words are used in different parts of the world, but with minor differences in the definitions. The terminology described here contrasts the differences in definition between the United Kingdom and other British-influenced parts of the world such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and the United States.^[20]

• An "intact" (i.e., not castrated) adult male is called a bull.
  • A father bull is called a sire with reference to his offspring.
• An adult female that has had a calf (or two, depending on regional usage) is a cow. Steers and heifers are also colloquially referred to as cows.
  • A mother cow is called a dam with reference to her offspring. Often, mentions of dams imply cows kept in the herd for repeated breeding (as opposed to heifers or cows sold off sooner).
• A young female before she has had a calf of her own^[21] and who is under three years of age is called a heifer (/ˈhɛfər/ HEF-ər).^[22] A young female that has had only one calf is occasionally called a first-calf heifer. Heiferettes are either first-calf heifers or a subset thereof without potential to become lineage dams, depending on whose definition is operative.
• Young cattle (regardless of sex) are called calves until they are weaned, then weaners until they are a year old in some areas; in other areas, particularly with male beef cattle, they may be known as feeder calves or feeders. After that, they are referred to as yearlings or stirks^[23] if between one and two years of age.^[24]
• Feeder cattle or store cattle are young cattle soon to be either backgrounded or sent to fattening, most especially those intended to be sold to someone else for finishing. In some regions, a distinction between stockers and feeders (by those names) is the distinction of backgrounding versus immediate sale to a finisher.
• A castrated male is called a steer in the United States; older steers are often called bullocks in other parts of the world,^[25] but in North America this term refers to a young bull. Piker bullocks are micky bulls (uncastrated young male bulls) that were caught, castrated and then later lost.^[26] In Australia, the term Japanese ox is used for grain-fed steers in the weight range of 500 to 650 kg that are destined for the Japanese meat trade.^[27] In North America, draft cattle under four years old are called working steers. Improper or late castration on a bull results in it becoming a coarse steer known as a stag in Australia, Canada and New Zealand.^[28] In some countries, an incompletely castrated male is known also as a rig.
• A castrated male (occasionally a female or in some areas a bull) kept for draft or riding purposes is called an ox (plural oxen); ox may also be used to refer to some carcass products from any adult cattle, such as ox-hide, ox-blood, oxtail, or ox-liver.^[22]
• A springer is a cow or heifer close to calving.^[29]
• In all cattle species, a female twin of a bull usually becomes an infertile partial intersex, and is called a freemartin.
• A wild, young, unmarked bull is known as a micky in Australia.^[26]
• An unbranded bovine of either sex is called a maverick in the US and Canada.
• Neat (horned oxen, from which neatsfoot oil is derived), beef (young ox) and beefing (young animal fit for slaughtering) are obsolete terms, although poll, pollard and polled cattle are still terms in use for naturally hornless animals, or in some areas also for those that have been disbudded or dehorned.
• Cattle raised for human consumption are called beef cattle. Within the American beef cattle industry, the older term beef (plural beeves) is still used to refer to an animal of either sex. Some Australian, Canadian, New Zealand and British people use the term beast.^[30]
• Cattle bred specifically for milk production are called milking or dairy cattle;^[20] a cow kept to provide milk for one family may be called a house cow or milker. A fresh cow is a dairy term for a cow or first-calf heifer who has recently given birth, or "freshened."
• The adjective applying to cattle in general is usually bovine. The terms bull, cow and calf are also used by extension to denote the sex or age of other large animals, including whales, hippopotamuses, camels, elk and elephants.
• Various other terms for cattle or types thereof are historical; these include nowt, nolt, mart, and others.

Singular terminology issue

 

A Finncattle at Särkänniemi in Tampere, Finland

"Cattle" can only be used in the plural and not in the singular: it is a plurale tantum.^[31] Thus one may refer to "three cattle" or "some cattle", but not "one cattle". "One head of cattle" is a valid though periphrastic way to refer to one animal of indeterminate or unknown age and sex; otherwise no universally used single-word singular form of cattle exists in modern English, other than the sex- and age-specific terms such as cow, bull, steer and heifer. Historically, "ox" was not a sex-specific term for adult cattle, but generally this is now used only for working cattle, especially adult castrated males. The term is also incorporated into the names of other species, such as the musk ox and "grunting ox" (yak), and is used in some areas to describe certain cattle products such as ox-hide and oxtail.^[32]

Cow is in general use as a singular for the collective cattle. The word cow is easy to use when a singular is needed and the sex is unknown or irrelevant—when "there is a cow in the road", for example. Further, any herd of fully mature cattle in or near a pasture is statistically likely to consist mostly of cows, so the term is probably accurate even in the restrictive sense. Other than the few bulls needed for breeding, the vast majority of male cattle are castrated as calves and are used as oxen or slaughtered for meat before the age of three years. Thus, in a pastured herd, any calves or herd bulls usually are clearly distinguishable from the cows due to distinctively different sizes and clear anatomical differences. Merriam-Webster and Oxford Living Dictionaries recognize the sex-nonspecific use of cow as an alternate definition,^[33][34] whereas Collins and the OED do not.

Colloquially, more general nonspecific terms may denote cattle when a singular form is needed. Head of cattle is usually used only after a numeral. Australian, New Zealand and British farmers use the term beast or cattle beast. Bovine is also used in Britain. The term critter is common in the western United States and Canada, particularly when referring to young cattle.^[35] In some areas of the American South (particularly the Appalachian region), where both dairy and beef cattle are present, an individual animal was once called a "beef critter", though that term is becoming archaic.

Other terminology

Cattle raised for human consumption are called beef cattle. Within the beef cattle industry in parts of the United States, the term beef (plural beeves) is still used in its archaic sense to refer to an animal of either sex. Cows of certain breeds that are kept for the milk they give are called dairy cows or milking cows (formerly milch cows). Most young male offspring of dairy cows are sold for veal, and may be referred to as veal calves.

The term dogies is used to describe orphaned calves in the context of ranch work in the American West, as in "Keep them dogies moving".^[36] In some places, a cow kept to provide milk for one family is called a "house cow". Other obsolete terms for cattle include "neat" (this use survives in "neatsfoot oil", extracted from the feet and legs of cattle), and "beefing" (young animal fit for slaughter).

 

A cow's "moo"

---

Problems playing this file? See media help.

An onomatopoeic term for one of the most common sounds made by cattle is moo (also called lowing). There are a number of other sounds made by cattle, including calves bawling, and bulls bellowing. Bawling is most common for cows after weaning of a calf. The bullroarer makes a sound similar to a bull's territorial call.^[37]

Characteristics

Anatomy

 

Displayed skeleton of a domestic cow

 

Anatomical model of a cow

Cattle are large quadrupedal ungulate mammals with cloven hooves. Most breeds have horns, which can be as large as the Texas Longhorn or small like a scur. Careful genetic selection has allowed polled (hornless) cattle to become widespread.

Digestive system

Further information: Digestive system of ruminants

Cattle are ruminants, meaning their digestive system is highly specialized to allow the consumption of difficult to digest plants as food. Cattle have one stomach with four compartments, the rumen, reticulum, omasum, and abomasum, with the rumen being the largest compartment. The reticulum, the smallest compartment, is known as the "honeycomb". The omasum's main function is to absorb water and nutrients from the digestible feed. The omasum is known as the "many plies". The abomasum is like the human stomach; this is why it is known as the "true stomach".

Cattle are known for regurgitating and re-chewing their food, known as cud chewing, like most ruminants. While the animal is feeding, the food is swallowed without being chewed and goes into the rumen for storage until the animal can find a quiet place to continue the digestion process. The food is regurgitated, a mouthful at a time, back up to the mouth, where the food, now called the cud, is chewed by the molars, grinding down the coarse vegetation to small particles. The cud is then swallowed again and further digested by specialized microorganisms in the rumen. These microbes are primarily responsible for decomposing cellulose and other carbohydrates into volatile fatty acids cattle use as their primary metabolic fuel. The microbes inside the rumen also synthesize amino acids from non-protein nitrogenous sources, such as urea and ammonia. As these microbes reproduce in the rumen, older generations die and their cells continue on through the digestive tract. These cells are then partially digested in the small intestines, allowing cattle to gain a high-quality protein source. These features allow cattle to thrive on grasses and other tough vegetation.

Reproduction

Further information: Bull § Reproductive anatomy

 

Reproductive system of a bovine female

 

Ox testes

On farms it is very common to use artificial insemination (AI), a medically assisted reproduction technique consisting of the artificial deposition of semen in the female's genital tract.^[38] It is used in cases where the spermatozoa can not reach the fallopian tubes or by choice of the owner of the animal. It consists of transferring, to the uterine cavity, spermatozoa previously collected and processed, with the selection of morphologically more normal and mobile spermatozoa.Synchronization of cattle ovulation to benefit dairy farming may be accomplished via induced ovulation techniques.

Bulls become fertile at about seven months of age. Their fertility is closely related to the size of their testicles, and one simple test of fertility is to measure the circumference of the scrotum: a young bull is likely to be fertile once this reaches 28 centimetres (11 in); that of a fully adult bull may be over 40 centimetres (16 in).^[39][40]

A bull has a fibro-elastic penis. Given the small amount of erectile tissue, there is little enlargement after erection. The penis is quite rigid when non-erect, and becomes even more rigid during erection. Protrusion is not affected much by erection, but more by relaxation of the retractor penis muscle and straightening of the sigmoid flexure.^[41][42][43]

The gestation period for a cow is about nine months long. The secondary sex ratio – the ratio of male to female offspring at birth – is approximately 52:48, although it may be influenced by environmental and other factors.^[44] A cow's udder contains two pairs of mammary glands, (commonly referred to as teats) creating four "quarters".^[45] The front ones are referred to as fore quarters and the rear ones rear quarters.^[46]

Weight and lifespan

The weight of adult cattle varies, depending on the breed. Smaller kinds, such as Dexter and Jersey adults, range between 300 and 500 kg (600 and 1,000 lb).^{[citation needed]} Large Continental breeds, such as Charolais, Marchigiana, Belgian Blue and Chianina adults range from 640 to 1,100 kg (1,400 to 2,500 lb).^{[citation needed]} British breeds, such as Hereford, Angus, and Shorthorn, mature at 500 to 900 kg (1,000 to 2,000 lb), occasionally higher, particularly with Angus and Hereford.^{[citation needed]} Bulls are larger than cows of the same breed by up to a few hundred kilograms. British Hereford cows weigh 600–800 kg (1,300–1,800 lb); the bulls weigh 1,000–1,200 kg (2,200–2,600 lb).^[47] Chianina bulls can weigh up to 1,500 kg (3,300 lb); British bulls, such as Angus and Hereford, can weigh as little as 900 kg (2,000 lb) and as much as 1,400 kg (3,000 lb).^{[citation needed]}

The world record for the heaviest bull was 1,740 kg (3,840 lb), a Chianina named Donetto, when he was exhibited at the Arezzo show in 1955.^[48] The heaviest steer was eight-year-old 'Old Ben', a Shorthorn/​Hereford cross weighing in at 2,140 kg (4,720 lb) in 1910.^[49]

In the United States, the average weight of beef cattle has steadily increased, especially since the 1970s, requiring the building of new slaughterhouses able to handle larger carcasses. New packing plants in the 1980s stimulated a large increase in cattle weights.^[50] Before 1790 beef cattle averaged only 160 kg (350 lb) net; and thereafter weights climbed steadily.^[51][52]

A newborn calf's size can vary among breeds, but a typical calf weighs 25 to 45 kg (55 to 99 lb). Adult size and weight vary significantly among breeds and sex. Steers are generally slaughtered before reaching 750 kg (1,650 lb). Breeding stock may be allowed a longer lifespan, occasionally living as long as 25 years. The oldest recorded cow, Big Bertha, died at the age of 48 in 1993.

Cognition

In laboratory studies, young cattle are able to memorize the locations of several food sources and retain this memory for at least 8 hours, although this declined after 12 hours.^[53] Fifteen-month-old heifers learn more quickly than adult cows which have had either one or two calvings, but their longer-term memory is less stable.^[54] Mature cattle perform well in spatial learning tasks and have a good long-term memory in these tests. Cattle tested in a radial arm maze are able to remember the locations of high-quality food for at least 30 days. Although they initially learn to avoid low-quality food, this memory diminishes over the same duration.^[55] Under less artificial testing conditions, young cattle showed they were able to remember the location of feed for at least 48 days.^[56] Cattle can make an association between a visual stimulus and food within 1 day—memory of this association can be retained for 1 year, despite a slight decay.^[57]

Calves are capable of discrimination learning^[58] and adult cattle compare favourably with small mammals in their learning ability in the closed-field test.^[59]

They are also able to discriminate between familiar individuals, and among humans. Cattle can tell the difference between familiar and unfamiliar animals of the same species (conspecifics). Studies show they behave less aggressively toward familiar individuals when they are forming a new group.^[60] Calves can also discriminate between humans based on previous experience, as shown by approaching those who handled them positively and avoiding those who handled them aversively.^[61] Although cattle can discriminate between humans by their faces alone, they also use other cues such as the color of clothes when these are available.^[62]

In audio play-back studies, calves prefer their own mother's vocalizations compared to the vocalizations of an unfamiliar mother.^[63]

In laboratory studies using images, cattle can discriminate between images of the heads of cattle and other animal species.^[64] They are also able to distinguish between familiar and unfamiliar conspecifics. Furthermore, they are able to categorize images as familiar and unfamiliar individuals.^[60]

When mixed with other individuals, cloned calves from the same donor form subgroups, indicating that kin discrimination occurs and may be a basis of grouping behaviour. It has also been shown using images of cattle that both artificially inseminated and cloned calves have similar cognitive capacities of kin and non-kin discrimination.^[65]

Cattle can recognize familiar individuals. Visual individual recognition is a more complex mental process than visual discrimination. It requires the recollection of the learned idiosyncratic identity of an individual that has been previously encountered and the formation of a mental representation.^[66] By using two-dimensional images of the heads of one cow (face, profiles, 3⁄4 views), all the tested heifers showed individual recognition of familiar and unfamiliar individuals from their own breed. Furthermore, almost all the heifers recognized unknown individuals from different breeds, although this was achieved with greater difficulty. Individual recognition was most difficult when the visual features of the breed being tested were quite different from the breed in the image, for example, the breed being tested had no spots whereas the image was of a spotted breed.^[67]

Cattle use visual/brain lateralisation in their visual scanning of novel and familiar stimuli.^[68] Domestic cattle prefer to view novel stimuli with the left eye, i.e. using the right brain hemisphere (similar to horses, Australian magpies, chicks, toads and fish) but use the right eye, i.e. using the left hemisphere, for viewing familiar stimuli.^[69]

Senses

Cattle use all of the five widely recognized sensory modalities. These can assist in some complex behavioural patterns, for example, in grazing behaviour. Cattle eat mixed diets, but when given the opportunity, show a partial preference of approximately 70% clover and 30% grass. This preference has a diurnal pattern, with a stronger preference for clover in the morning, and the proportion of grass increasing towards the evening.^[70]

Vision

 

Cattle receive about half of their information visually.

Vision is the dominant sense in cattle and they obtain almost 50% of their information visually. ^[71]

Cattle are a prey animal and to assist predator detection, their eyes are located on the sides of their head rather than the front. This gives them a wide field of view of 330° but limits binocular vision (and therefore stereopsis) to 30° to 50° compared to 140° in humans.^[60][72] This means they have a blind spot directly behind them. Cattle have good visual acuity,^[60] but compared to humans, their visual accommodation is poor.^{[clarification needed][71]}

Cattle have two kinds of color receptors in the cone cells of their retinas. This means that cattle are dichromatic, as are most other non-primate land mammals.^[73][74] There are two to three rods per cone in the fovea centralis but five to six near the optic papilla.^[72] Cattle can distinguish long wavelength colors (yellow, orange and red) much better than the shorter wavelengths (blue, grey and green). Calves are able to discriminate between long (red) and short (blue) or medium (green) wavelengths, but have limited ability to discriminate between the short and medium. They also approach handlers more quickly under red light.^[75] Whilst having good color sensitivity, it is not as good as humans or sheep.^[60]

A common misconception about cattle (particularly bulls) is that they are enraged by the color red (something provocative is often said to be "like a red flag to a bull"). This is a myth. In bullfighting, it is the movement of the red flag or cape that irritates the bull and incites it to charge.^[76]

Taste

Cattle have a well-developed sense of taste and can distinguish the four primary tastes (sweet, salty, bitter and sour). They possess around 20,000 taste buds. The strength of taste perception depends on the individual's current food requirements. They avoid bitter-tasting foods (potentially toxic) and have a marked preference for sweet (high calorific value) and salty foods (electrolyte balance). Their sensitivity to sour-tasting foods helps them to maintain optimal ruminal pH.^[71]

Plants have low levels of sodium and cattle have developed the capacity of seeking salt by taste and smell. If cattle become depleted of sodium salts, they show increased locomotion directed to searching for these. To assist in their search, the olfactory and gustatory receptors able to detect minute amounts of sodium salts increase their sensitivity as biochemical disruption develops with sodium salt depletion.^[77][78]

Hearing

Cattle hearing ranges from 23 Hz to 35 kHz. Their frequency of best sensitivity is 8 kHz and they have a lowest threshold of −21 db (re 20 μN/m⁻²), which means their hearing is more acute than horses (lowest threshold of 7 db).^[79] Sound localization acuity thresholds are an average of 30°. This means that cattle are less able to localise sounds compared to goats (18°), dogs (8°) and humans (0.8°).^[80] Because cattle have a broad foveal fields of view covering almost the entire horizon, they may not need very accurate locus information from their auditory systems to direct their gaze to a sound source.

Vocalizations are an important mode of communication amongst cattle and can provide information on the age, sex, dominance status and reproductive status of the caller. Calves can recognize their mothers using vocalizations; vocal behaviour may play a role by indicating estrus and competitive display by bulls.^[81]

Olfaction and gustation

 

Several senses are used in social relationships among cattle.

Cattle have a range of odiferous glands over their body including interdigital, infraorbital, inguinal and sebaceous glands, indicating that olfaction probably plays a large role in their social life. Both the primary olfactory system using the olfactory bulbs, and the secondary olfactory system using the vomeronasal organ are used.^[82] This latter olfactory system is used in the flehmen response. There is evidence that when cattle are stressed, this can be recognised by other cattle and this is communicated by alarm substances in the urine.^[83] The odour of dog faeces induces behavioural changes prior to cattle feeding, whereas the odours of urine from either stressed or non-stressed conspecifics and blood have no effect.^[84]

In the laboratory, cattle can be trained to recognise conspecific individuals using olfaction only.^[82]

In general, cattle use their sense of smell to "expand" on information detected by other sensory modalities. However, in the case of social and reproductive behaviours, olfaction is a key source of information.^[71]

Touch

Cattle have tactile sensations detected mainly by mechanoreceptors, thermoreceptors and nociceptors in the skin and muscles. These are used most frequently when cattle explore their environment.^[71]

Magnetoreception

There is conflicting evidence for magnetoreception in cattle. One study reported that resting and grazing cattle tend to align their body axes in the geomagnetic north–south direction.^[85] In a follow-up study, cattle exposed to various magnetic fields directly beneath or in the vicinity of power lines trending in various magnetic directions exhibited distinct patterns of alignment.^[86] However, in 2011, a group of Czech researchers reported their failed attempt to replicate the finding using Google Earth images.^[87]

Behavior

Under natural conditions, calves stay with their mother until weaning at 8 to 11 months. Heifer and bull calves are equally attached to their mothers in the first few months of life.^[88] Cattle are considered to be "hider" type animals, utilizing secluded areas more in the hours before calving and continued to use it more for the hour after calving. Cows that gave birth for the first time show a higher incidence of abnormal maternal behavior.^[89]

Video of a calf suckling

 

A cow giving birth

In one study, beef-calves reared on the range were observed to suckle an average of 5.0 times every 24 hours with an average total time of 46 min spent suckling. There was a diurnal rhythm in suckling activity with peaks between 05:00–07:00, 10:00–13:00 and 17:00–21:00.^[90]

Reproductive behavior

Semi-wild Highland cattle heifers first give birth at 2 or 3 years of age, and the timing of birth is synchronized with increases in natural food quality. Average calving interval is 391 days, and calving mortality within the first year of life is 5%.^[91]

Dominance and leadership

One study showed that over a 4-year period, dominance relationships within a herd of semi-wild highland cattle were very firm. There were few overt aggressive conflicts and the majority of disputes were settled by agonistic (non-aggressive, competitive) behaviors that involved no physical contact between opponents (e.g. threatening and spontaneous withdrawing). Such agonistic behavior reduces the risk of injury. Dominance status depended on age and sex, with older animals generally being dominant to young ones and males dominant to females. Young bulls gained superior dominance status over adult cows when they reached about 2 years of age.^[91]

As with many animal dominance hierarchies, dominance-associated aggressiveness does not correlate with rank position, but is closely related to rank distance between individuals.^[91]

Dominance is maintained in several ways. Cattle often engage in mock fights where they test each other's strength in a non-aggressive way. Licking is primarily performed by subordinates and received by dominant animals. Mounting is a playful behavior shown by calves of both sexes and by bulls and sometimes by cows in estrus,^[92] however, this is not a dominance related behavior as has been found in other species.^[91]

The horns of cattle are "honest signals" used in mate selection. Furthermore, horned cattle attempt to keep greater distances between themselves and have fewer physical interactions than hornless cattle. This leads to more stable social relationships.^[93]

In calves, the frequency of agonistic behavior decreases as space allowance increases, but this does not occur for changes in group size. However, in adult cattle, the number of agonistic encounters increases as the group size increases.^[94]

Grazing behavior

When grazing, cattle vary several aspects of their bite, i.e. tongue and jaw movements, depending on characteristics of the plant they are eating. Bite area decreases with the density of the plants but increases with their height. Bite area is determined by the sweep of the tongue; in one study observing 750-kilogram (1,650 lb) steers, bite area reached a maximum of approximately 170 cm² (30 sq in). Bite depth increases with the height of the plants. By adjusting their behavior, cattle obtain heavier bites in swards that are tall and sparse compared with short, dense swards of equal mass/area.^[95] Cattle adjust other aspects of their grazing behavior in relation to the available food; foraging velocity decreases and intake rate increases in areas of abundant palatable forage.^[96]

Cattle avoid grazing areas contaminated by the faeces of other cattle more strongly than they avoid areas contaminated by sheep,^[97] but they do not avoid pasture contaminated by rabbit faeces.^[98]

Temperament and emotions

 

Ear postures of cows are studied as indicators of their emotional state and overall animal welfare.^[99]

In cattle, temperament can affect production traits such as carcass and meat quality or milk yield as well as affecting the animal's overall health and reproduction. Cattle temperament is defined as "the consistent behavioral and physiological difference observed between individuals in response to a stressor or environmental challenge and is used to describe the relatively stable difference in the behavioral predisposition of an animal, which can be related to psychobiological mechanisms".^[100] Generally, cattle temperament is assumed to be multidimensional. Five underlying categories of temperament traits have been proposed:^[101]

• shyness–boldness
• exploration–avoidance
• activity
• aggressiveness
• sociability

In a study on Holstein–Friesian heifers learning to press a panel to open a gate for access to a food reward, the researchers also recorded the heart rate and behavior of the heifers when moving along the race towards the food. When the heifers made clear improvements in learning, they had higher heart rates and tended to move more vigorously along the race. The researchers concluded this was an indication that cattle may react emotionally to their own learning improvement.^[102]

Negative emotional states are associated with a bias toward negative responses towards ambiguous cues in judgement tasks. After separation from their mothers, Holstein calves showed such a cognitive bias indicative of low mood.^[103] A similar study showed that after hot-iron disbudding (dehorning), calves had a similar negative bias indicating that post-operative pain following this routine procedure results in a negative change in emotional state.^[104]

In studies of visual discrimination, the position of the ears has been used as an indicator of emotional state.^[60] When cattle are stressed other cattle can tell by the chemicals released in their urine.^[83]

Cattle are very gregarious and even short-term isolation is considered to cause severe psychological stress. When Aubrac and Friesian heifers are isolated, they increase their vocalizations and experience increased heart rate and plasma cortisol concentrations. These physiological changes are greater in Aubracs. When visual contact is re-instated, vocalizations rapidly decline, regardless of the familiarity of the returning cattle, however, heart rate decreases are greater if the returning cattle are familiar to the previously isolated individual.^[105] Mirrors have been used to reduce stress in isolated cattle.^[106]

Sleep

Further information: Sleep in non-human animals and Cow tipping

The average sleep time of a domestic cow is about 4 hours a day.^[107] Cattle do have a stay apparatus,^[108] but do not sleep standing up;^[109] they lie down to sleep deeply.^[110] In spite of the urban legend, cows cannot be tipped over by people pushing on them.^[111]

Genetics

Further information: Bovine genome

On 24 April 2009, edition of the journal Science, a team of researchers led by the National Institutes of Health and the US Department of Agriculture reported having mapped the bovine genome.^[112] The scientists found cattle have about 22,000 genes, and 80% of their genes are shared with humans, and they share about 1000 genes with dogs and rodents, but are not found in humans^{[clarification needed]}. Using this bovine "HapMap", researchers can track the differences between the breeds that affect the quality of meat and milk yields.^[113]

 

A herd of cows in Punjab.

Behavioral traits of cattle can be as heritable as some production traits, and often, the two can be related.^[114] The heritability of fear varies markedly in cattle from low (0.1) to high (0.53); such high variation is also found in pigs and sheep, probably due to differences in the methods used.^[115] The heritability of temperament (response to isolation during handling) has been calculated as 0.36 and 0.46 for habituation to handling.^[116] Rangeland assessments show that the heritability of aggressiveness in cattle is around 0.36.^[117]

Quantitative trait loci (QTLs) have been found for a range of production and behavioral characteristics for both dairy and beef cattle.^[118]

Domestication and husbandry

 

Texas Longhorns are a US breed.

Cattle occupy a unique role in human history, having been domesticated since at least the early neolithic age.

Archaeozoological and genetic data indicate that cattle were first domesticated from wild aurochs (Bos primigenius) approximately 10,500 years ago. There were two major areas of domestication: one in the Near East (specifically central Anatolia, the Levant and Western Iran), giving rise to the taurine line, and a second in the area that is now Pakistan, resulting in the indicine line.^[119] Modern mitochondrial DNA variation indicates the taurine line may have arisen from as few as 80 aurochs tamed in the upper reaches of Mesopotamia near the villages of Çayönü Tepesi in what is now southeastern Turkey and Dja'de el-Mughara in what is now northern Syria.^[1]

Although European cattle are largely descended from the taurine lineage, gene flow from African cattle (partially of indicine origin) contributed substantial genomic components to both southern European cattle breeds and their New World descendants.^[119] A study on 134 breeds showed that modern taurine cattle originated from Africa, Asia, North and South America, Australia, and Europe.^[120] Some researchers have suggested that African taurine cattle are derived from a third independent domestication from North African aurochsen.^[119]

Usage as money

As early as 9000 BC both grain and cattle were used as money or as barter (the first grain remains found, considered to be evidence of pre-agricultural practice date to 17,000 BC).^{[121][122][123]} Some evidence also exists to suggest that other animals, such as camels and goats, may have been used as currency in some parts of the world.^[124] One of the advantages of using cattle as currency is that it allows the seller to set a fixed price. It even created the standard pricing. For example, two chickens were traded for one cow as cows were deemed to be more valuable than chickens.^[122]

Modern husbandry

Further information: Animal husbandry

 

This Hereford is being inspected for ticks. Cattle are often restrained or confined in cattle crushes (squeeze chutes) when given medical attention.

 

This young bovine has a nose ring to prevent it from suckling, which is usually to assist in weaning.

Cattle are often raised by allowing herds to graze on the grasses of large tracts of rangeland. Raising cattle in this manner allows the use of land that might be unsuitable for growing crops. The most common interactions with cattle involve daily feeding, cleaning and milking. Many routine husbandry practices involve ear tagging, dehorning, loading, medical operations, artificial insemination, vaccinations and hoof care, as well as training for agricultural shows and preparations. Also, some cultural differences occur in working with cattle; the cattle husbandry of Fulani men rests on behavioural techniques, whereas in Europe, cattle are controlled primarily by physical means, such as fences.^[125] Breeders use cattle husbandry to reduce M. bovis infection susceptibility by selective breeding and maintaining herd health to avoid concurrent disease.^[126]

Cattle are farmed for beef, veal, dairy, and leather. They are less commonly used for conservation grazing, or to maintain grassland for wildlife, such as in Epping Forest, England. They are often used in some of the most wild places for livestock. Depending on the breed, cattle can survive on hill grazing, heaths, marshes, moors and semidesert. Modern cattle are more commercial than older breeds and, having become more specialized, are less versatile. For this reason, many smaller farmers still favor old breeds, such as the Jersey dairy breed. In Portugal, Spain, southern France and some Latin American countries, bulls are used in the activity of bullfighting; In many other countries bullfighting is illegal. Other activities such as bull riding are seen as part of a rodeo, especially in North America. Bull-leaping, a central ritual in Bronze Age Minoan culture (see Sacred Bull), still exists in southwestern France. In modern times, cattle are also entered into agricultural competitions. These competitions can involve live cattle or cattle carcases in hoof and hook events.

In terms of food intake by humans, consumption of cattle is less efficient than of grain or vegetables with regard to land use, and hence cattle grazing consumes more area than such other agricultural production when raised on grains.^[127] Nonetheless, cattle and other forms of domesticated animals can sometimes help to use plant resources in areas not easily amenable to other forms of agriculture.

Bulls are sometimes used as guard animals.^[128][129] In occasional cases, cattle are kept as pets, and pet cows often have sweet temperaments, enjoying being petted and "kissing" (licking) their owners.^{[citation needed]}

Feral cattle

Feral cattle are defined as being 'cattle that are not domesticated or cultivated'.^[130] Populations of feral cattle are known to come from and exist in: Australia, United States of America,^[131] Colombia, Argentina, Spain, France and many islands, including New Guinea, Hawaii (see Hawaiian wild cattle), Galapagos, Juan Fernández Islands, Hispaniola (Dominican Republic and Haiti), Tristan da Cunha and Île Amsterdam (see Amsterdam Island cattle),^[7] two islands of Kuchinoshima^[132] and Kazura Island next to Naru Island in Japan.^[133][134] Chillingham cattle is sometimes regarded as a feral breed.^[135] Aleutian wild cattles can be found on the Aleutian Islands.^[136] The "Kinmen cattle" which are dominantly found on Kinmen Island, Taiwan is mostly domesticated while smaller portion of the population is believed to live in the wild due to accidental releases.^[137]

Other notable examples include cattle in the vicinity of Hong Kong (in the Shing Mun Country Park,^[138] among Sai Kung District^[139] and Lantau Island^[140] and on Grass Island^[141]), and semi-feral animals in Yangmingshan, Taiwan.^[142]

Economy

 

Holstein cattle are the primary dairy breed, bred for high milk production.

The meat of adult cattle is known as beef, and that of calves is veal. Other animal parts are also used as food products, including blood, liver, kidney, heart and oxtail. Cattle also produce milk, and dairy cattle are specifically bred to produce the large quantities of milk processed and sold for human consumption. Cattle today are the basis of a multibillion-dollar industry worldwide. The international trade in beef for 2000 was over $30 billion and represented only 23% of world beef production.^[143] Approximately 300 million cattle, including dairy cattle, are slaughtered each year for food.^[144] The production of milk, which is also made into cheese, butter, yogurt, and other dairy products, is comparable in economic size to beef production, and provides an important part of the food supply for many of the world's people. Cattle hides, used for leather to make shoes, couches and clothing, are another widespread product. Cattle remain broadly used as draft animals in many developing countries, such as India. Cattle are also used in some sporting games, including rodeo and bullfighting.

Meat production

Cattle meat production (kt)

Country	2008	2009	2010	2011
Argentina	3132	3378	2630	2497
Australia	2132	2124	2630	2420
Brazil	9024	9395	9115	9030
China	5841	6060	6244	6182
Germany	1199	1190	1205	1170
Japan	520	517	515	500
US	12163	11891	12046	11988

Source: Helgi Library,^[145] World Bank, FAOSTAT

About a quarter of the world's meat comes from cattle.^[146]

Dairy

Main articles: Dairy cattle, Dairy farming, and Dairy

 

Dairy farming and the milking of cattle was once performed largely by hand, but is now usually done by machine.

Certain breeds of cattle, such as the Holstein-Friesian, are used to produce milk,^[147][148] which can be processed into dairy products such as milk, cheese or yogurt. Dairy cattle are usually kept on specialized dairy farms designed for milk production. Most cows are milked twice per day, with milk processed at a dairy, which may be onsite at the farm or the milk may be shipped to a dairy plant for eventual sale of a dairy product.^[149] Lactation is induced in heifers and spayed cows by a combination of physical and psychological stimulation, by drugs, or by a combination of those methods.^[150][151] For mother cows to continue producing milk, they give birth to one calf per year. If the calf is male, it generally is slaughtered at a young age to produce veal.^[152] They will continue to produce milk until three weeks before birth.^[148] Over the last fifty years, dairy farming has become more intensive to increase the yield of milk produced by each cow. The Holstein-Friesian is the breed of dairy cow most common in the UK, Europe and the United States. It has been bred selectively to produce the highest yields of milk of any cow. Around 22 litres per day is average in the UK.^[147][148]

Hides

Most cattle are not kept solely for hides, which are usually a by-product of beef production. Hides are most commonly used for leather, which can be made into a variety of products, including shoes. In 2012 India was the world's largest producer of cattle hides.^[153]

Oxen

Main article: Ox

 

Oxen used in traditional ploughing – Karnataka

Oxen (singular ox) are cattle trained as draft animals. Often they are adult, castrated males of larger breeds, although females and bulls are also used in some areas. Usually, an ox is over four years old due to the need for training and to allow it to grow to full size. Oxen are used for plowing, transport, hauling cargo, grain-grinding by trampling or by powering machines, irrigation by powering pumps, and wagon drawing. Oxen were commonly used to skid logs in forests, and sometimes still are, in low-impact, select-cut logging. Oxen are most often used in teams of two, paired, for light work such as carting, with additional pairs added when more power is required, sometimes up to a total of 20 or more. Oxen can be trained to respond to a teamster's signals. These signals are given by verbal commands or by noise (whip cracks). Verbal commands vary according to dialect and local tradition. Oxen can pull harder and longer than horses. Though not as fast as horses, they are less prone to injury because they are more sure-footed.

Many oxen are used worldwide, especially in developing countries. About 11.3 million draft oxen are used in sub-Saharan Africa.^[154] In India, the number of draft cattle in 1998 was estimated at 65.7 million head.^[155] About half the world's crop production is thought to depend on land preparation (such as plowing) made possible by animal traction.^[156]

Population

The cattle population of Britain rose from 9.8 million in 1878 to 11.7 million in 1908, but beef consumption rose much faster. Britain became the "stud farm of the world" exporting livestock to countries where there were no indigenous cattle. In 1929 80% of the meat trade of the world was products of what were originally English breeds. There were nearly 70 million cattle in the US by the early 1930s.^[157]

For 2013, the FAO estimated global cattle numbers at 1.47 billion.^[158] Regionally, the FAO estimate for 2013 includes: Asia 497 million; South America 350 million; Africa 307 million; Europe 122 million; North America 102 million; Central America 47 million; Oceania 40 million; and Caribbean 9 million.

As per FAS/USDA 2021 data, India had the largest cattle population in the world in 2021 followed by Brazil and China^[159]

India's cattle's population was reported at 305.5 million head in 2021, accounting for roughly 30% of the world's population. India, Brazil and China accounted for roughly 65% of the world's cattle population in 2021.

It has been estimated that out of all animal species on Earth, Bos taurus has the largest biomass at roughly 400 million tonnes, followed closely by Euphausia superba (Antarctic krill) at 379 million tonnes, and Homo sapiens (humans) at 373 million tonnes.^[160]

Cattle population

Region	2009^[2]	2013^[2]	2016^[2]	2018^[2]	2021^[159]
India	195,815,000	194,655,285	185,987,136	184,464,035	305,500,000
Brazil	205,308,000	186,646,205	218,225,177	213,523,056	252,700,000
United States	94,721,000	96,956,461	91,918,000	94,298,000	93,595,000
European Union	90,685,000	88,001,000	90,057,000	78,566,328	85,545,000
China	82,625,000	102,668,900	84,523,418	63,417,928	95,620,000
Ethiopia	50,884,004	55,027,080	59,486,667	62,599,736	NA
Argentina	54,464,000	52,509,049	52,636,778	53,928,990	53,831,000
Pakistan	33,029,000	26,007,848	42,800,000	46,084,000	NA
Mexico	32,307,000	31,222,196	33,918,906	34,820,271	17,000,000
Australia	27,907,000	27,249,291	24,971,349	26,395,734	23,217,000
Bangladesh	22,976,000	22,844,190	23,785,000	24,086,000	NA
Russia	21,038,000	28,685,315	18,991,955	18,294,228	17,953,000
South Africa	13,761,000	13,526,296	13,400,272	12,789,515	NA
Canada	13,030,000	13,287,866	12,035,000	11,565,000	11,150,000
Others	523,776,000	554,786,000	624,438,000	643,624,689	NA

Environmental impact

See also: Environmental effects of meat production and Milk § Environmental impact

Gut flora in cattle include methanogens that produce methane as a byproduct of enteric fermentation, which cattle belch out. The same volume of atmospheric methane has a 72x higher (over 20 years)^[161] global warming potential than atmospheric carbon dioxide.^[162][163] Methane belching from cattle can be reduced with genetic selection, immunization against the many methanogens, rumen defaunation (killing the bacteria-killing protozoa),^[164] diet modification (e.g. seaweed fortification),^[165] decreased antibiotic use,^[166] and grazing management, among others.^{[167][168][169]}

A 2013 report from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) based on 2005 data states that the livestock sector is responsible for 14.5% of greenhouse gas emissions, 65% of which is due to cattle.^[3] The IPCC estimates that cattle and other livestock emit about 80 to 93 Megatonnes of methane per year,^[170] accounting for an estimated 37% of anthropogenic methane emissions,^[171] and additional methane is produced by anaerobic fermentation of manure in manure lagoons and other manure storage structures.^[172] Another estimate is 12% of global GHG.^[4] While cattle fed forage actually produce more methane than grain-fed cattle, the increase may be offset by the increased carbon recapture of pastures, which recapture three times the CO₂ of cropland used for grain.^[173]

Mean greenhouse gas emissions for different food types^[174]

Food Types	Greenhouse Gas Emissions (g CO2-Ceq per gram protein)
Ruminant Meat	62
Recirculating Aquaculture	30
Trawling Fishery	26
Non-recirculating Aquaculture	12
Pork	10
Poultry	10
Dairy	9.1
Non-trawling Fishery	8.6
Eggs	6.8
Starchy Roots	1.7
Wheat	1.2
Maize	1.2
Legumes	0.25

Mean land use of different foods^[175]

Food Types	Land Use (m^2·year per 100 g protein)
Lamb and Mutton	185
Beef	164
Cheese	41
Pork	11
Poultry	7.1
Eggs	5.7
Farmed Fish	3.7
Groundnuts	3.5
Peas	3.4
Tofu	2.2

One of the cited changes suggested to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is intensification of the livestock industry,^{[citation needed]} since intensification leads to less land for a given level of production. This assertion is supported by studies of the US beef production system, suggesting practices prevailing in 2007 involved 8.6% less fossil fuel use, 16.3% less greenhouse gas emissions, 12.1% less water use, and 33.0% less land use, per unit mass of beef produced, than those used in 1977.^[176] The analysis took into account not only practices in feedlots, but also feed production (with less feed needed in more intensive production systems), forage-based cow-calf operations and back-grounding before cattle enter a feedlot (with more beef produced per head of cattle from those sources, in more intensive systems), and beef from animals derived from the dairy industry. A more controversial suggestion, advocated by George Monbiot in the documentary "Apocalypse Cow", is to stop farming cattle completely, however farmers often have political power so might be able to resist such a big change.^[177]

Estimated virtual water requirements for various foods (m³ water/ton)^[178]

	Hoekstra & Hung (2003)	Chapagain & Hoekstra (2003)	Zimmer & Renault (2003)	Oki et al. (2003)	Average
Beef		15,977	13,500	20,700	16,730
Pork		5,906	4,600	5,900	5,470
Cheese		5,288			5,290
Poultry		2,828	4,100	4,500	3,810
Eggs		4,657	2,700	3,200	3,520
Rice	2,656		1,400	3,600	2,550
Soybeans	2,300		2,750	2,500	2,520
Wheat	1,150		1,160	2,000	1,440
Maize	450		710	1,900	1,020
Milk		865	790	560	740
Potatoes	160		105		130

Significant numbers of dairy, as well as beef cattle, are confined in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), defined as "new and existing operations which stable or confine and feed or maintain for a total of 45 days or more in any 12-month period more than the number of animals specified"^[179] where "[c]rops, vegetation, forage growth, or post-harvest residues are not sustained in the normal growing season over any portion of the lot or facility."^[180] They may be designated as small, medium and large. Such designation of cattle CAFOs is according to cattle type (mature dairy cows, veal calves or other) and cattle numbers, but medium CAFOs are so designated only if they meet certain discharge criteria, and small CAFOs are designated only on a case-by-case basis.^[181]

Mean eutrophying emissions (water pollution) of different foods per 100 g of protein^[175]

Food Types	Eutrophying Emissions (g PO4^3-eq per 100 g protein)
Beef	365.3
Farmed Fish	235.1
Farmed Crustaceans	227.2
Cheese	98.4
Lamb and Mutton	97.1
Pork	76.4
Poultry	48.7
Eggs	21.8
Groundnuts	14.1
Peas	7.5
Tofu	6.2

Mean acidifying emissions (air pollution) of different foods per 100 g of protein^[175]

Food Types	Acidifying Emissions (g SO2eq per 100 g protein)
Beef	343.6
Cheese	165.5
Pork	142.7
Lamb and Mutton	139.0
Farmed Crustaceans	133.1
Poultry	102.4
Farmed Fish	65.9
Eggs	53.7
Groundnuts	22.6
Peas	8.5
Tofu	6.7

A CAFO that discharges pollutants is required to obtain a permit, which requires a plan to manage nutrient runoff, manure, chemicals, contaminants, and other wastewater pursuant to the US Clean Water Act.^[182] The regulations involving CAFO permitting have been extensively litigated.^[183]

Commonly, CAFO wastewater and manure nutrients are applied to land at agronomic rates for use by forages or crops, and it is often assumed that various constituents of wastewater and manure, e.g. organic contaminants and pathogens, will be retained, inactivated or degraded on the land with application at such rates; however, additional evidence is needed to test reliability of such assumptions .^[184] Concerns raised by opponents of CAFOs have included risks of contaminated water due to feedlot runoff,^[185] soil erosion, human and animal exposure to toxic chemicals, development of antibiotic resistant bacteria and an increase in E. coli contamination.^[186] While research suggests some of these impacts can be mitigated by developing wastewater treatment systems^[185] and planting cover crops in larger setback zones,^[187] the Union of Concerned Scientists released a report in 2008 concluding that CAFOs are generally unsustainable and externalize costs.^[173]

Another concern is manure, which if not well-managed, can lead to adverse environmental consequences. However, manure also is a valuable source of nutrients and organic matter when used as a fertilizer.^[188] Manure was used as a fertilizer on about 6,400,000 hectares (15.8 million acres) of US cropland in 2006, with manure from cattle accounting for nearly 70% of manure applications to soybeans and about 80% or more of manure applications to corn, wheat, barley, oats and sorghum.^[189] Substitution of manure for synthetic fertilizers in crop production can be environmentally significant, as between 43 and 88 megajoules of fossil fuel energy would be used per kg of nitrogen in manufacture of synthetic nitrogenous fertilizers.^[190]

Grazing by cattle at low intensities can create a favourable environment for native herbs and forbs by mimicking the native grazers who they displaced; in many world regions, though, cattle are reducing biodiversity due to overgrazing.^[191] A survey of refuge managers on 123 National Wildlife Refuges in the US tallied 86 species of wildlife considered positively affected and 82 considered negatively affected by refuge cattle grazing or haying.^[192] Proper management of pastures, notably managed intensive rotational grazing and grazing at low intensities can lead to less use of fossil fuel energy, increased recapture of carbon dioxide, fewer ammonia emissions into the atmosphere, reduced soil erosion, better air quality, and less water pollution.^[173]

Health

The veterinary discipline dealing with cattle and cattle diseases (bovine veterinary) is called buiatrics.^[193] Veterinarians and professionals working on cattle health issues are pooled in the World Association for Buiatrics, founded in 1960.^[194] National associations and affiliates also exist.^[195]

Digital dermatitis is caused by the bacteria from the genus Treponema. It differs from foot rot and can appear under unsanitary conditions such as poor hygiene or inadequate hoof trimming, among other causes. It primarily affects dairy cattle and has been known to lower the quantity of milk produced, however the milk quality remains unaffected. Cattle are also susceptible to ringworm caused by the fungus, Trichophyton verrucosum, a contagious skin disease which may be transferred to humans exposed to infected cows.^[196]

Public health

Cattle diseases were in the center of attention in the 1980s and 1990s when the Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), also known as mad cow disease, was of concern. Cattle might catch and develop various other diseases, like blackleg, bluetongue, foot rot too.^{[197][198][199]}

In most states, as cattle health is not only a veterinarian issue, but also a public health issue, public health and food safety standards and farming regulations directly affect the daily work of farmers who keep cattle.^[200] However, said rules change frequently and are often debated. For instance, in the UK, it was proposed in 2011 that milk from tuberculosis-infected cattle should be allowed to enter the food chain.^[201] Internal food safety regulations might affect a country's trade policy as well. For example, the United States has just reviewed its beef import rules according to the "mad cow standards"; while Mexico forbids the entry of cattle who are older than 30 months.^[202]

Medicinal uses

Cow urine is commonly used in India for internal medical purposes.^[203][204] It is distilled and then consumed by patients seeking treatment for a wide variety of illnesses.^[205] At present, no conclusive medical evidence shows this has any effect.^[206] However, an Indian medicine containing cow urine has already obtained U.S. patents.^[207]

Effect of high stocking density

Stocking density refers to the number of animals within a specified area. When stocking density reaches high levels, the behavioural needs of the animals may not be met. This can negatively influence health, welfare and production performance.^[208]

The effect of overstocking in cows can have a negative effect on milk production and reproduction rates which are two very important traits for dairy farmers. Overcrowding of cows in barns has been found to reduced feeding, resting and rumination.^[208] Although they consume the same amount of dry matter within the span of a day, they consume the food at a much more rapid rate, and this behaviour in cows can lead to further complications.^[209] The feeding behaviour of cows during their post-milking period is very important as it has been proven that the longer animals can eat after milking, the longer they will be standing up and therefore causing less contamination to the teat ends.^[210] This is necessary to reduce the risk of mastitis as infection has been shown to increase the chances of embryonic loss.^[211] Sufficient rest is important for dairy cows because it is during this period that their resting blood flow increases up to 50%, this is directly proportionate to milk production.^[210] Each additional hour of rest can be seen to translate to 2 to 3.5 more pounds of milk per cow daily. Stocking densities of anything over 120% have been shown to decrease the amount of time cows spend lying down.^[212]

Cortisol is an important stress hormone; its plasma concentrations increase greatly when subjected to high levels of stress.^[213] Increased concentration levels of cortisol have been associated with significant increases in gonadotrophin levels and lowered progestin levels. Reduction of stress is important in the reproductive state of cows as an increase in gonadotrophin and lowered progesterone levels may impinge on the ovulatory and lutenization process and to reduce the chances of successful implantation.^[214] A high cortisol level will also stimulate the degradation of fats and proteins which may make it difficult for the animal to sustain its pregnancy if implanted successfully.^[213]

Animal welfare concerns

Further information: Cruelty to animals § Welfare concerns of farm animals

Animal rights activists have criticized the treatment of cattle, claiming that common practices in cattle husbandry, slaughter and entertainment unnecessarily cause fear, stress, and pain. They advocate for abstaining from the consumption of cattle-related animal products and cattle-based entertainment.

Livestock industry

The following husbandry practices have been criticized by animal welfare and animal rights groups:^[215] branding,^[216] castration,^[217] dehorning,^{[218][failed verification]} ear tagging,^[219] nose ringing,^[220] restraint,^[221] tail docking,^[222] the use of veal crates,^[223] and cattle prods.^[224] There are concerns that the stress and negative health impacts induced by high stocking density such as in concentrated animal feeding operations or feedlots, auctions, and during transport may be detrimental to their welfare,^[225][226] and has also been criticized.^[227]

The treatment of dairy cows faces additional criticism. To produce milk from dairy cattle, most calves are separated from their mothers soon after birth and fed milk replacement in order to retain the cows' milk for human consumption.^[228] Animal welfare advocates are critical of this practice, stating that this breaks the natural bond between the mother and her calf.^[228] The welfare of veal calves is also a concern.^[228] In order to continue lactation, dairy cows are bred every year, usually through artificial insemination.^[228] Because of this, some individuals have posited that dairy production is based on the sexual exploitation of cows.^[229] Although the natural life expectancy of cattle could be as much as twenty years,^[230] after about five years, a cow's milk production has dropped; at which point most dairy cows are sent to slaughter.^[231][232]

Leather

While leather is often a by-product of slaughter, in some countries, such as India and Bangladesh, cows are raised primarily for their leather. These leather industries often make their cows walk long distances across borders to be killed in neighboring provinces and countries where cattle slaughter is legal. Some cows die along the long journey, and sometimes exhausted animals are abused to keep them moving.^[233] These practices have faced backlash from various animal rights groups.^[234]

Sport

Animal treatment in rodeo is targeted most often at bull riding but also calf roping and steer roping, with the opposition saying that rodeos are unnecessary and cause stress, injury, and death to the animals.^[235] In Spain, the Running of the bulls faces opposition due to the stress and injuries incurred by the bulls during the event.^[236][237] Bullfighting is opposed as a blood sport in which bulls are forced to suffer severe stress and death.^[238]

Religion, traditions and folklore

Main article: Cattle in religion

Islamic traditions

Further information: Animals in Islam

The cow is mentioned often in the Quran. The second and longest surah of the Quran is named Al-Baqara ("The Cow"). Out of the 286 verses of the surah, seven mention cows (Al Baqarah 67–73).^[239][240] The name of the surah derives from this passage in which Moses orders his people to sacrifice a cow in order to resurrect a man murdered by an unknown person.^[241]

Hindu traditions

Veneration of the cow has become a symbol of the identity of Hindus as a community,^[242]: 20 especially since the end of the 19th century. Slaughter of cows (including oxen, bulls and calves) is forbidden by law in several states of the Indian Union. McDonald's outlets in India do not serve any beef burgers. In Maharaja Ranjit Singh's empire of the early 19th century, the killing of a cow was punishable by death.^[243]

Other traditions

 

Legend of the founding of Durham Cathedral is that monks carrying the body of Saint Cuthbert were led to the location by a milk maid who had lost her dun cow, which was found resting on the spot.

 

An idealized depiction of girl cow herders in 19th-century Norway by Knud Bergslien

• The Evangelist St. Luke is depicted as an ox in Christian art.
• In Judaism, as described in Numbers 19:2,^[244] the ashes of a sacrificed unblemished red heifer that has never been yoked can be used for ritual purification of people who came into contact with a corpse.
• The ox is one of the 12-year cycle of animals which appear in the Chinese zodiac related to the Chinese calendar. See: Ox (Zodiac).
• The constellation Taurus represents a bull.
• An apocryphal story has it that a cow started the Great Chicago Fire by kicking over a kerosene lamp. Michael Ahern, the reporter who created the cow story, admitted in 1893 that he had fabricated it for more colorful copy.
• On 18 February 1930, Elm Farm Ollie became the first cow to fly in an airplane and also the first cow to be milked in an airplane.
• The first known law requiring branding in North America was enacted on 5 February 1644, by Connecticut. It said that all cattle and pigs had to have a registered brand or earmark by 1 May 1644.^[245]
• The akabeko (赤べこ, red cow) is a traditional toy from the Aizu region of Japan that is thought to ward off illness.^[246]
• The case of Sherwood v. Walker—involving a supposedly barren heifer that was actually pregnant—first enunciated the concept of mutual mistake as a means of destroying the meeting of the minds in contract law.^{[citation needed]}
• The Fulani of West Africa are the world's largest nomadic cattle-herders.
• The Maasai tribe of East Africa traditionally believe their god Engai entitled them to divine rights to the ownership of all cattle on earth.^[247]

In heraldry

Cattle are typically represented in heraldry by the bull.

•  

  Arms of the Azores

•  

  Arms of Mecklenburg region, Germany

•  

  Arms of Turin, Italy

•  

  Arms of Kaunas, Lithuania

•  

  Arms of Šiauliai, Lithuania

•  

  Arms of Bielsk Podlaski, Poland

•  

  Arms of Ciołek, Poland

•  

  Arms of Turek, Poland

•  

  Arms of Béarn

See also

•  Agriculture and Agronomy portal
•  Animals portal

• 1966 anti-cow slaughter agitation
• Category:Individual cattle
• British Cattle Health Initiative
• Bull-baiting
• Bullocky
• Bulls and Cows (game)
• Cattle age determination
• Cowboy
• Intensive animal farming
• List of cattle breeds
• List of domesticated animals

References

1. Bollongino, R.; Burger, J.; Powell, A.; Mashkour, M.; Vigne, J.-D.; Thomas, M. G. (2012). "Modern taurine cattle descended from small number of Near-Eastern founders". Molecular Biology and Evolution. 29 (9): 2101–2104. doi:10.1093/molbev/mss092. PMID 22422765. Op. cit. in Wilkins, Alasdair (28 March 2012). "DNA reveals that cows were almost impossible to domesticate". io9. from the original on 12 May 2012. Retrieved 2 April 2012.
2. "Live Animals". FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. from the original on 31 August 2020. Retrieved 31 August 2020.
3. "FAO – News Article: Key facts and findings". www.fao.org. Retrieved 4 June 2021.
4. "Treating beef like coal would make a big dent in greenhouse-gas emissions". The Economist. 2 October 2021. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 3 November 2021.
5. Brown, David (23 April 2009). "Scientists Unravel Genome of the Cow". The Washington Post. from the original on 28 June 2011. Retrieved 23 April 2009.
6. Ajmone-Marsan, Paolo; Garcia, J.F; Lenstra, Johannes (January 2010). "On the origin of cattle: How aurochs became domestic and colonized the world". Evolutionary Anthropology. 19: 148–157. doi:10.1002/evan.20267. S2CID 86035650. from the original on 4 December 2017. Retrieved 3 December 2017.
7. Grubb, P. (2005). "Bos taurus". In Wilson, D.E.; Reeder, D.M (eds.). Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 637–722. ISBN 978-0-8018-8221-0. OCLC 62265494.
8. "Explore the Database". www.mammaldiversity.org. Retrieved 21 August 2021.
9. Gentry, Anthea; Clutton-Brock, Juliet; Groves, Colin P. (1 May 2004). "The naming of wild animal species and their domestic derivatives". Journal of Archaeological Science. 31 (5): 645–651. Bibcode:2004JArSc..31..645G. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2003.10.006. ISSN 0305-4403.
10. Mummolo, Jonathan (11 August 2007). . The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Archived from the original on 1 July 2017. Retrieved 10 March 2023.
11. Groves, C. P., 1981. Systematic relationships in the Bovini (Artiodactyla, Bovidae). Zeitschrift für Zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung, 4:264–278., quoted in Grubb, P. (2005). "Genus Bison". In Wilson, D.E.; Reeder, D.M (eds.). Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 637–722. ISBN 978-0-8018-8221-0. OCLC 62265494.
12. Takeda, Kumiko; et al. (April 2004). "Mitochondrial DNA analysis of Nepalese domestic dwarf cattle Lulu". Animal Science Journal. 75 (2): 103–110. doi:10.1111/j.1740-0929.2004.00163.x.
13. Van Vuure, C.T. 2003. De Oeros – Het spoor terug (in Dutch), Cis van Vuure, Wageningen University and Research Centrum: quoted by The Extinction Website: Bos primigenius primigenius. 20 April 2009 at the Wayback Machine
14. Meghen, C.; MacHugh, D.E.; Bradley, D.G. "Genetic characterization and West African cattle". fao.org. from the original on 26 February 2019. Retrieved 20 September 2021.
15. Harper, Douglas. "cattle". Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
16. "cattle, n.". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. September 2014. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.)
17. Harper, Douglas. "chattel". Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
18. Harper, Douglas. "capital". Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
19. "cow, n.1.". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. September 2014. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.)
20. . experiencefestival.com. Archived from the original on 1 April 2008.
21. "Definition of heifer". Merriam-Webster. from the original on 22 August 2007. Retrieved 29 November 2006.
22. Delbridge, Arthur, The Macquarie Dictionary, 2nd ed., Macquarie Library, North Ryde, 1991
23. McIntosh, E., The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, Clarendon Press, 1967
24. Warren, Andrea. (PDF). Lexile. Archived from the original (PDF) on 5 February 2004. Retrieved 29 November 2006.
25. Delbridge, A, et al., Macquarie Dictionary, The Book Printer, Australia, 1991
26. Coupe, Sheena (ed.), Frontier Country, Vol. 1, Weldon Russell Publishing, Willoughby, 1989, ISBN 1-875202-01-3
27. Meat & Livestock Australia, Feedback, June/July 2008
28. "Sure Ways to Lose Money on Your Cattle". Spiritwoodstockyards.ca. from the original on 16 January 2014. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
29. FAQs: What is meant by springer cows and heifers? 7 July 2010 at the Wayback Machine, Dr. Rick Rasby, Professor of Animal Science, University of Nebraska – Lincoln, 6 September 2005. Retrieved: 12 August 2010.
30. Roberts, Gareth (5 January 2015). . The Mirror. Archived from the original on 7 November 2016. Retrieved 10 March 2023.
31. "Cattle (5, 6)". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.)
32. "Ox (1, 2)". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.)
33. "Merriam Webster Online". Merriam-webster.com. 31 August 2012. from the original on 15 October 2013. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
34. . Oxford Dictionaries. Archived from the original on 20 October 2017. Retrieved 12 September 2018.
35. ""Critter," definition 2". Thefreedictionary.com. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
36. Beales, Terry (1999). (PDF). Texas Animal Health Commission News Release. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 June 2008. Retrieved 28 June 2008.
37. . Archived from the original on 26 March 2015. Retrieved 5 May 2015.
38. Richard M. Hopper (18 August 2014). Bovine Reproduction. Wiley. ISBN 978-1-118-47085-5.
39. (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 16 November 2012. Retrieved 6 August 2012.
40. "A P Carter, P D P Wood and Penelope A Wright (1980), Association between scrotal circumference, live weight and sperm output in cattle, Journal of Reproductive Fertility, 59, pp. 447–451" (PDF). Retrieved 6 August 2012.^{[permanent dead link]}
41. Sarkar, A. (2003). Sexual Behaviour In Animals. Discovery Publishing House. ISBN 978-81-7141-746-9.
42. William O. Reece (2009). Functional Anatomy and Physiology of Domestic Animals. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-8138-1451-3.
43. James R. Gillespie; Frank Flanders (2009). Modern Livestock & Poultry Production. Cengage Learning. ISBN 978-1-4283-1808-3.
44. Roche, J.R.; Lee, J.M.; Berry, D.P. (2006). "Pre-Conception Energy Balance and Secondary Sex Ratio—Partial Support for the Trivers-Willard Hypothesis in Dairy Cows". Journal of Dairy Science. American Dairy Science Association. 89 (6): 2119–2125. doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(06)72282-2. ISSN 0022-0302. PMID 16702278.
45. Hasheider, Phillip (25 June 2011). The Family Cow Handbook. ISBN 978-0-7603-4067-7.
46. (PDF). UVM. 6 May 2015. Archived from the original (PDF) on 18 May 2015.
47. "Hereford cattle weight". from the original on 24 January 2015.
48. Friend, John B., Cattle of the World, Blandford Press, Dorset, 1978
49. McWhirter, Norris & Ross, Guinness Book of Records, Redwood Press, Trowbridge, 1968
50. Kenneth H. Mathews – 1999 – U.S. Beef Industry: Cattle Cycles, Price Spreads, and Packer concentration. Page 6
51. American Economic Growth and Standards of Living before the Civil War, Robert E. Gallman, John Joseph Wallis. 2007 p. 248
52. "Cattle increasing in size". Beef Magazine. February 2009. from the original on 3 May 2015. Retrieved 5 May 2015.
53. Bailey, D.W.; Rittenhouse, L.R.; Hart, R.H.; Richards, R.W (1989). "Characteristics of spatial memory in cattle". Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 23 (4): 331–340. doi:10.1016/0168-1591(89)90101-9.
54. Kovalčik, K.; Kovalčik, M. (1986). "Learning ability and memory testing in cattle of different ages". Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 15 (1): 27–29. doi:10.1016/0168-1591(86)90019-5.
55. Mendl, M.; Nicol, C.J. (2009). "Chapter 5: Learning and cognition". In Jensen, P. (ed.). The Ethology of Domestic Animals: An Introductory Text. CABI. pp. 61–63.
56. Ksiksi, T.; Laca, E.A. (2002). "Cattle do remember locations of preferred food over extended periods". Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences. 15 (6): 900–904. doi:10.5713/ajas.2002.900.
57. Hirata, M.; Takeno, N. (2014). "Do cattle (Bos taurus) retain an association of a visual cue with a food reward for a year?". Animal Science Journal. 85 (6): 729–734. doi:10.1111/asj.12210. PMID 24798642.
58. Schaeffer, R.G.; Sikes, J.D. (1971). "Discrimination learning in dairy calves". Journal of Dairy Science. 54 (6): 893–896. doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(71)85937-4. PMID 5141440.
59. Kilgour, R. (1981). "Use of the Hebb–Williams closed-field test to study the learning ability of Jersey cows". Animal Behaviour. 29 (3): 850–860. doi:10.1016/s0003-3472(81)80020-6. S2CID 53153428.
60. Coulon, M.; Baudoin, C.; Heyman, Y.; Deputte, B.L. (2011). "Cattle discriminate between familiar and unfamiliar conspecifics by using only head visual cues". Animal Cognition. 14 (2): 279–290. doi:10.1007/s10071-010-0361-6. PMID 21132446. S2CID 39755371.
61. de Passille, A.M.; Rushen, J.; Ladewig, J.; Petherick, C. (1996). "Dairy calves' discrimination of people based on previous handling". Journal of Animal Science. 74 (5): 969–974. doi:10.2527/1996.745969x. PMID 8726728.
62. Mendl, M.; Nicol, C.J. (2009). "Chapter 5: Learning and cognition". In Jensen, P. (ed.). The Ethology of Domestic Animals: An Introductory Text. CABI. p. 144.
63. Barfield, C.H.; Tang‐Martinez, Z.; Trainer, J.M. (1994). "Domestic calves (Bos taurus) recognize their own mothers by auditory cues". Ethology. 97 (4): 257–264. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.1994.tb01045.x.
64. Coulon, M.; Deputte, B.L.; Heyman, Y.; Delatouche, L.; Richard, C.; Baudoin, C. (2007). 14 èmes Recontres autour des recherches sur les ruminants, Paris, les 5 et 6 Décembre 2007. Social cognition and welfare in cattle: capacities of visual species discrimination (in French). Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA). pp. 297–300.
65. Coulon, M.; Baudoin, C.; Abdi, H.; Heyman, Y.; Deputte, B.L. (2010). "Social behavior and kin discrimination in a mixed group of cloned and non cloned heifers (Bos taurus)". Theriogenology. 74 (9): 1596–1603. doi:10.1016/j.theriogenology.2010.06.031. PMID 20708240.
66. Hagen, K.; Broom, D.M. (2003). "Cattle discriminate between individual familiar herd members in a learning experiment". Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 82 (1): 13–28. doi:10.1016/s0168-1591(03)00053-4.
67. Coulon, M.; Deputte, B.L.; Heyman, Y.; Baudoin, C. (2009). "Individual recognition in domestic cattle (Bos taurus): evidence from 2D-images of heads from different breeds". PLOS ONE. 4 (2): 4441. Bibcode:2009PLoSO...4.4441C. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004441. PMC 2636880. PMID 19212439.
68. Phillips, C.J.C.; Oevermans, H.; Syrett, K.L.; Jespersen, A.Y.; Pearce, G.P. (2015). "Lateralization of behavior in dairy cows in response to conspecifics and novel persons". Journal of Dairy Science. 98 (4): 2389–2400. doi:10.3168/jds.2014-8648. PMID 25648820.
69. Robins, A.; Phillips, C. (2010). "Lateralised visual processing in domestic cattle herds responding to novel and familiar stimuli". Laterality. 15 (5): 514–534. doi:10.1080/13576500903049324. PMID 19629847. S2CID 13283847.
70. Rutter, S.M. (2006). "Diet preference for grass and legumes in free-ranging domestic sheep and cattle: current theory and future application". Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 97 (1): 17–35. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2005.11.016.
71. Adamczyk, K.; Górecka-Bruzda, A.; Nowicki, J.; Gumułka, M.; Molik, E.; Schwarz, T.; Klocek, C. (2015). "Perception of environment in farm animals – A review". Annals of Animal Science. 15 (3): 565–589. doi:10.1515/aoas-2015-0031.
72. Phillips, C. (2008). Cattle Behaviour and Welfare. John Wiley and Sons.
73. Jacobs, G.H.; Deegan, J.F.; Neitz, J. (1998). "Photopigment basis for dichromatic color vision in cows, goats and sheep". Vis. Neurosci. 15 (3): 581–584. doi:10.1017/s0952523898153154. PMID 9685209. S2CID 3719972.
74. Phillips, C.J.C.; Lomas, C.A. (2001). "Perception of color by cattle and its influence on behavior". Journal of Dairy Science. 84 (4): 807–813. doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(01)74537-7. PMID 11352156.
75. Phillips, C.J.C.; Lomas, C.A. (2001). "The perception of color by cattle and its influence on behavior". Journal of Dairy Science. 84 (4): 807–813. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(01)74537-7. PMID 11352156.
76. "Why Do Bulls Charge When they See Red?". Live Science. 6 February 2012. from the original on 18 May 2015.
77. Bell, F.R.; Sly, J. (1983). "The olfactory detection of sodium and lithium salts by sodium deficient cattle". Physiology and Behavior. 31 (3): 307–312. doi:10.1016/0031-9384(83)90193-2. PMID 6634998. S2CID 34619742.
78. Bell, F. R. (1984). "Aspects of ingestive behavior in cattle". Journal of Animal Science. 59 (5): 1369–1372. doi:10.2527/jas1984.5951369x. PMID 6392276.
79. Heffner, R.S.; Heffner, H.E. (1983). "Hearing in large mammals: Horses (Equus caballus) and cattle (Bos taurus)". Behavioral Neuroscience. 97 (2): 299–309. doi:10.1037/0735-7044.97.2.299.
80. Heffner, R.S.; Heffner, H.E. (1992). "Hearing in large mammals: sound-localization acuity in cattle (Bos taurus) and goats (Capra hircus)". Journal of Comparative Psychology. 106 (2): 107–113. doi:10.1037/0735-7036.106.2.107. PMID 1600717.
81. Watts, J.M.; Stookey, J.M. (2000). "Vocal behaviour in cattle: the animal's commentary on its biological processes and welfare". Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 67 (1): 15–33. doi:10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00108-2. PMID 10719186.
82. Bouissou, M.F.; Boissy, A.; Le Niendre, P.; Vessier, I. (2001). "The Social Behaviour of Cattle 5.". In Keeling, L.; Gonyou, H. (eds.). Social Behavior in Farm Animals. CABI Publishing. pp. 113–133.
83. Boissy, A.; Terlouw, C.; Le Neindre, P. (1998). "Presence of cues from stressed conspecifics increases reactivity to aversive events in cattle: evidence for the existence of alarm substances in urine". Physiology and Behavior. 63 (4): 489–495. doi:10.1016/s0031-9384(97)00466-6. PMID 9523888. S2CID 36904002.
84. Terlouw, E.C.; Boissy, A.; Blinet, P. (1998). "Behavioural responses of cattle to the odours of blood and urine from conspecifics and to the odour of faeces from carnivores". Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 57 (1): 9–21. doi:10.1016/s0168-1591(97)00122-6.
85. Begall, S.; Cerveny, J.; Neef, J.; Vojtech, O.; Burda, H. (2008). "Magnetic alignment in grazing and resting cattle and deer". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105 (36): 13451–13455. Bibcode:2008PNAS..10513451B. doi:10.1073/pnas.0803650105. PMC 2533210. PMID 18725629.
86. Burda, H.; Begalla, S.; Červený, J.; Neefa, J.; Němecd, P. (2009). "Extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields disrupt magnetic alignment of ruminants". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 106 (14): 5708–5713. Bibcode:2009PNAS..106.5708B. doi:10.1073/pnas.0811194106. PMC 2667019. PMID 19299504.
87. Hert, J; Jelinek, L; Pekarek, L; Pavlicek, A (2011). "No alignment of cattle along geomagnetic field lines found". Journal of Comparative Physiology. 197 (6): 677–682. arXiv:1101.5263. Bibcode:2011arXiv1101.5263H. doi:10.1007/s00359-011-0628-7. PMID 21318402. S2CID 15520857.
88. Johnsen, J.F.; Ellingsen, K.; Grøndahl, A.M.; Bøe, K.E.; Lidfors, L.; Mejdell, C.M. (2015). "The effect of physical contact between dairy cows and calves during separation on their post-separation behavioural". Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 166: 11–19. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2015.03.002. (PDF) from the original on 7 July 2017.
89. Edwards, S.A.; Broom, D.M. (1982). "Behavioural interactions of dairy cows with their newborn calves and the effects of parity". Animal Behaviour. 30 (2): 525–535. doi:10.1016/s0003-3472(82)80065-1. S2CID 53145854.
90. Odde, K. G.; Kiracofe, G.H.; Schalles, R.R. (1985). "Suckling behavior in range beef calves". Journal of Animal Science. 61 (2): 307–309. doi:10.2527/jas1985.612307x. PMID 4044428.
91. Reinhardt, C.; Reinhardt, A.; Reinhardt, V. (1986). "Social behaviour and reproductive performance in semi-wild Scottish Highland cattle". Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 15 (2): 125–136. doi:10.1016/0168-1591(86)90058-4.
92. "Signs of Heat (Heat Detection and Timing of Insemination for Cattle)". Heat Detection and Timing of Insemination for Cattle (Penn State Extension). from the original on 5 November 2016.
93. Knierim, U.; Irrgang, N.; Roth, B.A. (2015). "To be or not to be horned–consequences in cattle". Livestock Science. 179: 29–37. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2015.05.014.
94. Kondo, S.; Sekine, J.; Okubo, M.; Asahida, Y. (1989). "The effect of group size and space allowance on the agonistic and spacing behavior of cattle". Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 24 (2): 127–135. doi:10.1016/0168-1591(89)90040-3.
95. Laca, E.A.; Ungar, E.D.; Seligman, N.; Demment, M.W. (1992). "Effects of sward height and bulk density on bite dimensions of cattle grazing homogeneous swards". Grass and Forage Science. 47 (1): 91–102. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2494.1992.tb02251.x.
96. Bailey, D.W.; Gross, J.E.; Laca, E.A.; Rittenhouse, L.R.; Coughenour, M.B.; Swift, D.M.; Sims, P.L. (1996). "Mechanisms that result in large herbivore grazing distribution patterns". Journal of Range Management. 49 (5): 386–400. doi:10.2307/4002919. hdl:10150/644282. JSTOR 4002919.
97. Forbes, T.D.A.; Hodgson, J. (1985). "The reaction of grazing sheep and cattle to the presence of dung from the same or the other species". Grass and Forage Science. 40 (2): 177–182. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2494.1985.tb01735.x.
98. Daniels, M.J.; Ball, N.; Hutchings, M.R.; Greig, A. (2001). "The grazing response of cattle to pasture contaminated with rabbit faeces and the implications for the transmission of paratuberculosis". The Veterinary Journal. 161 (3): 306–313. doi:10.1053/tvjl.2000.0550. PMID 11352488.
99. Proctor, Helen S.; Carder, Gemma (9 October 2014). . Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 161: 20–27. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2014.09.015. Archived from the original on 3 October 2020. Retrieved 27 October 2016.
100. Brand, B.; Hadlich, F.; Brandt, B.; Schauer, N.; Graunke, K.L.; Langbein, J.; ... and Schwerin, M. (2015). "Temperament type specific metabolite profiles of the prefrontal cortex and serum in cattle". PLOS ONE. 10 (4): e0125044. Bibcode:2015PLoSO..1025044B. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0125044. PMC 4416037. PMID 25927228.
101. Réale, D.; Reader, S.M.; Sol, D.; McDougall, P.T.; Dingemanse, N.J. (2007). "Integrating animal temperament within ecology and evolution". Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 82 (2): 291–318. doi:10.1111/j.1469-185x.2007.00010.x. hdl:1874/25732. PMID 17437562. S2CID 44753594.
102. Hagen, K.; Broom, D. (2004). "Emotional reactions to learning in cattle". Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 85 (3–4): 203–213. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2003.11.007.
103. Daros, R.R.; Costa, J.H.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.; Hötzel, M.J.; Weary, D.M. (2014). "Separation from the dam causes negative judgement bias in dairy calves". PLOS ONE. 9 (5): e98429. Bibcode:2014PLoSO...998429D. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0098429. PMC 4029834. PMID 24848635.
104. Neave, H.W.; Daros, R.R.; Costa, J.H.C.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.G.; Weary, D.M. (2013). "Pain and pessimism: Dairy calves exhibit negative judgement bias following hot-iron disbudding". PLOS ONE. 8 (12): e80556. Bibcode:2013PLoSO...880556N. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0080556. PMC 3851165. PMID 24324609.
105. Boissy, A.; Le Neindre, P. (1997). "Behavioral, cardiac and cortisol responses to brief peer separation and reunion in cattle". Physiology & Behavior. 61 (5): 693–699. doi:10.1016/s0031-9384(96)00521-5. PMID 9145939. S2CID 8507049.
106. Kay, R.; Hall, C. (2009). "The use of a mirror reduces isolation stress in horses being transported by trailer" (PDF). Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 116 (2): 237–243. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2008.08.013.
107. "40 Winks?" Jennifer S. Holland, National Geographic Vol. 220, No. 1. July 2011.
108. Asprea, Lori; Sturtz, Robin (2012). Anatomy and physiology for veterinary technicians and nurses a clinical approach. Chichester: Iowa State University Pre. p. 109. ISBN 978-1-118-40584-0.
109. "Animal MythBusters – Manitoba Veterinary Medical Association". www.mvma.ca. from the original on 15 April 2016.
110. Collins, Nick (6 September 2013). "Cow tipping myth dispelled". The Daily Telegraph. from the original on 26 April 2016. Retrieved 18 May 2016.
111. Haines, Lester (9 November 2005). "Boffins debunk cow-tipping myth". The Register UK. from the original on 31 October 2012. Retrieved 30 November 2012.
112. . Associated Press. 23 April 2009. Archived from the original on 27 April 2009. Retrieved 23 April 2009.
113. Gill, Victoria (23 April 2009). "BBC: Cow genome 'to transform farming'". BBC News. from the original on 17 October 2013. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
114. Canario, L.; Mignon-Grasteau, S.; Dupont-Nivet, M.; Phocas, F. (2013). "Genetics of behavioural adaptation of livestock to farming conditions" (PDF). Animal. 7 (3): 357–377. doi:10.1017/S1751731112001978. PMID 23127553.
115. Jensen, P., ed. (2009). The Ethology of Domestic Animals: An Introductory Text. CABI. p. 111.
116. Schmutz, S. M.; Stookey, J. M.; Winkelman-Sim, D. C.; Waltz, C. S.; Plante, Y.; Buchanan, F. C. (2001). "A QTL study of cattle behavioral traits in embryo transfer families". Journal of Heredity. 92 (3): 290–292. doi:10.1093/jhered/92.3.290. PMID 11447250.
117. Canario, L.; Mignon-Grasteau, S.; Dupont-Nivet, M.; Phocas, F. (2013). "Genetics of behavioural adaptation of livestock to farming conditions" (PDF). Animal. 7 (3): 357–377. doi:10.1017/S1751731112001978. PMID 23127553.
118. Friedrich, J.; Brand, B.; Schwerin, M. (2015). "Genetics of cattle temperament and its impact on livestock production and breeding – a review". Archives Animal Breeding. 58: 13–21. doi:10.5194/aab-58-13-2015. (PDF) from the original on 24 September 2015.
119. McTavish, E.J.; Decker, J.E.; Schnabel, R.D.; Taylor, J.F.; Hillis, D.M.year=2013 (2013). "New World cattle show ancestry from multiple independent domestication events". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110 (15): E1398–1406. Bibcode:2013PNAS..110E1398M. doi:10.1073/pnas.1303367110. PMC 3625352. PMID 23530234.
120. Decker, J.E.; McKay, S.D.; Rolf, M.M.; Kim, J.; Molina Alcalá, A.; Sonstegard, T.S.; et al. (2014). "Worldwide patterns of ancestry, divergence, and admixture in domesticated cattle". PLOS Genet. 10 (3): e1004254. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1004254. PMC 3967955. PMID 24675901.
121. Gustavo A Slafer; Jose Luis Molina-Cano; Roxana Savin; Jose Luis Araus; Ignacio Romagosa (2002). Barley Science: Recent Advances from Molecular Biology to Agronomy of Yield and Quality. CRC Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-1-56022-910-0.
122. Glyn Davies; Julian Hodge Bank (2002). A history of money: from ancient times to the present day. University of Wales Press. ISBN 978-0-7083-1717-4.
123. Jesús Huerta de Soto (2006). Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles. Ludwig von Mises Institute. p. 51. ISBN 978-1-61016-388-0.
124. "The History of Money". PBS. 26 October 1996. Retrieved 15 July 2021.
125. Lott, Dale F.; Hart, Benjamin L. (October 1979). "Applied ethology in a nomadic cattle culture". Applied Animal Ethology. 5 (4): 309–319. doi:10.1016/0304-3762(79)90102-0.
126. Krebs JR, Anderson T, Clutton-Brock WT, et al. (1997). (PDF) (Report). Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Archived from the original (PDF) on 22 July 2004. Retrieved 4 September 2006.
127. Edward O. Wilson, The Future of Life, 2003, Vintage Books, 256 pages ISBN 0-679-76811-4
128. Cailey Rizzo. "Junkyard Owner Replaces Guard Dogs With Two Fighting Bulls Because It's Spain". www.travelandleisure.com.
129. Govan, Fiona (26 October 2016). "Bulls replace guard dogs at scrap yard in Valencia". www.thelocal.es.
130. "Definition of Feral cattle". from the original on 21 September 2015. Retrieved 4 May 2015.
131. Sahagun, Louis (2 March 2018). "Feral cattle terrorize hikers and devour native plants in a California national monument". Los Angeles Times.
132. "NGRC Bos taurus". www.nodai-genome.org. from the original on 23 February 2016.
133. (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 April 2016. Retrieved 12 April 2016.
134. "葛島（野生化した和牛のいる島） – 奈留島港レンタカー". www.narusima.com. from the original on 14 July 2016.
135. "Science – Chillingham Wild Cattle". chillinghamwildcattle.com. 16 June 2015. from the original on 9 May 2016.
136. . The Washington Post. 23 October 2005. Archived from the original on 20 October 2012. Retrieved 26 April 2016.
137. "牛ばかりいる台湾の孤島・金門島 / 牛による牛のためのモーモーパラダイスだったことが判明". 世界を旅するガイドブック Photrip フォトリップ. from the original on 7 May 2016.
138. 蔣璐 (ed.). . 香港商报. Archived from the original on 1 April 2016. Retrieved 10 March 2023.
139. Pu Caide (傅才德) (29 December 2015). "Xiaoye Xiang Gang, yeniu yu ren hexie gongchu" 郊野香港，野牛與人和諧共處. New York Times (in Chinese). Retrieved 10 March 2023.
140. 2014. 西貢流浪牛被逼遷大嶼山 漁護署：牛隻健康年中再檢討 22 October 2017 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved on 8 May 2017
141. 陳漢榮. 陳盛臣. 2003. 短線遊：跟住牛屎遊塔門 22 October 2017 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved on 8 May 2017
142. . Liberty Times (in Chinese). 6 September 2015. Archived from the original on 22 October 2017. Retrieved 10 March 2023.
143. (Clay 2004).
144. "FAOSTAT". www.fao.org. Retrieved 25 October 2019.
145. . www.helgilibrary.com. Archived from the original on 4 April 2014. Retrieved 10 March 2023.
146. "AskUSDA: What is the most consumed meat in the world?". U.S. Department of Agriculture. 17 July 2019. Retrieved 5 December 2022.
147. "UK Dairy Cows". from the original on 18 May 2015. Retrieved 7 May 2015.
148. "Compassion in World Farming: Dairy Cattle". from the original on 18 May 2015. Retrieved 7 May 2015.
149. Pearson, R.E.; Fulton, L.A.; Thompson, P.D.; Smith, J.W. (1979). "Milking 3 Times per day". Journal of Dairy Science. 62 (12): 1941–1950. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(79)83526-2. PMID 541464.
150. Glenza, Jessica (14 February 2018). "Transgender woman able to breastfeed in first documented case". The Guardian – via www.theguardian.com.
151. Reisman, Tamar; Goldstein, Zil (2018). "Case Report: Induced Lactation in a Transgender Woman". Transgender Health. 3 (1): 24–26. doi:10.1089/trgh.2017.0044. PMC 5779241. PMID 29372185.
152. "Veal and the Dairy Industry". Compassion in World Farming. from the original on 18 May 2015. Retrieved 9 May 2015.
153. "FAO – Cattle Hides" (PDF). (PDF) from the original on 28 January 2015. Retrieved 16 May 2015.
154. Muruvimi, F. and J. Ellis-Jones. 1999. A farming systems approach to improving draft animal power in Sub-Saharan Africa. In: Starkey, P. and P. Kaumbutho. 1999. Meeting the challenges of animal traction. Intermediate Technology Publications, London. pp. 10–19.
155. Phaniraja, K. L. and H. H. Panchasara. 2009. Indian draught animals power. Veterinary World 2:404–407.
156. Nicholson, C. F, R. W. Blake, R. S. Reid and J. Schelhas. 2001. Environmental impacts of livestock in the developing world. Environment 43(2): 7–17.
157. Otter, Chris (2020). Diet for a large planet. USA: University of Chicago Press. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-226-69710-9.
158. FAOSTAT. [Agricultural statistics database] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. "Faostat". from the original on 15 January 2016. Retrieved 13 January 2016.
159. "Ranking Of Countries With The Most Cattle". beef2live.com. Retrieved 9 February 2022.
160. Bar-On, Yinon M.; Phillips, Rob; Milo, Ron (21 May 2018). "The biomass distribution on Earth". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 115 (25): 6506–6511. Bibcode:2018PNAS..115.6506B. doi:10.1073/pnas.1711842115. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 6016768. PMID 29784790.
161. "Methane vs Carbon Dioxide: A Greenhouse Gas Showdown". One Green Planet. 2015. Retrieved 29 January 2022.
162. Myhre, Gunnar (2013), "Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing" (PDF), Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, (PDF) from the original on 6 February 2017, retrieved 22 December 2016. See Table 8.7.
163. IPCC. 2007. Fourth Assessment Report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
164. L. Aban, Maita; C. Bestil, Lolito (2016). "Rumen Defaunation: Determining the Level and Frequency of Leucaena leucocephala Linn. Forage" (PDF). International Journal of Food Engineering. 2 (1).
165. Lewis Mernit, Judith (2 July 2018). "How Eating Seaweed Can Help Cows to Belch Less Methane". Yale School of the Environment. Retrieved 29 January 2022.
166. Axt, Barbara (25 May 2016). "Treating cows with antibiotics doubles dung methane emissions". New Scientist. Retrieved 5 October 2019.
167. Boadi, D.; Benchaar, C.; Chiquette, J.; Massé, D. (2004). "Mitigation strategies to reduce enteric methane emissions from dairy cows: Update review". Can. J. Anim. Sci. 84 (3): 319–335. doi:10.4141/a03-109.
168. Martin, C.; Morgavi, D.P.; Doreau, M. (2010). "Methane mitigation in ruminants: from microbe to the farm scale". Animal. 4 (3): 351–365. doi:10.1017/s1751731109990620. PMID 22443940. S2CID 13739536.
169. Eckard, R. J.; Grainger, C.; de Klein, C.A.M. (2010). "Options for the abatement of methane and nitrous oxide from ruminant production: A review". Livestock Science. 130 (1–3): 47–56. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2010.02.010.
170. IPCC. 2001. Third Assessment Report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Working Group I: The Scientific Basis. Table 4.2
171. Steinfeld, Henning; Gerber, Pierre; Wassenaar, T. D.; Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United; Castel, Vincent; Rosales, Mauricio; M, Mauricio Rosales; Haan, Cees de (2006). Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. Food & Agriculture Org. ISBN 978-92-5-105571-7.
172. US EPA. 2012. Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gase emissions and sinks: 1990–2010. US. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA 430-R-12-001. Section 6.2.
173. "Gurian-Sherman, Doug. CAFOs Uncovered: The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations" (PDF). (PDF) from the original on 26 January 2013. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
174. Michael Clark; Tilman, David (November 2014). "Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health". Nature. 515 (7528): 518–522. Bibcode:2014Natur.515..518T. doi:10.1038/nature13959. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 25383533. S2CID 4453972.
175. Nemecek, T.; Poore, J. (1 June 2018). "Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers". Science. 360 (6392): 987–992. Bibcode:2018Sci...360..987P. doi:10.1126/science.aaq0216. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 29853680.
176. Capper, J. L. (2011). "The environmental impact of beef production in the United States: 1977 compared with 2007". J. Anim. Sci. 89 (12): 4249–4261. doi:10.2527/jas.2010-3784. PMID 21803973.
177. "George Monbiot: "Agriculture is arguably the most destructive industry on Earth"". New Statesman. 13 May 2022. Retrieved 4 June 2022.
178. "Virtual Water Trade" (PDF). Wasterfootprint.org. Retrieved 30 March 2015.
179. . Sustainabletable.org. Archived from the original on 5 June 2012. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
180. US Code of Federal Regulations 40 CFR 122
181. ""Regulatory Definitions of Large CAFOs, Medium CAFO, and Small CAFOs." Environmental Protection Agency Fact Sheet" (PDF). (PDF) from the original on 24 September 2015. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
182. US Code of Federal Regulations 40 CFR 122.23, 40 CFR 122.42
183. Waterkeeper Alliance et al. v. EPA, 399 F.3d 486 (2nd cir 2005).
     National Pork Producers Council, et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 635 F. 3d 738 (5th Cir 2011).
184. Bradford, S. A., E. Segal, W. Zheng, Q. Wang, and S. R. Hutchins. 2008. Reuse of concentrated animal feeding operation wastewater on agricultural lands. J. Env. Qual. 37 (supplement): S97-S115.
185. Koelsch, Richard; Balvanz, Carol; George, John; Meyer, Dan; Nienaber, John; Tinker, Gene. (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 17 October 2013. Retrieved 16 January 2018.
186. "Ikerd, John. The Economics of CAFOs & Sustainable Alternatives". Web.missouri.edu. from the original on 10 August 2014. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
187. (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 May 2012. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
188. . Fao.org. Archived from the original on 3 September 2013. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
189. McDonald, J. M. et al. 2009. Manure use for fertilizer and for energy. Report to Congress. USDA, AP-037. 53pp.
190. Shapouri, H. et al. 2002. The energy balance of corn ethanol: an update. USDA Agricultural Economic Report 814.
191. E.O. Wilson, The Future of Life, 2003, Vintage Books, 256 pages ISBN 0-679-76811-4
192. Strassman, B. I. 1987. Effects of cattle grazing and haying on wildlife conservation at National Wildlife Refuges in the United States. Environmental Mgt. 11: 35–44 .
193. "Buatrics". Retrieved 19 November 2013.
194. "World Association for Buiatrics". Archived from the original on 4 December 2013. Retrieved 4 December 2013.
195. . Archived from the original on 18 September 2018. Retrieved 4 December 2013.
196. Beneke, E.; Rogers, A. (1996). Medical Mycology and Human Mycoses. California: Star. pp. 85–90. ISBN 978-0-89863-175-3.
197. "Common and important diseases of cattle". from the original on 5 December 2013. Retrieved 17 November 2013.
198. "Identification of new cattle virus will help rule out mad cow disease". Retrieved 17 November 2013.
199. "Cattle Diseases". from the original on 25 November 2013. Retrieved 4 December 2013.
200. "Cattle Disease Guide". Retrieved 4 December 2013.
201. Harvey, Fiona (17 May 2011). "Easing of farming regulations could allow milk from TB-infected cattle into food chain". The Guardian. from the original on 1 February 2014. Retrieved 4 December 2013.
202. Abbott, Charles (2 November 2013). "U.S. aligns beef rules with global mad cow standards". Reuters. from the original on 1 December 2013. Retrieved 4 December 2013.
203. West, Julian (2 September 2001). "A gift from the gods: bottled cow's urine". The Telegraph. London. from the original on 10 August 2014. Retrieved 4 December 2013.
204. "Cow Urine as Medicine". WSJ. from the original on 14 July 2014. Retrieved 4 December 2013.
205. Esterbrook, John. "Cow Urine As Panacea?". CBS News. from the original on 30 December 2014. Retrieved 4 December 2013.
206. "(video) Indian Doctors Use Cow Urine As Medicine". The Wall Street Journal. 29 July 2010. from the original on 30 December 2014. Retrieved 27 November 2010.
207. "Cow urine drug developed by RSS body gets US patent". The Indian Express. 17 June 2010. from the original on 21 November 2013. Retrieved 4 December 2013.
208. Grant, R. (2011). "Taking advantage of natural behavior improves dairy cow performance". from the original on 2 December 2016.
209. Huzzey, J.; Keyserlingk, M.; Overton, T. (2012). "The behaviour and physiological consequences of overstocking dairy cattle". American Association of Bovine Practitioners: 92–97. doi:10.21423/aabppro20123879. S2CID 203405605.
210. Tyler, J.W; Fox, L.K.; Parish, S.M.; Swain, J.; Johnson, D.J.; Grassechi, H.A. (1997). "Effect of feed availability on post-milking standing time in dairy cows". Journal of Dairy Research. 64 (4): 617–620. doi:10.1017/s0022029997002501. PMID 9403771. S2CID 41754001.
211. Schefers, J.M.; Weigel, K.A.; Rawson, C.L.; Zwald, N.R.; Cook, N.B. (2010). "Management practices associated with conception rate and service rate of lactating Holstein cows in large, commercial dairy herds". J. Dairy Sci. 93 (4): 1459–1467. doi:10.3168/jds.2009-2015. PMID 20338423.
212. Krawczel, Peter (24 January 2012). (PDF). Southern Dairy Conference. Archived from the original (PDF) on 20 October 2015. Retrieved 20 October 2015.
213. Sjaasted O.V., Howe K., Sand O., (2010) Physiology of Domestic Animals. 3rd edition. Sunderland: Sinaver Association. Inc
214. Nepomnaschy, B. England; Welch, P.; McConnell, K.; Strassman, D. (2004). "Stress and female reproductive function: a study of daily variations in cortisol, gonadotrophins, and gonadal steroids in a rural Mayan population" (PDF). American Journal of Human Biology. 16 (5): 523–532. doi:10.1002/ajhb.20057. hdl:2027.42/35107. PMID 15368600. S2CID 6436223.
215. "Cattle". awionline.org. Retrieved 31 May 2019.
216. Schwartzkopf-Genswein, K. S.; Stookey, J. M.; Welford, R. (1 August 1997). "Behavior of cattle during hot-iron and freeze branding and the effects on subsequent handling ease". Journal of Animal Science. 75 (8): 2064–2072. doi:10.2527/1997.7582064x. ISSN 0021-8812. PMID 9263052.
217. Coetzee, Hans (19 May 2013). Pain Management, An Issue of Veterinary Clinics: Food Animal Practice. Elsevier Health Sciences. ISBN 978-1-4557-7376-3.
218. "Welfare Implications of Dehorning and Disbudding Cattle". www.avma.org. from the original on 23 June 2017. Retrieved 5 April 2017.
219. Goode, Erica (25 January 2012). "Ear-Tagging Proposal May Mean Fewer Branded Cattle". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. from the original on 6 April 2017. Retrieved 5 April 2017.
220. Grandin, Temple (21 July 2015). Improving Animal Welfare, 2 Edition: A Practical Approach. CABI. ISBN 978-1-78064-467-7.
221. "Restraint of Livestock". www.grandin.com. from the original on 13 December 2017. Retrieved 5 April 2017.
222. Doyle, Rebecca; Moran, John (3 February 2015). Cow Talk: Understanding Dairy Cow Behaviour to Improve Their Welfare on Asian Farms. Csiro Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4863-0162-1.
223. McKenna, C. (2001). "The case against the veal crate: An examination of the scientific evidence that led to the banning of the veal crate system in the EU and of the alternative group housed systems that are better for calves, farmers and consumers" (PDF). Compassion in World Farming. Retrieved 19 April 2016.
224. "Using Prods and Persuaders Properly to Handle Cattle, Pigs, and Sheep". grandin.com. Retrieved 31 May 2019.
225. Grant, R. (2011). "Taking advantage of natural behavior improves dairy cow performance". from the original on 2 December 2016.
226. Grandin, Temple (1 December 2016). "Evaluation of the welfare of cattle housed in outdoor feedlot pens". Veterinary and Animal Science. 1–2: 23–28. doi:10.1016/j.vas.2016.11.001. ISSN 2451-943X. PMC 7386639. PMID 32734021.
227. "Animal Cruelty – Beef". www.veganpeace.com. Retrieved 31 May 2019.
228. Vegetarian Society. "Dairy Cows & Welfare". Retrieved 31 May 2019.
229. Adams, Carol J. (2015). "The Sexual Politics of Meat". The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-vegetarian Critical Theory. pp. 3–17. doi:10.5040/9781501312861.ch-001. ISBN 978-1-5013-1286-1.
230. Erik Marcus (2000). Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating. ISBN 978-1-59013-344-6.
231. Desaulniers, Élise (2013). (in French). Editions Stanké, Québec. Archived from the original on 21 September 2013. Retrieved 19 May 2014.
232. Wolfson, D. J. (1996). Beyond the law: Agribusiness and the systemic abuse of animals raised for food or food production Animal L., 2, 123.^{[permanent dead link]}
233. "How India's sacred cows are beaten, abused and poisoned to make". The Independent. 14 February 2000. Retrieved 31 May 2019.
234. "Why do some people choose not to wear leather?". www.animalsaustralia.org. Retrieved 31 May 2019.
235. AP, Michael Smith / (17 July 2008). "Animal rights group targets popular rodeo". msnbc.com. Retrieved 31 May 2019.
236. (in Catalan). 1 August 2005. Archived from the original on 12 October 2007. Retrieved 23 October 2020.
237. Antebi, Andres. "Passion for bulls in the street" (in Catalan). Archived from the original on 11 September 2012. Retrieved 23 October 2020.
238. . League Against Cruel Sports. Archived from the original on 30 September 2011.
     • "ICABS calls on Vodafone to drop bullfighting from ad". www.banbloodsports.com.
     • . www.english.stieren.net. Archived from the original on 26 January 2009.
239. Diane Morgan (2010). Essential Islam: A Comprehensive Guide to Belief and Practice. ABC-CLIO. p. 27. ISBN 978-0-313-36025-1.
240. Thomas Hughes (1995) [first published in 1885]. Dictionary of Islam. Asian Educational Services. p. 364. ISBN 9788120606722.
241. Avinoam Shalem (2013). Constructing the Image of Muhammad in Europe. Walter de Gruyter. p. 127. ISBN 978-3-11-030086-4.
242. Jha, D. N. (2002). The myth of the holy cow. London: Verso. p. 130. ISBN 978-1-85984-676-6.
243. Swamy, Subramanian (19 January 2016). "Save the cow, save earth". Express Buzz. from the original on 10 September 2016. Retrieved 19 January 2016.
244. Numbers 19:2
245. Kane, J.; Anzovin, S.; Podell, J. (1997). Famous First Facts. New York, NY: H. W. Wilson Company. p. 5. ISBN 978-0-8242-0930-8.
246. Madden, Thomas (May 1992). "Akabeko 21 February 2007 at the Wayback Machine". OUTLOOK. Online copy accessed 18 January 2007.
247. Patrick Mendis 2007. Glocalization: The Human Side of Globalization.. p160

Further reading

 

Wikispecies has information related to Cattle.

 

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Bos taurus.

 

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Bull (cattle).

• Bhattacharya, S. 2003. Cattle ownership makes it a man's world 7 October 2008 at the Wayback Machine. Newscientist.com. Retrieved 26 December 2006.
• Cattle Today (CT). 2006. Website. Breeds of cattle. Cattle Today. Retrieved 26 December 2006
• Clay, J. 2004. World Agriculture and the Environment: A Commodity-by-Commodity Guide to Impacts and Practices. Washington, DC: Island Press. ISBN 1-55963-370-0.
• Clutton-Brock, J. 1999. A Natural History of Domesticated Mammals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-63495-4.
• Huffman, B. 2006. . UltimateUngulate.com. Retrieved 26 December 2006.
• Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG). 2005. Bos taurus 25 June 2008 at the Wayback Machine. Global Invasive Species Database.
• Johns, Catherine. 2011 Cattle: History, Myth, Art. London: The British Museum Press. 978-0-7141-5084-0
• Nowak, R.M. and Paradiso, J.L. 1983. Walker's Mammals of the World. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-2525-3
• Oklahoma State University (OSU). 2006. Breeds of Cattle. Retrieved 5 January 2007.
• Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). 2004. Holy cow 13 October 2014 at the Wayback Machine. PBS Nature. Retrieved 5 January 2007.
• Purdy, Herman R.; R. John Dawes; Dr. Robert Hough (2008). Breeds Of Cattle (2nd ed.). – A visual textbook containing History/Origin, Phenotype & Statistics of 45 breeds.
• Rath, S. 1998. The Complete Cow. Stillwater, MN: Voyageur Press. ISBN 0-89658-375-9.
• Raudiansky, S. 1992. The Covenant of the Wild. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc. ISBN 0-688-09610-7.
• Spectrum Commodities (SC). 2006. . Spectrumcommodities.com. Retrieved 5 January 2007.
• Voelker, W. 1986. The Natural History of Living Mammals. Medford, NJ: Plexus Publishing, Inc. ISBN 0-937548-08-1.
• Yogananda, P. 1946. The Autobiography of a Yogi. Los Angeles: Self Realization Fellowship. ISBN 0-87612-083-4.