Cattle

Cattle
A Swiss Braunvieh cow wearing a cowbell.
Conservation status
Domesticated
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Class:	Mammalia
Subclass:	Theria
Infraclass:	Eutheria
Order:	Cetartiodactyla
Family:	Bovidae
Subfamily:	Bovinae
Genus:	Bos
Species:	B. taurus
Binomial name
Bos taurus Linnaeus, 1758
Bovine range
Synonyms
Bos primigenius, Bos indicus

Cattle—colloquially cows^{[note 1]}—are the most common type of large domesticated ungulates. They are a prominent modern member of the subfamily Bovinae, are the most widespread species of the genus Bos, and are most commonly classified collectively as Bos taurus. Cattle are raised as livestock for meat (beef and veal), as dairy animals for milk and other dairy products, and as draft animals (oxen or bullocks that pull carts, plows and other implements). Other products include leather and dung for manure or fuel. In some regions, such as parts of India, cattle have significant religious meaning. From as few as 80 progenitors domesticated in southeast Turkey about 10,500 years ago,^[1] according to an estimate from 2003, there are 1.3 billion cattle in the world.^[2] In 2009, cattle became one of the first livestock animals to have a fully mapped genome.^[3] Some consider cattle the oldest form of wealth, and cattle raiding consequently one of the earliest forms of theft.

Taxonomy

Żubroń, a cross between wisent and cattle

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 zebu; and the extinct Bos primigenius, the aurochs. The aurochs is ancestral to both zebu and taurine cattle. Now, these have been reclassified as one species, Bos taurus, with three subspecies: Bos taurus primigenius, Bos taurus indicus, and Bos taurus taurus.^[4][5]

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), but also between one or both of these and some other members of the genus Bos – yaks (the dzo or yattle^[6]), 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.^[7] 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.^[8] However, cattle cannot successfully be 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 Masovia, Poland, in about 1627.^[9] Breeders have attempted to recreate cattle of similar appearance to aurochs by crossing traditional types of domesticated cattle, creating the Heck cattle breed.

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).^[10] The word is a variant of chattel (a unit of personal property) and closely related to capital in the economic sense.^[11] 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", compare Persian gâv, Sanskrit go-, Welsh buwch.^[12] 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.^[13]

Terminology

An Ongole bull

A Hereford bull

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 world such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and the United States.^[14]

• An "intact" (i.e., not castrated) adult male is called a bull. A wild, young, unmarked bull is known as a "micky" in Australia.^[15] An unbranded bovine of either sex is called a "maverick" in the USA and Canada.
• An adult female that has had a calf (or two, depending on regional usage) is a cow.
• A young female before she has had a calf of her own^[16] and is under three years of age is called a heifer (/ˈhɛfər/ HEF-ər).^[17] A young female that has had only one calf is occasionally called a first-calf heifer.
• Young cattle of both sexes 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 simply feeders. After that, they are referred to as yearlings or stirks^[18] if between one and two years of age.^[19]
• A castrated male is called a steer in the United States; older steers are often called bullocks in other parts of the world,^[20] 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.^[15] 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.^[21] 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.^[22] 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 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.^[17]
• A springer is a cow or heifer close to calving.^[23]
• In all cattle species, a female twin of a bull usually becomes an infertile partial intersex, and is called a freemartin.
• 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 or 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, especially for single animals when the sex is unknown.^[24]
• Cattle bred specifically for milk production are called milking or dairy cattle;^[14] 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.

Singular terminology issue

Cattle can only be used in the plural and not in the singular: it is a plurale tantum.^[25] Thus one may refer to "three cattle" or "some cattle", but not "one cattle". No universally used singular form in modern English of "cattle" exists, 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 draft 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.^[26]

A Brahman calf

"Cow" is in general use as a singular for the collective "cattle", despite the objections by those who insist it to be a female-specific term. Although the phrase "that cow is a bull" is absurd from a lexicographic standpoint, 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 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, a US dictionary, recognizes the sex-nonspecific use of "cow" as an alternate definition,^[27] whereas Collins, a UK dictionary, does not.

Colloquially, more general nonspecific terms may denote cattle when a singular form is needed. 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.^[28] 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

	A cow's moo
Problems playing this file? See media help.

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".^[29] 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).

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.^[30]

Characteristics

Anatomy

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

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.

Cattle are ruminants, meaning their digestive system is highly specialized to allow the use of poorly digestible plants as food. Cattle have one stomach with four compartments, the rumen, reticulum, omasum, and abomasum, with the rumen being the largest compartment. Cattle are known for regurgitating and re-chewing their food, known as "cud" chewing. The reticulum, the smallest compartment, is known as the "honeycomb". Cattle sometimes consume metal objects which are deposited in the reticulum and irritation from the metal objects causes hardware disease. 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". 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 vegetation.

Gestation and size

The gestation period for a cow is about nine months long. A newborn calf's size can vary among breeds, but a typical calf weighs between 25 to 45 kg (55 to 99 lb). Adult size and weight vary significantly among breeds and sex. 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.^[31] The heaviest steer was eight-year-old ‘Old Ben’, a Shorthorn/Hereford cross weighing in at 2,140 kg (4,720 lb) in 1910.^[32] Steers are generally killed 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.

Udder

A cow's udder contains two pairs of mammary glands, (commonly referred to as teats) creating four "quarters".^[33] The front ones are referred to as fore quarters and the rear ones rear quarters.^[34]

Male genitalia

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).^[35][36]

Bulls have 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.^[37][38][39]

Weight

The weight of adult cattle always depends on the breed. Smaller kinds, such as Dexter and Jersey adults, range between 272 to 454 kg (600 to 1,001 lb). Large Continental breeds, such as Charolais, Marchigiana, Belgian Blue and Chianina, adults range from 635 to 1,134 kg (1,400 to 2,500 lb). British-breeds, such as Hereford, Angus, and Shorthorn, mature between 454 to 907 kg (1,001 to 2,000 lb), occasionally higher, particularly with Angus and Hereford.^[40]

Bulls will be a bit larger than cows of the same breed by a few hundred kilograms. Chianina bulls can weigh up to 1,500 kg (3,300 lb); British bulls, such as Angus and Hereford, can weigh as little as 907 kg (2,000 lb) to as much as 1,361 kg (3,000 lb).

It is difficult to generalize or average out the weight of all cattle because different kinds have different averages of weights. However, according to some sources, the average weight of all cattle is 753 kg (1,660 lb). Finishing steers in the feedlot average about 640 kg (1,410 lb); cows about 725 kg (1,598 lb), and bulls about 1,090 kg (2,400 lb).^[41]

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.^[42] Before 1790 beef cattle averaged only 160 kg (350 lb) net; and thereafter weights climbed steadily.^[43][44]

Cognition

In laboratory studies, young cattle are able to memorize the locations of several food sources and retain this memory for at least 8 hrs, although this declined after 12 hrs.^[45] 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.^[46] 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.^[47] Under less artificial testing conditions, young cattle showed they were able to remember the location of feed for at least 48 days.^[48] 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.^[49]

Calves are capable of discrimination learning^[50] and adult cattle compare favourably with small mammals in their learning ability in the Closed-field Test.^[51]

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.^[52] 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.^[53] 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.^[54]

In audio play-back studies, calves prefer their own mother's vocalizations compared to the vocalizations of an unfamiliar mother.^[55]

In laboratory studies using images, cattle can discriminate between images of the heads of cattle and other animal species.^[56] They are also able to distinguish between familiar and unfamiliar conspecifics. Furthermore, they are able to categorize images as familiar and unfamiliar individuals.^[52]

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.^[57]

Cattle can recognize familiar individuals. Visual individual recognition is distinguished from mere visual discrimination. Recognition is a more complex mental process than 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.^[58] By using 2-dimensional images of the heads of one cow (face, profiles, ¾ 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.^[59]

Cattle use visual/brain lateralisation in their visual scanning of novel and familiar stimuli.^[60] 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.^[61]

Temperament and emotions

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".^[62] Generally, cattle temperament is assumed to be multidimensional. Five underlying categories of temperament traits have been proposed:^[63]

• 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.^[64]

Negative emotional states are associated with a bias toward negative (pessimistic) responses towards ambiguous cues in judgement tasks – as encapsulated in the question of "is the glass half empty or half full?". After separation from their mothers, Holstein calves showed such a cognitive bias indicative of low mood.^[65] 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.^[66]

In studies of visual discrimination, the position of the ears has been used as an indicator of emotional state.^[52] When cattle are stressed, this can be recognised by other cattle as it is communicated by alarm substances in the urine.^[67]

Cattle are very gregarious and even short-term isolation is considered to cause severe psychological stress. When Aubrac and Fresian 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, vocalisations 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.^[68] Mirrors have been used to reduce stress in isolated cattle.^[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

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 prey 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^o but limits binocular vision (and therefore stereopsis) to 30^o to 50^o compared to 140^o in humans.^[52][72] This means they have a blind spot directly behind them. Cattle have good visual acuity (1/20)^[52] but compared to humans, the visual accommodation of cattle is poor.^[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.^[52]

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.

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.^[76][77]

Audition

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).^[78] 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°).^[79] 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.

Vocalisations 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 vocal and vocal behaviour may play a role by indicating estrus and competitive display by bulls.^[80]

Olfaction and gustation

Several senses are used in social relationships between 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.^[81] 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.^[67] 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.^[82]

In the laboratory, cattle can be trained to recognise conspecific individuals using olfaction only.^[81]

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 muzzle. 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 (N-S) direction.^[83] 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.^[84] However, in 2011, a group of Czech researchers reported their failed attempt to replicate the finding using Google Earth images.^[85]

Behaviour

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.^[86] Cattle are considered to be "hider" type animals, but in the artificial environment of small calving pens, close proximity between cow and calf is maintained by the mother at the first three calvings but this changes to being mediated by the calf after these. Primiparous dams show a higher incidence of abnormal maternal behaviour.^[87]

Video of a calf suckling

Beef-calves reared on the range suckle an average of 5.0 times each 24 hrs with an average total time of 46 mins spent suckling. There is a diurnal rhythm in suckling activity with peaks between 05:00–07:00, 10:00–13:00 and 17:00–21:00 h.^[88]

Studies on the natural weaning of zebu cattle (Bos indicus) have shown that the cow weans her calves over a 2-week period, but after that, she continues to show strong affiliatory behaviour with her offspring and preferentially chooses them for grooming and as grazing partners for at least 4–5 years.^[89]

Reproductive behaviour

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%.^[90]

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) behaviours that involved no physical contact between opponents (e.g. threatening and spontaneous withdrawing). Such agonistic behaviour 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.^[90]

As with many animal dominance hierarchies, dominance-associated aggressiveness does not correlate with rank position, but is closely related to rank distance between individuals.^[90]

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 behaviour shown by calves of both sexes and by bulls but not by cows, however, this is not a dominance related behaviour as has been found in other species.^[90]

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.^[91]

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.^[92]

Grazing behaviour

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 kg steers, bite area reached a maximum of approximately 170 cm². Bite depth increases with the height of the plants. By adjusting their behaviour, cattle obtain heavier bites in swards that are tall and sparse compared with short, dense swards of equal mass/area.^[93] Cattle adjust other aspects of their grazing behaviour in relation to the available food; foraging velocity decreases and intake rate increases in areas of abundant palatable forage.^[94]

Cattle avoid grazing areas contaminated by the faeces of other cattle more strongly than they avoid areas contaminated by sheep,^[95] but they do not avoid pasture contaminated by rabbit faeces.^[96]

Genetics

In the 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.^[97] 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. Using this bovine "HapMap", researchers can track the differences between the breeds that affect the quality of meat and milk yields.^[98]

Behavioral traits of cattle can be as heritable as some production traits, and often, the two can be related.^[99] 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.^[100] The heritability of temperament (response to isolation during handling) has been calculated as 0.36 and 0.46 for habituation to handling.^[101] Rangeland assessments show that the heritability of aggressiveness in cattle is around 0.36.^[102]

Quantitative trait loci (QTLs) have been found for a range of production and behavioral characteristics for both dairy and beef cattle.^[103]

Domestication and husbandry

Texas Longhorns are a US breed

Cattle occupy a unique role in human history, domesticated since at least the early Neolithic.

There are different views on the domestication of cattle.

Archeozoological 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 Middle East/Europe (the area that is now Turkey) giving rise to the taurine line and a second in the Indian subcontinent (the area that is now Pakistan) resulting in the indicine line.^[104] 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 southeastern Turkey and Dja'de el-Mughara in northern Iraq.^[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.^[104] A study on 134 breeds showed that modern taurine cattle originated from Africa, Asia, North and South America, Australia, and Europe.^[105] Some researchers have suggested that African taurine cattle are derived from a third independent domestication from North African aurochsen.^[104]

Usage as money

As early as 9000 BC both grain and cattle were used as money or as barter (Davies) (the first grain remains found, considered to be evidence of pre-agricultural practice date to 17,000 BC).^{[106][107][108]} 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.^[109] 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.^[107]

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

Modern husbandry

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, 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.^[110] Breeders use cattle husbandry to reduce M. bovis infection susceptibility by selective breeding and maintaining herd health to avoid concurrent disease.^[111]

Cattle are farmed for beef, veal, dairy, and leather, and they are less commonly used for conservation grazing, simply to maintain grassland for wildlife – for example, 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; Jallikattu in India is a bull taming sport radically different from European bullfighting, humans are unarmed and bulls are not killed. 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 Bull (mythology)), 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.^[112] 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.

Sleep

The average sleep time of a domestic cow is about four hours a day.^[113]

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.^[114] 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.

Cattle meat production

Cattle meat production (kt)

	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
USA	12163	11891	12046	11988

Source: Helgi Library,^[115] World Bank, FAOSTAT

About half the world's meat comes from cattle.^[116]

Dairy

Certain breeds of cattle, such as the Holstein-Friesian, are used to produce milk,^[117][118] 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.^[119] For dairy cattle to continue producing milk, they must give birth to one calf per year. If the calf is male, it generally is slaughtered at a young age to produce veal.^[120] They will continue to produce milk until three weeks before birth.^[118] 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 USA. 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.^[117][118]

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 product including shoes. In 2012 India was the world's largest producer of cattle hides.^[121]

Feral cattle

Feral cattle are defined as being 'cattle that are not domesticated or cultivated'.^[122] Populations of feral cattle are known to come from and exist in: Australia, United States of America, Colombia, Argentina, Spain, France and many islands, including New Guinea, Hawaii, Galapagos, Juan Fernández Islands, Hispaniola (Dominican Republic and Haiti), Tristan da Cunha and Île Amsterdam,^[123] two islands of Kuchinoshima^[124] and Kazura Island next to Naru Island in Japan.^[125][126] Chillingham cattle is sometimes regarded as a feral breed.^[127] Aleutian wild cattles can be found on Aleutian Islands.^[128] The "Kinmen cattle" which is 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.^[129]

Environmental impact

Cattle in dry landscape north of Alice Springs, Australia (CSIRO)

Cattle near the Bruneau River in Elko County, Nevada

A report from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) states that the livestock sector is "responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions".^[130] The report concludes, unless changes are made, the damage thought to be linked to livestock may more than double by 2050, as demand for meat increases. 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.^[131] Manure was used as a fertilizer on about 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.^[132] 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.^[133]

One of the cited changes suggested to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is intensification of the livestock industry, 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.^[134] 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 backgrounding 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.

The number of American cattle kept in confined feedlot conditions fluctuates. From 1 January 2002 through 1 January 2012, there was no significant overall upward or downward trend in the number of US cattle on feed for slaughter, which averaged about 14.046 million head over that period.^[135][136] Previously, the number had increased; it was 12.453 million in 1985.^[137] Cattle on feed (for slaughter) numbered about 14.121 million on 1 January 2012, i.e. about 15.5% of the estimated inventory of 90.8 million US cattle (including calves) on that date. Of the 14.121 million, US cattle on feed (for slaughter) in operations with 1000 head or more were estimated to number 11.9 million.^[136] Cattle feedlots in this size category correspond to the regulatory definition of "large" concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) for cattle other than mature dairy cows or veal calves.^[138] Significant numbers of dairy, as well as beef cattle, are confined in 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"^[139] 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."^[140] 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.^[141]

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.^[142] The regulations involving CAFO permitting have been extensively litigated.^[143] 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 .^[144] Concerns raised by opponents of CAFOs have included risks of contaminated water due to feedlot runoff,^[145] soil erosion, human and animal exposure to toxic chemicals, development of antibiotic resistant bacteria and an increase in E. coli contamination.^[146] While research suggests some of these impacts can be mitigated by developing wastewater treatment systems^[145] and planting cover crops in larger setback zones,^[147] the Union of Concerned Scientists released a report in 2008 concluding that CAFOs are generally unsustainable and externalize costs.^[148]

An estimated 935,000 cattle operations were operating in the USA in 2010.^[149] In 2001, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tallied 5,990 cattle CAFOs then regulated, consisting of beef (2,200), dairy (3,150), heifer (620) and veal operations (20).^[150] Since that time, the EPA has established CAFOs as an enforcement priority. EPA enforcement highlights for fiscal year 2010 indicated enforcement actions against 12 cattle CAFOs for violations that included failures to obtain a permit, failures to meet the terms of a permit, and discharges of contaminated water.^[151]

Cattle grazing in a high-elevation environment at the Big Pasture Plateau, Slovenia

Grazing by cattle at low intensities can create a favourable environment for native herbs and forbs; in many world regions, though, cattle are reducing biodiversity due to overgrazing.^[152] 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.^[153] 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.^[148]

Some microbes in the cattle gut carry out anaerobic process known as methanogenesis, which produces methane. Cattle and other livestock emit about 80 to 93 Tg of methane per year,^[154] accounting for an estimated 37% of anthropogenic methane emissions,^[130] and additional methane is produced by anaerobic fermentation of manure in manure lagoons and other manure storage structures.^[155] The 100-year global warming potential of methane, including effects on ozone and stratospheric water vapor, is 25 times as great as that of carbon dioxide.^[156] Methane's effect on global warming is correlated with changes in atmospheric methane content, not with emissions. The net change in atmospheric methane content was recently about 1 Tg per year,^[157] and in some recent years there has been no increase in atmospheric methane content.^[158] Mitigation options for reducing methane emission from ruminant enteric fermentation include genetic selection, immunization, rumen defaunation, diet modification and grazing management, among others.^{[159][160][161]} 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.^[148]

Health

The veterinary discipline dealing with cattle and cattle diseases (bovine veterinary) is called buiatrics.^[162] Veterinarians and professionals working on cattle health issues are pooled in the World Association for Buiatrics, founded in 1960.^[163] National associations and affiliates also exist.^[164]

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.^{[165][166][167]}

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.^[168] However, said rules change frequently and are often debated. For instance, in the U.K., it was proposed in 2011 that milk from tuberculosis-infected cattle should be allowed to enter the food chain.^[169] 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.^[170]

Cow urine is commonly used in India for internal medical purposes.^[171][172] It is distilled and then consumed by patients seeking treatment for a wide variety of illnesses.^[173] At present, no conclusive medical evidence shows this has any effect.^[174] However, an Indian medicine containing cow urine has already obtained U.S. patents.^[175]

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.^[176]

Mycobacterium vaccae is a non pathogenic, possibly even beneficial bacteria, that is seen naturally in soil;^[177] that was first isolated from cow dung.^[178]

Oxen

Draft Zebus in Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

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 used in Plowing

An ox is a mature bovine which has learned to respond appropriately 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. In one tradition in North America, the commands are:

• "Back up": go backwards
• "Gee": turn right
• "Get up": walk forward
• "Haw": turn left
• "Whoa": stop

Riding an ox in Hova, Sweden

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.^[179] In India, the number of draft cattle in 1998 was estimated at 65.7 million head.^[180] About half the world's crop production is thought to depend on land preparation (such as plowing) made possible by animal traction.^[181]

The "Ure-Ox" (Aurochs) by Edward Topsell, 1658

Religion, traditions and folklore

Hindu tradition

In Hinduism, the cow is a symbol of wealth, strength, abundance, selfless giving and a full Earthly life.

Cattle are venerated within the Hindu religion of India. In the Vedic period they were a symbol of plenty ^[182]:130 and were frequently sacrificed. In later times they gradually acquired their present status. According to the Mahabharata they are to be treated with the same respect 'as one's mother'.^[183] In the middle of the first millennium, the consumption of beef began to be disfavoured by lawgivers.^[182]:144 Although there has never been any cow-goddesses or temples dedicated to them,^[182]:146 cows appear in numerous stories from the Vedas and Puranas. The deity Krishna was brought up in a family of cowherders, and given the name Govinda (protector of the cows). Also, Shiva is traditionally said to ride on the back of a bull named Nandi.

Milk and milk products were used in Vedic rituals.^[182]:130 In the postvedic period products of the cow – milk, curd, ghee, but also cow dung and urine (gomutra), or the combination of these five (panchagavya) – began to assume an increasingly important role in ritual purification and expiation.^{[182]:130–1}

Veneration of the cow has become a symbol of the identity of Hindus as a community,^[182]: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. McDonalds 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.^[184]

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, 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.^[185]
• The akabeko (赤べこ, red cow) is a traditional toy from the Aizu region of Japan that is thought to ward off illness.^[186]
• 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.
• 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.^[187]

In heraldry

Cattle are typically represented in heraldry by the bull.

• 

  Arms of Mecklenburg region, Germany

• 

  Arms of Turin, Italy

• 

  Arms of Kaunas, Lithuania

• 

  Arms of Turek, Poland

• 

  Arms of Bielsk Podlaski, Poland

• 

  Arms of the Azores

Population

For 2013, the FAO estimated global cattle numbers at 1.47 billion.^[188] Regionally, the FAO estimate for 2013 includes: Asia 495 million; South America 348 million; Africa 305 million; Europe 122 million; North America 102 million; Central America 46 million; Oceania 42 million; and Caribbean 9 million. The following table shows the cattle population in 2009.^[189]

As of 2003, Africa had about 231 million head of cattle, raised in both traditional and non-traditional systems, but often an "integral" part of the culture and way of life.^[190]

Cattle population  (View diagram)

Region	2009	2013 [191]
India	285,000,000 (By 2003)[192]	194,655,285
Brazil	187,087,000	186,646,205
China	139,721,000	102,668,900
USA	96,669,000	96,956,461
European Union	87,650,000
Argentina	51,062,000	52,509,049
Pakistan	38,300,000	26,007,848
Australia	29,202,000	27,249,291
Mexico	26,489,000	31,222,196
Bangladesh	22,976,000	22,844,190
Russian Federation	18,370,000	28,685,315
South Africa	14,187,000	13,526,296
Canada	13,945,000	13,287,866
Other	49,756,000

See also

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

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. Op. cit. in Wilkins, Alasdair (28 Mar 2012). "DNA reveals that cows were almost impossible to domesticate". io9. Retrieved 2 Apr 2012.
2. Cattle Today. "Breeds of Cattle at CATTLE TODAY". Cattle-today.com. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
3. Brown, David (23 April 2009). "Scientists Unravel Genome of the Cow". The Washington Post. Retrieved 23 April 2009.
4. Wilson, D.E.; Reeder, D.M., eds. (2005). "Bos taurus". Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-8221-0. OCLC 62265494.
5. "Bos taurus". Integrated Taxonomic Information System. Retrieved 9 May 2015.
6. "Yattle What?", Washington Post, 11 August 2007
7. 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. 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. Takeda, Kumiko; et al. (April 2004). "Mitochondrial DNA analysis of Nepalese domestic dwarf cattle Lulu". Animal Science Journal (Blackwell Publishing) 75 (2): 103–110. doi:10.1111/j.1740-0929.2004.00163.x. Retrieved 7 November 2006.
9. 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.
10. Harper, Douglas (2001). "Cattle". Online Etymological Dictionary. Retrieved 13 June 2007.; "cattle, n." OED Online. Oxford University Press, September 2014. Web. 6 December 2014.
11. Harper, Douglas (2001). "Chattel". Online Etymological Dictionary. Retrieved 13 June 2007.; Harper, Douglas (2001). "Capital". Online Etymological Dictionary. Retrieved 13 June 2007.; "cattle, n." OED Online. Oxford University Press, September 2014. Web. 6 December 2014.
12. "cow, n.1." OED Online. Oxford University Press, September 2014. Web. 6 December 2014.
13. "cattle, n." OED Online. Oxford University Press, September 2014. Web. 6 December 2014
14. "Cattle Terminology". experiencefestival.com.
15. Coupe, Sheena (ed.), Frontier Country, Vol. 1, Weldon Russell Publishing, Willoughby, 1989, ISBN 1-875202-01-3
16. "Definition of heifer". Merriam-Webster. Retrieved 29 November 2006.
17. Delbridge, Arthur, The Macquarie Dictionary, 2nd ed., Macquarie Library, North Ryde, 1991
18. McIntosh, E., The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, Clarendon Press, 1967
19. Warren, Andrea. "Pioneer Girl: Growing Up on the Prairie" (PDF). Lexile. Archived from the original (PDF) on 1 November 2006. Retrieved 29 November 2006.
20. Delbridge, A, et al., Macquarie Dictionary, The Book Printer, Australia, 1991
21. Meat & Livestock Australia, Feedback, June/July 2008
22. "Sure Ways to Lose Money on Your Cattle". Spiritwoodstockyards.ca. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
23. FAQs: What is meant by springer cows and heifers?, Dr. Rick Rasby, Professor of Animal Science, University of Nebraska – Lincoln, 6 September 2005. Retrieved: 12 August 2010.
24. Australians Camdraft Assoc. Retrieved on 31 July 2009
25. "Cattle (5, 6)". Oxford English Dictionary (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. September 2005. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)
26. "Ox (1, 2)". Oxford English Dictionary (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. September 2005. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)
27. "Merriam Webster Online". Merriam-webster.com. 31 August 2012. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
28. ""Critter," definition 2". Thefreedictionary.com. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
29. Beales, Terry (1999). "Keep Those Dogies Movin!" (PDF). Texas Animal Health Commission News Release. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 June 2008. Retrieved 28 June 2008.
30. "Bawling in Cattle". Retrieved 2015-05-05.
31. Friend, John B., Cattle of the World, Blandford Press, Dorset, 1978
32. McWhirter, Norris & Ross, Guinness Book of Records, Redwood Press, Trowbridge, 1968
33. Hasheider, Phillip. The Family Cow Handbook. ISBN 0-7603-4067-6.
34. "Udder Structure & Disease" (PDF). UVM. 2015-05-06.
35. "G Jayawardhana (2006), Testicle Size – A Fertility Indicator in Bulls, Australian Government Agnote K44." (PDF). Retrieved 6 August 2012.
36. "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.
37. Sarkar, A. (2003). Sexual Behaviour In Animals. Discovery Publishing House. ISBN 978-81-7141-746-9.
38. Functional Anatomy and Physiology of Domestic Animals – William O. Reece – Google Boeken. Books.google.com. 4 March 2009. ISBN 978-0-8138-1451-3. Retrieved 2 December 2012.
39. Modern Livestock and Poultry Production – James R. Gillespie, Frank B. Flanders – Google Boeken. Books.google.com. 28 January 2009. ISBN 1-4283-1808-9. Retrieved 2 December 2012.
40. "Hereford cattle weight".
41. "FAO Cattle Weights". FAO. Retrieved 2015-05-05.
42. Kenneth H. Mathews – 1999 – U.S. Beef Industry: Cattle Cycles, Price Spreads, and Packer concentration. Page 6
43. American Economic Growth and Standards of Living before the Civil War, Robert E. Gallman, John Joseph Wallis – 2007 p248
44. "Cattle increasing in size". Beef Magazine. Retrieved 2015-05-05.
45. 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.
46. 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.
47. Mendl, M.; Nicol, C.J. (2009). "Chapter 5: Learning and cognition". In Jensen, P. The Ethology of Domestic Animals: An Introductory Text. CABI. pp. 61–63.
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. Schaeffer, R.G.; Sikes, J.D. (1971). "Discrimination learning in dairy calves". Journal of Dairy Science 54: 893–896. doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(71)85937-4.
51. Kilgour, R. (1981). "Use of the Hebb–Williams closed-field test to study the learning ability of Jersey cows". Animal Behaviour 29: 850–860. doi:10.1016/s0003-3472(81)80020-6.
52. 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.
53. 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: 969–974.
54. Mendl, M.; Nicol, C.J. (2009). "Chapter 5: Learning and cognition". In Jensen, P. The Ethology of Domestic Animals: An Introductory Text. CABI. p. 144.
55. 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.
56. Coulon, M.; Deputte, B.L.; Heyman, Y.; Delatouche, L.; Richard, C.; Baudoin, C. (2007). "Social cognition and welfare in cattle: capacities of visual species discrimination". 14 èmes Recontres autour des recherches sur les ruminants, Paris, les 5 et 6 Décembre 2007. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA). pp. 297–300.
57. 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.
58. Hagen, K. and 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.
59. 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: 4441. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004441.
60. 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.
61. 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.
62. 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. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0125044.
63. Réale, D., Reader, S.M., Sol, D., McDougall, P.T. and Dingemanse, N.J. (2007). "Integrating animal temperament within ecology and evolution.". Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 82: 291–318. doi:10.1111/j.1469-185x.2007.00010.x.
64. Hagen, K. and 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.
65. Daros, R.R., Costa, J.H., von Keyserlingk, M.A., Hötzel, M.J. and Weary, D.M. (2014). "Separation from the dam causes negative judgement bias in dairy calves". PLOS ONE 9 (5): e98429. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0098429.
66. Neave, H.W., Daros, R.R., Costa, J.H.C., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G. and Weary, D.M. (2013). "Pain and pessimism: Dairy calves exhibit negative judgement bias following hot-iron disbudding". PLoS ONE 8 (12): e80556. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0080556.
67. Boissy, A., Terlouw, C. and 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.
68. Boissy, A. and 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.
69. Kay, R. and Hall, C. (2009). "The use of a mirror reduces isolation stress in horses being transported by trailer.". Applied Animal Behaviour Science 116 (2): 237–243. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2008.08.013.
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., ... and Klocek, C. (2015). "Perception of environment in farm animals – A review.". Annals of Animal Science. doi:10.1515/aoas-2015-003.
72. Phillips, C. (2008). Cattle Behaviour and Welfare. John Wiley and Sons.
73. Jacobs, G.H., Deegan, J.F. and Neitz, J. (1998). "Photopigment basis for dichromatic color vision in cows, goats and sheep.". Vis. Neurosci. 15: 581–584. doi:10.1017/s0952523898153154.
74. Phillips, C.J.C. and Lomas, C.A. (2001). "Perception of color by cattle and its influence on behavior". Journal of Dairy Science 84: 807–813. doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(01)74537-7.
75. Phillips, C.J.C. and 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.
76. Bell, F.R. and 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.
77. Bell, F. R. (1984). "Aspects of ingestive behavior in cattle". Journal of Animal Science 59 (5): 1369–1372.
78. Heffner, R.S. and 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.
79. Heffner, R.S. and 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): 107–103. doi:10.1037/0735-7036.106.2.107.
80. Watts, J.M. and 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.
81. Bouissou, M.F., Boissy, A., Le Niendre, P. and Vessier, I. (2001). "The Social Behaviour of Cattle 5.". In Keeling, L. and Gonyou, H. Social Behavior in Farm Animals. CABI Publishing. pp. 113–133.
82. Terlouw, E.C., Boissy, A. and 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.
83. 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: 13451–13455. Bibcode:2008PNAS..10513451B. doi:10.1073/pnas.0803650105.
84. 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: 5708–5713. doi:10.1073/pnas.0811194106. PMC 2667019. PMID 19299504.
85. 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. doi:10.1007/s00359-011-0628-7.
86. 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" (PDF). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 166: 11–19. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2015.03.002.
87. 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.
88. 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:10.2134/jas1985.612307x.
89. Reinhardt, V.; Reinhardt, A. (1981). Cohesive relationships in a cattle herd (Bos indicus). Behaviour 77. pp. 121–150. doi:10.1163/156853981X00194.
90. 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.
91. 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.
92. Kondo, S., Sekine, J., Okubo, M. and 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.
93. 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.
94. 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.
95. 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.
96. 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.
97. "Cow genome unraveled in bid to improve meat, milk". Associated Press. 23 April 2009. Archived from the original on 2009-04-27. Retrieved 23 April 2009.
98. Gill, Victoria (23 April 2009). "BBC: Cow genome 'to transform farming'". BBC News. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
99. Canario, L.; Mignon-Grasteau, S.; Dupont-Nivet, M.; Phocas, F. (2013). "Genetics of behavioural adaptation of livestock to farming conditions". Animal 7 (3): 357–377. doi:10.1017/S1751731112001978.
100. Jensen, P., ed. (2009). The Ethology of Domestic Animals: An Introductory Text. CABI. p. 111.
101. 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.
102. Canario, L.; Mignon-Grasteau, S.; Dupont-Nivet, M.; Phocas, F. (2013). "Genetics of behavioural adaptation of livestock to farming conditions". animal 7 (3): 357–377. doi:10.1017/S1751731112001978.
103. Friedrich, J., Brand, B. and Schwerin, M. (2015). "Genetics of cattle temperament and its impact on livestock production and breeding–a review" (PDF). Archives Animal Breeding 58: 13–21. doi:10.5194/aab-58-13-2015.
104. McTavish, E.J., Decker, J.E., Schnabel, R.D., Taylor, J.F. and Hillis, D.M.year=2013. "New World cattle show ancestry from multiple independent domestication events.". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A 110: E1398–406. doi:10.1073/pnas.1303367110. PMC 3625352. PMID 23530234.
105. 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.
106. G A Slafer – Barley Science: Recent Advances from Molecular Biology to Agronomy of Yield and Quality p.1 Routledge, 12 March 2002 ISBN 1-56022-910-1 Retrieved 2012-06-17
107. G Davies, J H Bank – A history of money: from ancient times to the present day University of Wales Press, 2002 – Retrieved 2012-05-17
108. J Huerta de Soto – 1998 (translated by M.A.Stroup 2012). Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles. Ludwig von Mises Institute. ISBN 1-61016-189-0. Retrieved 2012-06-15.
109. "A History of Money". Retrieved 19 May 2015.
110. Lott, Dale F.; Hart, Benjamin L. (October 1979). "Applied ethology in a nomadic cattle culture". Applied Animal Ethology (Elsevier B.V.) 5 (4): 309–319. doi:10.1016/0304-3762(79)90102-0.
111. Krebs JR, Anderson T, Clutton-Brock WT; et al. (1997). "Bovine tuberculosis in cattle and badgers: an independent scientific review" (PDF). Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2004-07-22. Retrieved 4 September 2006.
112. Edward O. Wilson, The Future of Life, 2003, Vintage Books, 256 pages ISBN 0-679-76811-4
113. "40 Winks?" Jennifer S. Holland, National Geographic Vol. 220, No. 1. July 2011.
114. (Clay 2004).
115. | http://helgilibrary.com/indicators/index/cattle-meat-production Cattle Meat Production | 12 February 2014
116. Rickard, G., & Book, I. (1999). Bovids:useful ruminants. In Investigating God's world (3rd ed.). Pensacola, Fla.: A Beka Book.
117. "UK Dairy Cows". Retrieved 7 May 2015.
118. "Compassion in World Farming: Dairy Cattle". Retrieved 7 May 2015.
119. "Milking 3 Times per day".
120. "Veal and the Dairy Industry". Compassion in World Farming. Retrieved 9 May 2015.
121. "FAO – Cattle Hides" (PDF). Retrieved 16 May 2015.
122. "Definition of Feral cattle". Retrieved 4 May 2015.
123. Grubb, P. (2005). "Bos taurus". In Wilson, D.E.; Reeder, D.M. 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.
124. http://www.nodai-genome.org/bos_taurus.html?lang=en
125. http://www.tech.nagoya-u.ac.jp/event/h26/Vol10/hon_secur/O9-SEI-1-s.pdf
126. 葛島（野生化した和牛のいる島）
127. The Wild Beasts of Chillingham
128. "Alaska Isle a Corral For Feral Cattle Herd; U.S. Wants to Trade Cows for Birds". The Washington Post. 2005-10-23. Retrieved 2016-04-26.
129. 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
130. Steinfeld, H. et al. 2006, Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. Livestock, Environment and Development, FAO.
131. "Manure management". Fao.org. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
132. McDonald, J. M. et al. 2009. Manure use for fertilizer and for energy. Report to Congress. USDA, AP-037. 53pp.
133. Shapouri, H. et al. 2002. The energy balance of corn ethanol: an update. USDA Agricultural Economic Report 814.
134. Capper, J. L. (2011). "The environmental impact of beef production in the United States: 1977 compared with 2007". J. Anim. Sci. 89: 4249–4261. doi:10.2527/jas.2010-3784.
135. USDA. 2011. Agricultural Statistics 2011. US Government Printing Office, Washington. 509 pp. Table 7.6.
136. USDA. 2012. Cattle. http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/current/Catt/Catt-01-27-2012.pdf
137. USDA 1994. Agricultural Statistics 1994. US Government Printing Office, Washington. 485 pp. Table 377.
138. US Code of Federal Regulations 40 CFR 122.23
139. ""What is a Factory Farm?" Sustainable Table". Sustainabletable.org. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
140. US Code of Federal Regulations 40 CFR 122
141. ""Regulatory Definitions of Large CAFOs, Medium CAFO, and Small CAFOs." Environmental Protection Agency Fact Sheet." (PDF). Retrieved 15 October 2013.
142. US Code of Federal Regulations 40 CFR 122.23, 40 CFR 122.42
143. See, e.g., 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).
144. 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.
145. "APPLYING ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES TO CAFOS: A CASE STUDY Richard Koelsch, Carol Balvanz, John George, Dan Meyer, John Nienaber, Gene Tinker" (PDF). Retrieved 15 October 2013.
146. "Ikerd, John. The Economics of CAFOs & Sustainable Alternatives". Web.missouri.edu. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
147. "Hansen, Dave, Nelson, Jennifer and Volk, Jennifer. Setback Standards and Alternative Compliance Practices to Satisfy CAFO Requirements: An assessment for the DEF-AG group" (PDF). Retrieved 15 October 2013.
148. "Gurian-Sherman, Doug. CAFOs Uncovered: The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations" (PDF). Retrieved 15 October 2013.
149. USDA. 2011. Agricultural Statistics 2011. US Government Printing Office, Washington. 509 pp. Table 7.1.
150. EPA. 2001. Environmental and economic benefit analysis of proposed revisions to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Regulation and the effluent guidelines for concentrated animal feeding operations. US Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-821-R-01-002. 157 pp.
151. "Clean Water Act (CWA) Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations National Enforcement Initiative". Epa.gov. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
152. E.O. Wilson, The Future of Life, 2003, Vintage Books, 256 pages ISBN 0-679-76811-4
153. 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 .
154. IPCC. 2001. Third Assessment Report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Working Group I: The Scientific Basis. Table 4.2
155. 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.
156. IPCC. 2007. Fourth Assessment Report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
157. IPCC. 2007. Fourth Assessment Report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
158. Dlugokencky, E. J.; et al. (2011). "Global atmospheric methane: budget, changes and dangers". Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. 369: 2058–2072. doi:10.1098/rsta.2010.0341.
159. Boadi, D.; et al. (2004). "Mitigation strategies to reduce enteric methane emissions from dairy cows: Update review .". Can. J. Anim. Sci. 84: 319–335. doi:10.4141/a03-109.
160. Martin, C. et al. 2010. Methane mitigation in ruminants: from microbe to the farm scale. Animal 4 : pp 351–365.
161. Eckard, R. J.; et al. (2010). "Options for the abatement of methane and nitrous oxide from ruminant production: A review". Livestock Science 130: 47–56. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2010.02.010.
162. "Buatrics". Retrieved 19 November 2013.
163. "World Association for Buiatrics". Retrieved 4 December 2013.
164. "List of Countries 2012". Retrieved 4 December 2013.
165. "Common and important diseases of cattle". Retrieved 17 November 2013.
166. "Identification of new cattle virus will help rule out mad cow disease". Retrieved 17 November 2013.
167. "Cattle Diseases". Retrieved 4 December 2013.
168. "Cattle Disease Guide". Retrieved 4 December 2013.
169. Harvey, Fiona (17 May 2011). "Easing of farming regulations could allow milk from TB-infected cattle into food chain". The Guardian. Retrieved 4 December 2013.
170. Abbott, Charles (2 November 2013). "U.S. aligns beef rules with global mad cow standards". Reuters. Retrieved 4 December 2013.
171. West, Julian (2 September 2001). "A gift from the gods: bottled cow's urine". The Telegraph (London). Retrieved 4 December 2013.
172. "Cow Urine as Medicine". WSJ. Retrieved 4 December 2013.
173. Esterbrook, John. "Cow Urine As Panacea?". CBS News. Retrieved 4 December 2013.
174. "(video) Indian Doctors Use Cow Urine As Medicine". The Wall Street Journal. 29 July 2010. Retrieved 27 November 2010.
175. "Cow urine drug developed by RSS body gets US patent". The Indian Express. 17 June 2010. Retrieved 4 December 2013.
176. Beneke, E., Rogers, A. (1996). Medical Mycology and Human Mycoses. California: Star. pp. 85–90. ISBN 0-89863-175-0.
177. Lowry, C.A.; Hollis, J.H.; De Vries, A.; Pan, B.; Brunet, L.R.; Hunt, J.R.F.; Paton, J.F.R.; Van Kampen, E.; et al. (2007). "Identification of an immune-responsive mesolimbocortical serotonergic system: Potential role in regulation of emotional behavior". Neuroscience 146 (2): 756–72. doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2007.01.067. PMC 1868963. PMID 17367941.
178. "Extremely drug resistant tuberculosis – is there hope for a cure?" (PDF). TB Alert – the UK's National Tuberculosis Charity. Retrieved 2 April 2007.
179. 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.
180. Phaniraja, K. L. and H. H. Panchasara. 2009. Indian draught animals power. Veterinary World 2:404–407.
181. 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.
182. Jha, D. N. (2002). The myth of the holy cow. London: Verso. p. 130. ISBN 978-1-85984-676-6.
183. "Mahabharata, Book 13-Anusasana Parva, Section LXXVI". Sacred-texts.com. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
184. Subramanian Swamy (19 January 2016). "Save the cow, save earth". Express Buzz. Retrieved 19 January 2016.
185. Kane, J.; Anzovin, S.; Podell, J. (1997). Famous First Facts. New York, NY: H. W. Wilson Company. p. 5. ISBN 0-8242-0930-3.
186. Madden, Thomas (May 1992). "Akabeko". OUTLOOK. Online copy accessed 18 January 2007.
187. Patrick Mendis 2007. Glocalization: The Human Side of Globalization.. p160
188. FAOSTAT. [Agricultural statistics database] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. http://faostat3.fao.org/
189. Archived 19 September 2010 at the Wayback Machine.
190. http://www.nepad-caadp.net/pdf/A0586e03.pdf
191. <http://faostat3.fao.org/browse/Q/QA/E?>
192. Murad Ali Baig (2011). 80 Questions to Understand India. Jaico Publishing House. p. 172.

Notes

1. The noun cattle (which is treated as a plural and has no singular) encompasses both sexes. The singular, cow, unambiguously means the female, the male being bull. The plural feminine form cows is sometimes used colloquially to refer to both sexes collectively, as e.g. in a herd, but that usage can be misleading as the speaker's intent may indeed be just the females. The bovine species per se is clearly dimorphic.

Further reading

• Bhattacharya, S. 2003. Cattle ownership makes it a man's world. 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, D.C., USA: Island Press. ISBN 1-55963-370-0.
• Clutton-Brock, J. 1999. A Natural History of Domesticated Mammals. Cambridge UK : Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-63495-4.
• 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.
• Huffman, B. 2006. The ultimate ungulate page. UltimateUngulate.com. Retrieved 26 December 2006.
• Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG). 2005. Bos taurus. Global Invasive Species Database.
• Nowak, R.M. and Paradiso, J.L. 1983. Walker's Mammals of the World. Baltimore, Maryland, USA: 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. PBS Nature. Retrieved 5 January 2007.
• Rath, S. 1998. The Complete Cow. Stillwater, Minnesota, USA: 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. Live cattle. Spectrumcommodities.com. Retrieved 5 January 2007.
• Voelker, W. 1986. The Natural History of Living Mammals. Medford, New Jersey, USA: Plexus Publishing, Inc. ISBN 0-937548-08-1.
• Yogananda, P. 1946. The Autobiography of a Yogi. Los Angeles, California, USA: Self Realization Fellowship. ISBN 0-87612-083-4.