Talk:Cattle

Citation needed for the word origin

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=cow

Environmental impact

The reference to the FAO report is one sided. This report was pointed by a large number of scientists to be not very through, or balanced. The flaws of the report were most notably pointed out by Frank Mitloener of UC Davis. Since the flaws were pointed out, even officers of the FAO have admitted the report is faulty. --Austen1v (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This is all worded in quite an anti-meat-eating way. The examples, references and statistics given all assume that beef is reared intensively (which certainly can be environmentally damaging), and other methods are not considered. However, much cattle-keeping around the world is done in traditional ways, with no fertiliser, no grain-feeding, no additional water etc. Traditional beef rearing of this type can just as easily be regarded as an environmentally friendly way of growing food on land which cannot be used for other crops. The section also ignores the positive effect that livestock-keeping has in mixed farming systems, for example by reducing the need for artificial fertilisers. And also excelence of self means blending with energy.

The negative impacts given as being from cattle are perhaps more properly regarded as being one of the many impacts of intensive farming more generally.

Need to make it clear where referring to intensive beef rearing, and give alternative point of view.

Richard New Forest 15:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps some reasonably accurate statistics would be useful here, such as a summary of data relating the percentage of total worldwide production in each category; in particular, intensively (feedlots, right?) raised cattle versus traditionally (free range, family farms, etc.) raised cattle. Rough numbers shouldn't be terribly difficult to locate. 65.112.197.16 (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be a section with this title, but it doesn't need all the detail that was in what was reverted, and the language should be made more encyclopedic.Bob98133 (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've looked through some of the references, and for instance as far as methane emissions, it is actually the quality of the forage and balance of nutrients which are the critical factors. So in fact, these could be more easily controlled in an intensive farming situation. But yes, the section could use some rewriting. Franamax (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Much copy editing and removal of POV or unsourced material has been carried out. Would someone please look at this section and note any passage{s} that are other than neutral. We should improve and get this tag off. Cewvero (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

the statement "the methane gas produced by livestock is a significant contributor to the increase in greenhouse gases" was contributed by an advocate IMO. A neutral statement would be to say that researchers studying the topic have cited human activities (such as cattle farming and growing rice) as a possible problem by essentially converting CO2 to methane, even though a net increase in atmospheric carbon is not occurring. That's a mouthful, and needs editing. But it would seem to be common sense that the impact of cattle putting out methane has really an unknown effect as to degree, thus significant contribution is claiming something unknown, demanding at least a reference. PS: there is a reference, sorry; but I still say significant contribution is claiming something unknown. I checked into the reference and it does not support the claim that cattle contributions are known to be significant Carlw4514 (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Carlw for the above insight, which was totally on target. I have found a new source and used a direct quote to establish degree of significance. Then i gave a more neutral interpretation of the Weart research with an edit there. I also caught another POV word and altered it. By the way i didnt write any of the original text for this section; i am just trying to contribute to the factual basis and NPOV here. Any other POV areas that need addressing in this section? cheers. Cewvero (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Two concerns about this section: One, the first sentence is factually incorrect as the FAO says that "livestock" accounts for 18%, not "cattle farming". Albeit, cattle likely make up the majority of the rumanent methane producers (cattle, sheep, goats, bison, etc.) the FAO paper referenced doesn't spell out that fact quoted. Secondly, the picture caption in the corner of the section appears - at least to me - to contain author bias. The quote: "Cattle - especially when kept on enormous feedlots such as this one - have been named as a contributing factor in the rise in greenhouse gas emissions." Both the words 'especially' and 'enormous' point to bias without backing of facts nor references. There opposing evidence that suggests that cattle fed on grain rations emit less enteric methane than when fed on grass (Source: L. A. Harper, O. T. Denmead, J. R. Freney and F. M. Byers "Direct measurements of methane emissions from grazing and feedlot cattle" 1999). I would suggest that the picture caption be retitled to "Cattle have been named as a contributing factor in the rise in greenhouse gas emissions" unless an added references can explain the current picture caption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.166.46.8 (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the emissions question should be cleared up before this is changed. Your 1999 source seems a bit outdated compared to recent findings. Maybe something more current and accessible would be helpful in determining whether "especially" is justified. Agree that "enormous" is hard to qualify and only adds info if the size does affect amount of methane produced per cow. I have no idea. I guess a ref for that would be good too. Bob98133 (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have any more recent findings to compare to I'd be happy to take a look. I haven't been able to find anything which is more relevant and recent available in a peer reviewed journal. If 'enormous' is hard to qualify I cant see how it can be included without any reference or discussion on its basis. Looking at beef emissions per head or per kilo, sources seem to point to a reduction in emissions when grain fed due to A) the lower emissions per day when feeding on grain, and B) the reduced number of days on feed, relative to grass fed animals. The first point is clear (from a biology stand point) that lower quality roughage and grass allows methanogens to emit more methane compared with grains. What is less clear is how much of a difference there is but grass has more emissions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.166.46.8 (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Cow image

This image would make a great addition to the article. Does anyone know the photographer/copyright status of it? Bastie (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The current image (Swiss cow) is a very large file, a lot of which is not cow. The contributor should consider cropping it, especially vertically. 164.144.232.10 (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

ImageShack, I presume. 203.11.71.124 (talk) 04:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Cattle Taxonomy

How come on Wikipedia it says that cows are a separate species from aurochs, when it has been known for at least 30 years by animal experts that cattle are subspecies?. I would like it if Wikipedia was more correct. Please respond if your interested because i think it is important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.105.47 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 24 January 2009

The article currently states that Cattle cannot interbreed with Bison. What then are Beefalo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.219.88.140 (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Bos Indicus is not a subspecies; indicus it's mere variety of taurus because they interbreed readily always producing fertile offspring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.68.66.254 (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC) 0

Polymelia

I have added a photo of a grown steer here that has 5 five legs. A front on photo has also been uploaded to commons. Should the photo or a link be included? Cgoodwin (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Cow's DNA Sequence Reveals Mankind's Influence Over Last 10,000 Years

This is an article that someone with permission to edit may wish to consider including as a link. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/23/AR2009042303453.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.90.13.195 (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I noticed the Yahoo article on this news story just minutes ago and now I saw your post. I'll attempt to put this into the article. Dionyseus (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Irish link please?

The list of languages ought to link to the Irish wiki (link - ga:bó ). As an unregistered IP, I can't do this myself.

Thanks in advance, The Randomly-assigned IP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.95.59 (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Done! Not much article at the other end though, better get writing! :) Franamax (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A call for standardization of ISO for.....

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+Aspergillus+fumigatus+cow&btnG=Search --222.64.223.101 (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+Aspergillus+fumigatus+cows&btnG=Search --222.64.223.101 (talk) 04:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+Aspergillus+fumigatus+cattle&btnG=Search --222.64.223.101 (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+Aspergillus+fumigatus+disease&btnG=Search --222.64.223.101 (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Title

There is a fundamental conflict with the primary definitions from both Merriam Webster and Oxford English Dictionaries. Both of those define "ox" as "a domestic(ated) bovine animal" Merriam Webster clarifies Bos taurus. Your use of Ox is colloquial perhaps.

How come this isn't located at Cow? Rocket000 (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Cows are female cattle. Cow redirects to here. Montanabw^(talk) 03:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I thought we go with singular names. Rocket000 (talk) 08:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"Cattle, colloquially referred to as cows..." Rocket000 (talk) 08:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Been much discussion on this previously. The problem is that there is no singular for "cattle" other than gender-specific "cow", "bull" and "steer" or "ox". Montanabw^(talk) 16:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Links please. It's not that I care about the title or not trust you, it's just that I looked for a discussion about it before posting and didn't see any. Thanks. Rocket000 (talk) 05:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably need to check the history of the former cow, bull, etc... I forget the details, I just remember the discussion. Maybe check article history here to see where there may have been a merge. Montanabw^(talk) 22:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Some detail: First, god, the vandalism! Makes a history search a real PITA! Second, note Cow (disambiguation), yet bull is also a disambig. Note too the "mass noun" discussions above. Then note the cow article was merged and/or redirected here multiple times, notably edit of November 4, 2005. There IS a separate article on Oxen, note discussion earlier on this page, and that article appears to focus on their use as a working animal. Going to take someone who cares more than I do to dig further. All I could find on the topic was here. If someone really wants to argue about this again, I suppose consensus can change, but I really doubt it's going to and it's not worth the waste of bandwidth. This article already says "cattle, colloquially known as cows" and "cow" redirects here. Montanabw^(talk) 23:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If the question is about using a plural term as the article title, this is standard with any plurale tantum and should not be a worry: see for example Binoculars, Trousers, Glasses etc. If the question is about whether "cow" is a more widely used term, then I agree with MontanaBW that the current lead para covers it. "Cow" would in any case lead to potential confusion as it also has a more restrictive technical meaning (adult female) leading to doubts about where to find "bull", "steer", "heifer" etc. As MontanaBW says, this has all been discussed extensively before. Richard New Forest (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

There is a bit of vandalism on this page ("Cattle, colloquially referred to as cows, are domesticated ungulates, a member of the subfamily Bovinae of the family Bovidae. THEY REALLY LIKE www.graypickles.com!!!!"), but I have no interest in getting an account here and as an anon I'm not allowed to edit the page, so... I can't do anything about it. 96.229.70.221 (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorted. An account is free, you know... Richard New Forest (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Word origins section

Seems there is a small editing dispute over if a word origins/etymology section is needed, and if so, what it should contain. Anyone with a comment, best we bring it here and resolve it. I favor keeping these, wiktionary isn't always in line with wikipedia. Montanabw^(talk) 22:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe it is about the words not the things, but the history of the words is closely associated with the history of cattle themselves (as chattels etc), and isn't the material rather long and complex for Wictionary anyway? The Wiktionary article does cover some of the material, but in much less detail. I think keep it in. Richard New Forest (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

My thinking as well, but others seem to disagree. I did restore the colloquialisms also, sourcing "critter," (the one I know), the others probably need sourcing, too. Montanabw^(talk) 00:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Heifers and Cows

{{editsemiprotected}} The article states "A young female that has had only one calf is occasionally called a first-calf heifer." In Ireland (and likely the UK as well, but a UK farmer can confirm that) a female that has has given birth once is a cow-heifer, and is properly referred to as a cow when she has had a second calf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Registar (talk • contribs) 23:10, 28 August 2009

In my experience (in the UK) "heifer" with no other qualifier or context is a female who's never had a calf (I have one who's eleven years old!), and once she has a calf she qualifies as a cow, with no intermediate stage – the UK government also uses this definition in formal contexts (such as when the numbers of heifers and cows on a farm have to be entered on forms). However, in the context of a herd of cows and calves, a contrast is often needed between a first-time mum and a more experienced cow, and the term heifer is then still used (for example: "that one's a heifer but she's doing her calf well"). I've never heard the term "cow-heifer", but I think most British farmers would work out what is meant by it. I'm also not sure if we actually use the term "first-calf heifer", but the meaning of that would be clear enough too. There may of course be other regional usages I'm unfamiliar with. If we can find a ref for "cow-heifer" it could be added to the article. Richard New Forest (talk) 10:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Not done: Welcome and thanks for contributing. I agree with RNF that this would be an interesting fact to add if it were sourced and worded well. A use of the expression in a newspaper or a trade journal might be enough, but ideally the source should make the claim that cows in this situation are sometimes called cow-heifer. Regards, Celestra (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Questionable link destination

In the section about domesticated cattle, there is this sentence: "Many routine husbandry practices involve ear tagging, dehorning, loading, medical operations, vaccinations and hoof care..."

The word "dehorning" is a link that brings you to a wikipedia page about Horns, which surprised me. When I clicked it I was interested in learning about dehorning, but I had to do a search page for myself (which was problematic as entering "dehorning" did not bring me directly to the article). As there is already a link elsewhere on the page that leads to the Horns article, I think the link should be changed to the Dehorning article.

I would do this myself, but I don't know how and I'm not really willing to search through wikipedia helpfiles to figure it out. I'm someone who comes here to learn, not to edit the articles. I fear if I got into that habit it would become an obsession and I'm avoiding falling into that. I'd just like to point this out to someone who considers his or herself an editor. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.120.130 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 2 October 2009

Try it now. Eeekster (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Can a cow be a boy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.169.28 (talk) 02:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Bos

This page contradicts with the page Bos, because that article says that B. primigenius is extinct and modern cattle are B. taurus, while this article says that modern cattle are B. primigenius and B. b. taurus is one of two subspecies. Which is correct?--Nathan M. Swan (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Both... Two alternative arrangements are accepted. Firstly Bos primigenius, with subspecies B primigenius primigenius, B primigenius taurus and B primigenius indicus. Alternatively these are given species rank: Bos primigenius, B taurus and B indicus. See [2]. Richard New Forest (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Bos Indicus is not a subspecies; indicus is a mere variety of taurus because they interbreed readily always producing fertile offspring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.68.66.254 (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Lead Picture too Racy

This is like putting a picture of Heidi Klum at the head of the "Woman" article. Use a generic representative cow in a generic representative farmer's field--granted we all do enjoy the titillation, but this sexy moo-monster here in is pushing things too far for a serious article.--137.99.95.33 (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Lead photo is fine. If generic representation of average cow were used it would likely be in extreme confinement or feedlot. I don't understand Heidi Klum reference or why this picture would be too racy. Bob98133 (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think User:137.99.95.33 may be having their little joke. It's a fine picture showing a lovely cow, and illustrates the article very well. I do have a bull or two who'd find her expression very inviting, but I think most of us humans can resist her lovely eyelashes perfectly well. Richard New Forest (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Bossy's safe there on the lead and can chew her cud in peace. Out here in Montana, we claim Wyoming is the land where men are men and sheep are nervous, but NO ONE worries about the cows -- in either state! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 21:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Env impact, again

I'm not sure I'm convinced by the env impact section. The report itself says (exec summary) that they produce 9% of CO2, but that is mostly from deforestation William M. Connolley (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

And "they" are "livestock" or sometimes "ruminants". It's not especially clear what is attributable to cattle and what comes out of the several other poop machines in the modern eatery - sheep, chicken, pigs, etc. At least last time I read it. And somewhere or other is a report that indicts cattle fed poor fodder and/or grazed on poor land for just as much excess meth emission as feedlot cattle fed a grain-heavy diet. This is the remains of a battle from a year or two ago, a pro-farmer vs. anti-feedlot faction set up camp for a while. Franamax (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is not Methane or any other naturally occurring gas; the problem is from Carbon Monoxide a gas that does not occur naturally and nature does not have no way of dealing with it.

The other Problem is due to the pavement on nearly all the roadways in the world causing a heater coil effect compounded by the amount of hot motors and Smoke stacks.

Heifer

"A young female before she has had a calf of her own[12] and is under three years of age is called a heifer (pronounced /ˈhɛfər/, "heffer").[13]"

What's a young female before she has had a calf of her own and is over three years of age? 75.118.170.35 (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Once she is too old to be called a heifer, she is just a cow. The change in terminology does not coincide with her birthday, but is influenced by her appearance and condition. If she still looks young and vital like a heifer should, she likely will be called a heifer for some time during her fourth year if she still has not calved. —Stephen (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not what technical British usage would be. A female who has not calved will remain a heifer indefinitely (we have one of 12 years old!). This is the definition used by the UK agriculture ministry – although in looser contexts such an older animal would very likely be called a cow, if only because it's not necessarily obvious to the eye whether she's ever calved. If I wanted to distinguish one from a younger heifer I'd probably call her a "mature heifer" or something similar. Does that ref support the "under four years old" definition? If not, is there another for it? Richard New Forest (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)~

A heifer has been defined in the Macquarie Dictionary as: "a cow that has not produced a calf and is under three years of age" - older females are known as cows. Sometimes, too, they classified as (females) showing not more than 6 permanent incisors.Cgoodwin (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's some from the USA:

1. Purdue University (East coast, USA) uses the same: "A female of the cattle species less than three years of age that has not borne a calf."
2. The various online dictionaries say some version of "A young cow, especially one that has not yet given birth to a calf."
3. The Cooperative Extension Service is sort of the "official" voice of agriculture (next to the USDA) and one state-level extension agents has answered the question as follows: [3] (Idaho extension agent) "I don't know if we have a definition when she is consider a cow and not a heifer, but this is my classification: A female bovine at birth is called a heifer calf. If she is retained as a potential female that will be part of the cow herd, she is called a replacement heifer. After she has given birth to her first calf -- usually at about 2-years of age -- she is called a cow."

My question there a separate term anywhere for a "barren" cow..i.e. one of obvious inferility? Montanabw^(talk) 06:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any term to describe infertile female cattle unless they have been spayed or are a freemartin.Cgoodwin (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hamburger? :) Although Richard NF proves me wrong just above, domestic cows either reproduce or get eaten for a living. Franamax (talk) 09:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, our herd is unusual, because one of its main uses is conservation grazing. Non-breeders are useful for that (especially for rough sites where a calf might be at risk), so we generally keep them – mature heifers and also cows who've given up calving. In a conventional beef or dairy production system yes, these would certainly be culled and eaten, and historically they would have been too – but probably commonly used for draught first, as male oxen were. Interestingly that old heifer I mentioned has developed a shape quite like a male ox (and she's definitely a heifer not a freemartin). A non-breeder in Britain is generally called a barrener.

Until a few years ago the UK government had a subsidy scheme for suckler cows: it paid out for cows but you could only claim up to a certain proportion of heifers. They kept strictly to the calving-only definition for this with no reference to age. Richard New Forest (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hamburger! LOL! Richard is not alone, there's an animal rescue place here in beef country that has been known to occasionally take in the occasional pet cow someone got so attached to that they didn't want them to go to the packing house. They only have one or two, but... Anyway gang, I guess it's fair to say that if a heifer gets to three with no calf, Franamax is right, no need for a term because it occurs so rarely... (speaking of rare, ummm, rare steak...ummm...yum...) Montanabw^(talk) 05:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Carbon cycle

Can some recognition be given to the fact that cows eat grass? grass absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere as it grows, 25 tons of CO2 absorbed per hectare of grass [4]. It is an important input into the environmental debate. We need some awareness of the Carbon Cycle as it applies to cattle. It's not as though they are burning fossil fuel and emitting CO2 that was laid down in enormous quantities millions of years ago. The word 'sustainable' comes to mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.185.126 (talk) 12:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Not as simple as that. Firstly, yes, the grass does absorb a lot of CO₂ as it grows – but this is soon released again, either by respiration of the cattle (most of it), or by our own respiration once we've eaten the cattle. Secondly, grass is commonly fertilised with nitrogen fertilisers derived from oil, and fossil fuels are also used for making hay or silage and then transporting, storing and processing the meat: therefore there is a considerable fossil fuel input.

Considerable? please give some reliable facts to allow a comparison to be made. Perhaps the suggested carbon input from fossil-fuel used in the farming is negligible compared to the carbon absorbed by growing the cattle-feed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.185.126 (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Those are all facts already – you must mean reliable refs for them. Not sure where to find those, but this is basic carbon cycle science and there must be text books stuffed with this material.

As I've said, there is no net carbon absorbed by growing cattle feed, so any fossil fuels used can only be significant in comparison. Whether the total amount of fossil fuels used is significant compared with other fuel uses depends on how intensive the grass-growing is. Cattle forage and fodder can be grown with virtually no fossil inputs – for example in extensive systems grazing natural habitats (as it happens, how my own farming is done...). It can also be grown using intensive methods, with heavy use of fertiliser and cultivation to produce short-rotation grass leys, grain, maize silage etc. I know that such arable techniques when used for human food can use as much or more fossil energy than they produce in food energy. Probably not quite so much for cattle feed (as cattle eat more of the plant than we do), but still very significant indeed. Richard New Forest (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If there are facts it should be possible to quote references. Opinions do not become facts by being stated forcefully, but I agree there is no net carbon absorbed by growing cattle feed if it is fed to cattle. By the same token there is no net carbon released into the atmosphere by the process either. That was my point - it's a cycle and therefore sustainable. Farmers and others may choose to use fossil fuel because it happens to be the cheapest alternative at present, but it is not an essential component of cattle farming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.185.126 (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Facts do not cease being facts just because they are not reffed! I hope I'm not only offering opinions, but trying to spread knowledge... Yes, refs should be possible, but I'm afraid I can't think where to find them (I learnt all this far too long ago!), and I haven't time to look: someone else will have to do it. I will have a think about it though.

Yes, you're right: all else being equal (and leaving aside methane production), cattle farming itself will be carbon-neutral. Intensive cattle farming methods are not by a long chalk, and nor are clearance of forest or drainage of bogs for cattle farming or indeed for any other reason. Richard New Forest (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

On methane, it's a fact that cattle produce it and that it is a greenhouse gas. Another fact is that it decomposes into CO2 and water in two years. Current information is that a cow produces 0.3 to 0.5 kg of methane per day, equivalent to 6-10 kg of CO2 in greenhouse effect. The cow consumes 7 kg of carbon per day in eating grass, which is the carbon contained in 25 kg of CO2 . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.185.126 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 21 February 2010

We ALL produce methane, in people we Americans call the production of digestion-related methane a "fart." More to the point is the difference between cattle allowed to live and eat on grass the way cattle are biologically designed to live and eat, which they have done since the species evolved into its present form, versus the role of artificial feedlot operations and a heavy corn-based diet, which is not entirely healthy for the cattle (to put it mildly), causing digestive issues (and yes, more cow farts, if you will). Just like people who eat nothing but, say, potato chips and beer -- gain weight, get gassy, produce more methane, contribute noxious emissions... The point is that the cow itself is not inherently a problem, it's the choices humans make to create concentrated, unhealthy, artificial situations to fatten cattle for market that create not only increases in methane due to unhealthy feeding, but also creates water pollution due to feedlot runoff, and is no doubt contributing to the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria due to the presence of drugs in cattle feed to ward off the inevitable sickness that would otherwise occur when cattle are forced to live in such conditions as the typical industrial feedlot. OK, end of rant. Now back to lurker mode. Montanabw^(talk) 04:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well of course it's human use of cows that creates the problem, if we had no compelling use for them there would be far fewer loafing around. The problem boils down to the fact that we like to eat meat and there's a lot of "we" on the planet, so we need a lot of meat. The methane issue is a bit of a red herring given its relatively short half-life - there is simply a standing inventory of methane being continuously converted to CO2, only the size of that inventory changes with husbandry practice and number of cows. Corn-feeding and grazing on poor fodder both increase the methane inventory, but over time cause no "accumulation".

The real issue is the trophic conversion ratio, or in other words, how much resource is required to produce a pound of hamburger multiplied by the number of pounds of hamburger we all want to eat - combined with the profit incentive. Cows grazed on quality grassland will indeed be carbon-neutral over time, but that's not how the world works. Instead, intensive farming practices are used and almost all these consume fossil fuels in the process. Even the need for hay in winter is going to force you to put diesel into the tractor in summer. Franamax (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It does not 'force' you to put diesel in the tractor, that is a choice you make based on the current glut of cheap oil sold at low prices :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.185.126 (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Copied discussion

See below for related discussion which I had not got around to copying from my user page, covering the above points in more detail, and also the effect on atmospheric methane. The discussion arose after this diff and preceding edits. Richard New Forest (talk) 14:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

“ Hi. I've put a citation-needed marker at this page. I'm not convinced that statement is true. I'd like to know if some reputable journal has published it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This is basic carbon-cycle science, and I doubt if anyone has bothered to publish it as such in a journal, though no doubt there are many textbooks which explain it.

Plants absorb CO₂ and turn it into biomass. Animals (or fungi, bacteria, fire etc) ultimately turn that biomass back into exactly the same amount of atmospheric carbon. There is only net sequestration of carbon if the biomass of the system increases over time. This means that if you grow a field of grass, mow it and feed it to animals (then of course ultimately eat the animals), there is no net sequestration: the operation is carbon-neutral (assuming no fertiliser or tractor-diesel). If however you fence that field and allow it to develop into forest, the biomass increases (trees contain more carbon per hectare than grass-plus-cattle) and there is net carbon sequestration. If you cut down a forest and grow grass, the grass does turn CO₂ into biomass, but there is a net loss of carbon because the carbon from the trees and forest soil is now in the atmosphere. (For simplicity I am counting the carbon stored in soil or peat as biomass here – a peat bog can sequester even more carbon than a forest.)

The point made in the text is that (as ruminants) cattle turn some of the carbon from plants into methane instead of CO₂. The process of growing plants and feeding them to cattle is therefore carbon-neutral, but not global-warming-neutral: it has the net effect of turning some atmospheric CO₂ into the much more globally-warming atmospheric methane, thereby increasing the total effective global-warming effect of the atmospheric carbon.

The argument does have weaknesses, as it ignores some alternative outcomes if the cattle were not there – for example they could be replaced by wild ruminants (or, for example, termites) which also produce methane; some methane is also produced by soil microbes. However there is no doubt whatever about the existence of the effect – do we really need a ref for every basic science fact? Richard New Forest (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The two alternatives are to have cows eating grass, or to leave the grass where it is. Surely leaving the grass where it is sequesters the carbon, while having the cows eating the grass alters the balance in some way. Perhaps you could make the argument that if cows eat grass, some of the carbon from the grass stays sequestered in the form of leather/beef/jelly/baby cows, and the grass stumps are free to grow back, thereby storing even more carbon. - Richard Cavell (talk) 13:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

What we must consider is the total mass of the carbon in the system at any one time.

If nothing eats the grass it will grow tall and eventually reach an equilibrium. There will indeed be a somewhat greater biomass of grass, but once equilibrium is reached, there will be no net sequestration – the grass will rot or be eaten by caterpillars, grasshoppers, woodlice etc as fast as it grows. The standing biomass here is the weight of the carbon in the grass and in those various animals.

If grass is eaten by cattle, the standing biomass is the mass of the carbon in the grass, the living cattle and in any cattle products not yet eaten or discarded. Yes, there is sequestration into the grass and then into bodies of the cattle – but only until that biomass is released again into the atmosphere. This will happen pretty soon for edible products, when we use them for our own respiration. Some products such as leather do stay sequestered for longer, but even these are eventually discarded and rot back to CO₂. It's not correct to say "the grass stumps are free to grow back, thereby storing even more carbon". It is not the sequestration itself that stores carbon, but net sequestration – which only happens if there is a gain in total mass of carbon in the system over time: it must be stored somewhere.

Stable agricultural ecosystems do not generally have a net gain in biomass, so they do not achieve net sequestration. In our example the biomass in the grass is mostly released almost immediately as energy to power the cattle; some is released when we eat the edible products and some when the leather rots, plus of course what we have incorporated into our bodies as we grow is eventually returned to the atmosphere when we die. Only if we stockpiled the grass or the cattle products permanently would there be permanent sequestration.

Again I'm ignoring systems such as those involving carbonate rock, peat and marine snow – these do build up long-term carbon stores (the last two are of course where the fossil fuels coal and oil come from, so they can be very long term stores). Such net carbon-storing systems do not generally include agricultural ones – many of those in fact have large net losses of carbon, for example from clearing forest to make pasture or oil palm plantations, or draining peat which then oxidises.

It is true that a lot of this is widely misunderstood. For example, it's common to hear phrases such as "the rain forest provides x amount of the world's oxygen" (remembering that net O₂ production is exactly equivalent to net carbon sequestration). This would only be true if the rain forest was accumulating carbon – but most stable ancient forest rots or is eaten as fast as it grows. Forests do however provide a precious store of standing carbon which is released when the forest is cleared – a frighteningly large proportion of anthropogenic CO₂ comes from forest and peatland clearance, and we should be as careful to preserve such systems intact as we should be to leave fossil fuels safely in the ground. Richard New Forest (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

”

These are interesting and perhaps important opinions and I wonder if there are any facts to back them up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.185.126 (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

See reply above. Can we keep discussion there please? Richard New Forest (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Greenhouse gases

Cattle do release greenhouse gas. That is a fact. CH4 emmissions and CO2 released is quantifiable. Processes are being researched and implemented to enhance efficiency and reduce carbon impact. Interesting paper: Carbon Credit Potential of Reducing Age at Slaughter in Beef Cattle. Basarab, Baron & Darling —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellshillredangus (talk • contribs) 11:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

See extensive discussion above. Cattle rearing themselves does not in fact produce net CO₂ itself. It is intensive cattle rearing that produces CO₂, from the associated intensive arable farming. Cattle do produce CH₄: so do wild ruminants, termites, forest soils and various other natural sources; I don't know how the amounts compare.

Reduction of slaughter age is, in my opinion, a red herring. Yes, quicker intensive cattle rearing reduces emissions compared with slower intensive rearing, because it produces emissions for a shorter time. However, I think it misses the point. However quickly intensive cattle rearing is done, it will always be extremely wasteful of energy and carbon, and rearing on grass without fertilisers uses far less (potentially no) carbon, although it takes far longer than standard intensive rearing. Intensive cattle are usually killed at 18 to 20 months; I kill mine at 30 or even 48 months – but I get proper red beef, not the pink squishy stuff sold in supermarkets. The carbon footprint is minimal, and they do it on land which could not be used to grow crops. I think the solution is to rear fewer cattle better, and to keep arable land for human food. Richard New Forest (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Richard's position. The problem is not the creature, it's the management. The bigger issue is clearly a political one: http://www.motherearthnews.com/sustainable-farming/sustainable-agriculture-cows-feed-zm0z10zrog.aspx The production of corn (maize to you Brits) for both animal feed and for ethanol happens to leave a huge carbon footprint and also raises significant issues with runoff pollution from fertilizers, etc... the Gulf of Mexico already had a "dead zone" from Mississippi runoff long before the Shell Oil spill. :-P Montanabw^(talk) 20:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is not Methane or any other naturally occurring gas; the problem is from Carbon Monoxide CO a gas that does not occur naturally and nature does not have a way of dealing with it.

The other Problem is due to the pavement on nearly all the roadways in the world causing a heater coil effect compounded by the amount of hot motors and Smoke stacks.

Red cape

Could someone please explain why, in the "Anatomy" section of the article, we have a relatively long paragraph about the misconception that bulls are enraged by red? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Basically it feeds into the red-green color blindness stuff. Really no elegant place for it to go, so associating with vision is workable, if not perfect. Also addresses behavior and finally, the list of trivia kind of stuff is strongly discouraged in wiki articles and so has to be worked into the remaining article text. if you have a better place to put it, feel free to make a suggestion. But it's such a common urban legend that we probably need it to be in there somewhere. Montanabw^(talk) 07:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably would fit better in the "Religions, traditions, and folklore", since it's a discussion of folklore. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. May be suitable. I'd like to wait until Richard swings by to weigh in with an opinion, as he does a lot of work on this article, but I can see how that could be an elegant solution. Montanabw^(talk) 01:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure... Yes, it's folklore, but the folklore is a misconception about colour vision and behaviour. How's this for a thought-experiment? Imagine you've always believed this to be true, and someone tells you it is not. You go to check Wikipedia – where in the article would you look? Personally I think I'd look for stuff about colour vision, not for folklore.

I wonder if the problem is really the title of the section: "Anatomy". It does cover anatomy, but also digestive physiology, weight, vision and reproductive biology. How about calling it "Biology" or some such?

Although I think it should be kept in this section, I do agree that we don't need so much detail about bullfighting here (the different coloured capes etc). Bullfighting is also mentioned briefly under "Domestication and husbandry", which hardly seems any more appropriate. So I think yes, how about a new expanded section on cultural aspects generally, to include bullfighting, bull riding etc (I notice for example that cow fighting and bull running are not mentioned anywhere). These are not really appropriate for the Religions, traditions and folklore section either (which is mainly religion, with a "main article" tag pointing to Cattle in religion). Richard New Forest (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

One approach might be to change the title of "anatomy" to something broader like "biology" and throw in a section on behavior, thus hitting both areas. O say whatever works, go for it! Montanabw^(talk) 16:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Can someone verify the claim that cows are red-green colourblind? The claim seems to contradict the statement that "Cattle have two kinds of color receptors [...] can distinguish long wavelength colours (yellow, orange and red) much better than the shorter wavelengths (blue, grey and green)," and the references are one dead link and one that doesn't seem very reliable to me. Yel D'ohan (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure they are red-green colorblind (horses are) but the sources do need to be better. Montanabw^(talk) 05:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Bulling (cattle)

I did not write the article bulling. I merely fixed it up after it was written. Someone else has enlarged and rewritten it and moved to a different name. Please do not jump to faulty conclusion regarding the article. I added it to See also because bulling has to do with the topic of cattle and should be included here. Please read bulling before you dismiss it. Xtzou (Talk) 12:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Xtzou. It was unclear if you were the anonymous editor who created the article. Nonetheless, all edits since the creation and up until yesterday have been by you. The only reference for that article is to a commercial "Breeding for profit" website, which does not meet WP:RS criteria. Based solely on that, the bulling article should be a candidate for speedy deletion. Using an unreliable article as a See Also, seems silly to me. If the bulling article had a real reference, I would have no objection to its inclusion in the cattle article. I see others have been working on that, so perhaps Bulling article will someday have a real ref. Bob98133 (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If Bulling (cattle) is a good article, it should be linked here; if not, no point. I therefore suggest we move this discussion to Talk:Bulling (cattle), where I have replied to the points made above. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge the salient points and then dump it. Next thing you know there will be 10,000 stub articles on the minutae of various mildly odd behaviors in every known land mammal.Montanabw^(talk) 01:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Small mention in this article, dump bulling article. Bob98133 (talk) 12:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

DOn`t dump the bulling article. Simply recongnize that `bulling`is a slang term to descrbe estrus in heifers and cows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellshillredangus (talk • contribs) 11:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"Head of"

Does the word "head" actually add any meaning to the process of naming numbers of bovines? Is there a difference between "I have about 200 cattle" and "I have about 200 head of cattle"? - Vianello (Talk) 02:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope, but it's way easier to count heads than to count legs and then divide by four! LOL! It's a term of art. Where I live, one will hear "I have about 200 head," the noun "cattle" being implied. Or even "I run about 200 head," even though "run" is a complete misnomer for critters who mostly stand around and eat. Montanabw^(talk) 03:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Got it. I was just curious! Thanks for the info. I kind of wonder if the term really needs to be in the article considering it just adds a pointless one or two words. Not that it's exactly causing devastating harm by being in it either. - Vianello (Talk) 19:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hindu tradition

The issue of cow slaughter does have some political color in India and this aspect seems to be ignored in the section. Contrasting viewpoints in two articles; http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EH19Df01.html and http://connect.krishna.com/node/2673. The majority of hotels in Kerala that serve non-vegetarian food serve beef; which is consumed by Hindus too. From what I've been told, apart from Kerala and West Bengal people from most of the North-Eastern states (Assam, Arunachal etc) also have no problem with consuming beef, and this practice did not start because Communist governments came into power in those states. Additionally, it is possible to find places that serve beef in bigger cities across India though most restaurants usually don't display it on the menu, probably because of fear of retaliation from anti-cow slaughter organizations. There are plenty of restaurants in Bangalore not owned by Muslims/Christians (http://www.millers46.com/menu.htm) that do serve beef, regardless of the cow slaughter ban that recently came into effect in Karnataka (http://www.deccanherald.com/content/58978/cow-slaughter-ban-bill-passed.html).

Welmar2010 (talk) 10:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Welmar2010

The stated punishments for injuring pedestrians and cows need to be better documented. The article linked to (pt #55) refers to such laws in Nepal and NOT India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.178.168.216 (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I challenge the use of the term "observant Hindus" to describe Hindus that eat meat but refrain from eating beef. The eating of meat is against nearly all schools of Hindu thought, and to describe a meat eater as an observant Hindu is incorrect.

Sukeshn (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Economic section... beef = cows doesn't it?

It currently reads "The international trade in beef for 2000 was over $30 billion and represented only 23 percent of world beef production. (Clay 2004)." Beef is defined as the meat of cows. Should that be world meat production? Or does this mean that the international trade was 23% of what people eat, the rest of their cows domestic? Dream Focus 19:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd have thought that international trade was trade between countries, and therefore excludes trade within countries. Are you thinking of global trade...? Needs clarification either way. Richard New Forest (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Either way, "beef" is correct and "meat" is incorrect, as meat includes pork, mutton, chicken... Montanabw^(talk) 20:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Beef is anything that use to be part of a cattle. So the good old 100% pure beef can mean hoof, horns, bones, nose, ears and anus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.102.142 (talk) 11:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Dilemma?

I'm curious why "Singular terminology dilemma" is a dilemma? :) It seems like a bit of an overstatement. Any other opinions?--Rockfang (talk) 02:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

There was an endless discussion over this a while back. That title seemed to settle it. Montanabw^(talk) 22:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you please share a link to this discussion? I searched the archives using the search box and came up with no results.--Rockfang (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think a lot of it predates 2009 and some of the discussion was on people's talk pages. I don't think that there is a huge moral attachment to the phrase "singular terminology dilemma" but it seemed to work. Montanabw^(talk) 21:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC) Follow up: Looks like the subheading was changed in March 2008 but kept essentially the same concept. I think the heading first appeared around October of 2007 in the context of a general cleanup of the terminology sections. I can't recall who put it there (wasn't me, I don't think, unless someone else suggested it and I made the edit). So, in essence, that's what we have. No one seemed upset at the time it arrived (we were too busy working over the article content itself, I guess...) and it's been there in various forms ever since. Montanabw^(talk) 22:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for replying and thank you for the information.--Rockfang (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Breeding

When they breed a milk species they end up with about 50% males? So what happens to these males? are they just sent for meat, even tho they are not prefered meat species? Or is somthing done to create nearly 100% females? Also meat species they are basically 50% each of males and females?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.102.142 (talk) 11:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean "breed", not "species": both beef and dairy cattle are the same species, Bos taurus.

Yes, half of calves born naturally are male. Many of the calves of dairy cows are produced from beef bulls, and both the males and females of these can easily be reared for beef as they are of intermediate type (for example, the "Aberdeen Angus" beef sold by some supermarkets in the UK is in fact mostly Angus cross beef out of dairy cows). However some female pure-bred dairy calves are needed to provide dairy cow replacements, and pure-bred male dairy calves are a by-product of these. The male pure-bred dairy calves may be reared for beef (either as steers or bulls), or for veal, or in many cases they are just killed soon after birth and disposed of; a very few are reared as breeding bulls.

The fate of the pure-bred male dairy calves depends on the markets for beef and veal, and also on the type of dairy cattle. The most extreme dairy cattle (such as Holsteins) are bred for very high milk production at the expense of other characteristics, and the males of these tend to be bony and are hard to rear as beef animals without very intensive (and expensive) feeding. Many of the traditional dairy breeds (nowadays called "dual purpose") are much less extreme, and the males of these grow quite well and can produce a reasonable beef carcase economically. (See Calf#Calf rearing systems and Black Hereford.)

There are indeed efforts made to produce a higher proportion of female calves. Most pure-bred dairy calves are produced by artificial insemination (AI), and the semen used for this can be treated to sort it largely into male and female sperm (see Sperm sorting). If predominately X chromosome sperm is used, around 90% female calves can be achieved. However, sex-sorted semen is expensive and the sperm are considerably less viable, so it is not always worth doing (see for example [5]). Richard New Forest (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

At least as many, if not more, male dairy calves are castrated and raised as steers for beef production. This is contrary to what the article says when it says "Most young male offspring of dairy cows are sold for veal..." I live in Stearns county, Minnesota, one of the top 20 dairy coutnies in the US and I don't know where I would sell calves for veal if I wanted to. Everyone around here raises them as steers for beef. Look up the term "dairy beef" or "dairy steer" and you will see that it is a popular thing to for a farmer to raise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.215.210.10 (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Food

I think we should add a section about what cows eat, and the effect this has on agriculture. For example, some beef is corn-fed, while some is grass-fed. The grass that is fed to cows grows on cleared land, which contributes to deforestation. I think it's extraordinary that a bull eats grass and does not predate smaller mammals. An explanation of the cow's place in the food chain would be valuable. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Except for the grass fed to cows which grows on grassland, where forests have not existed in recent (<10K) years time. Presumably you mean deforestation effects as demand for beef expands with rising wealth and new land is cleared for purposes of grazing? How significant is that? (I honestly don't know, there is some effect in the Amazon region I believe) OTOH, the rising demand for beef which is reflected perhaps more in feedlot-raised animals can have an effect on food availabilty for humans as grains are diverted to feed cattle, at around a 6:1 trophic ratio. This will tend to reduce the "real" grassland available for grazing.

Yes, the cow is a remarkable animal, it is tractable and productive enough for a food machine that you can send up into hills, and it also performs tolerably in feedlots. Climate-change mileage may vary. Do you have a suggested wording, or themes this could be broken down to? And would you agree that the world probably has too many cows now for the sustainable natural grassland area? Franamax (talk) 09:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You both might want to review the Environmental impact section that already exists in this article. This particular issue has been addressed multiple times, but if you have specific (as opposed to general) suggestions, feel free to discuss! Montanabw^(talk) 16:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

My idea is to focus more on the cow's place in the (man-made) food cycle. Cows are a significant proportion of our agriculture - they consume agricultural produce and they in turn contribute milk and beef. It's worth analyzing on an economic level. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

http://library.thinkquest.org/TQ0312380/cow.htm ~Bunn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.1.26.94 (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Flink

I have read in many places that twelve or more cows is called a flink. (Google: flink of cows) Does anyone know if this is actually used or is it just one of those internet phenomenons? If it is true maybe there should be a note under terminology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.63.71.52 (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Duplication

There seems to be a some minor duplication of material in the Terminology and Other terminology sections – beef cattle, dairy cattle etc. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Cattle inspired the shape of the letter "A"

"A", the first letter and a vowel in the basic modern Latin alphabet, can be traced to a pictogram of an ox head in Egyptian hieroglyph or the Proto-Sinaitic alphabet.

Gaskarth (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Food Diseases

Perhaps a section talking about diseases wich can be transmited by eating cow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.50.180 (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Domestication info incomplete

Other articles on domesticated animals give the history of domestication. Why is it missing here? More research needed. Also need to distinguish when and where dairying with cattle began. 4.249.63.125 (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Go for it, would be a nice addition. Montanabw^(talk) 23:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

This topic is covered fairly well in the article for the wild species, at Aurochs#Domestication and extinction. Not really sure whether the detail is better there or here, but wherever it is, the other article should at least cross-ref. Probably better here. Richard New Forest (talk) 07:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Definitely cross-ref if nothing else. Montanabw^(talk) 16:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Three cattle?

The article claims that "one may refer to 'three cattle'". Really? That sounds wrong to me. I'd say three head of cattle, but not *three cattle. My intuition is that it's a mass noun, like water or rice, except for the plural agreement.

Some cattle is fine, many cattle is at least questionable. For some reason several cattle doesn't bother me quite as much, but on reflection I still think it's strange.

Can we get sources on this? --Trovatore (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Out here, we'd say "three head" without further explanation, so I'm no help here!  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 22:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

There do seem to be some people that treat "cattle" as a mass noun, but more generally it's a plurale tantum, like "trousers", "people" and "binoculars". "Three cattle" is certainly normal usage in the UK. And if you can say "several cattle" you too are treating it as a plural, not a mass noun.

The OED has an interesting article on the word, including historical uses of it to mean what we would now call "chattels". Having got to the more restricted use for bovine animals, under sense 5 it says "Used also as an ordinary plural of number". It gives illustrative quotes for this including, for example: "We found there in all one hundred twentie eight cattel" (from 1628), and (actually under sense 6) "Ten fat oxen, and twenty small catell, and an hundreth shepe" (from 1535). The ref to use is: <ref name=OED>{{OED|Cattle (5, 6)}}</ref>. If there are dialect usages which do restrict the word to a mass noun, we could include that, but we would need refs for it too. Richard New Forest (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Can "head" to you be used as singular in this sense? I had been thinking maybe it's an answer to the question of what the singular of "cattle" is. At the moment, there's no mention of this terminology other than "Africa has about 20,000,000 head of cattle". — Smjg (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a very weird word, no gender-neutral singular. One animal is identified as a cow, steer, bull, calf or whatever, with "cow" the default, even though cow is female... one time, I remember asking my dad (a rancher) what you'd call one unidentifiable animal, and his reply was, "well, I guess that would be a critter." LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 01:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Here in New Zealand we refer to the individuals, gender neutrally, as a "cattlebeast", or occasionally "beast" for short if it is known that the beasts being discussed are cattle. The term cow is reserved for adult females (sometimes including heifers if a mixed group), but is definitely only used gender neutrally by unfamiliar "townies" or those of non NZ origin.OnHawkspur (talk) 01:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Ox

This section just repeats part of what is found under the Ox article. Shouldn't it just be deleted (or shortened) and a link to the Ox article kept here? 212.243.156.149 (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead picture change

I'd like to strongly suggest reverting this edit "12:34, 15 August 2011 Jakovche (talk | contribs) (47,603 bytes)." The former picture was a featured picture, and definitely deserves a place in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.4.209 (talk)

I see 99.242.76.34 (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. There is a clear consensus below that moving this article to Cow would be incorrect, as the article describes all types of cattle, not just the female gender. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 08:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Cattle → Cow – Yeah yeah yeah, I know, technically not a correct term. However, per WP:Common, we should use the most common everyday word, which is cow, not cattle. Whether this is technically correct is not relevant, and this move does not create confusions, since cow currently redirects here anyway. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 20:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose "Cow" is overly ambiguous. There are "cows" and "bulls" then, and you wouldn't put the human article at woman would you? 65.94.77.11 (talk) 04:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I fully agree, other terms include beast for an unidentified gender etc. Cows do nat have testicles either. Cgoodwin 04:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as well. Cow can refer to many other species than just the plain 'ol farm cow. The rurrent redirect (Cow-->Cattle) and disambiguation link at the top of this page handle things quite well IMO. Franamax (talk) 06:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yeah, it's the common name if we take children's books into account, but high-quality reliable sources use cattle. Jenks24 (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
• OPPOSE per all of the above. That said, quite a while back, I DID advocate for discussing the "cow-as-generic-singular" provision being in the article and lost that debate. This editor also wanted to re-add more on that again, and I think we need to look at whether what we have in there now adequately covers the issue, which is pretty common amongst the non-agricultural world (C is for cow, you know...) Montanabw^(talk) 01:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as all above, while recognizing that this is an uncomfortable if not unique linguistic thing in English. I don't think there is a less bad solution than the status quo at present but remain very open to argument or suggestions. No for now. --John (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Cow is the correct term, going back to Proto-Indo-European; it has always been the generic term for this animal. Sure, it has developed a meaning of specifically a female, but so have duck and goose and we don't demand a new term for those. Ask anyone to name this animal and he will say 'a cow' not 'a cattle'. The word cattle comes from a French word for 'property' and its use to refer to cows only is actually a corruption.

The English name for Bos taurus is COW (or OX, now less common) and nothing else. 'Cattle' may prevail in the jargon of farming but it does not and should not in general use which is what an encyclopedia ought to reflect. The fact that this move has been rejected before is no matter; so was the (eminently logical) move of Jew to Jews that finally went through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.235.181 (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Here we are looking at modern English. "Cow" specifically refers to the female. An "ox" is not a generic term, it's specific to an adult working animal, usually a castrated male. In contrast, "Duck" and "goose" do not refer only to the female, they are a gender-unspecific singular. There is no non-gendered specific singular for "cattle" in modern English. It's weird, but it's reality. In many other languages, gendered pronouns attach to words, one reason why this is less of an issue in other languages. We have discussed this exhaustively, and it's really beaten totally to death. I would also suggest that in spite of this anon IP's slap about the "jargon of farming" who the heck else BUT agriculturalists would be the best experts to consult about what you call a certain animal? You don't call bull riding "cow riding." Montanabw^(talk) 02:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

In modern English, this animal is called a cow. A shrinking minority prefer cattle and make a distinction between cow and bull. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a significant difference between a colloquialism and proper terminology. I've jokingly said that out here in the west, one of our non-gender singular forms is "critter," but I certainly will not propose a move to that name! People who actually think that a single male animal is a "cow" are probably the same people who think beef comes from a styrofoam tray at a supermarket! (by the way, it is usually a steer - no bull - that you are eating if you purchase beef at the supermarket, unless it's hamburger) It is true that people who understand agriculture are a shrinking minority. That is clearly a pity, no more obvious than in discussions like this one. Montanabw^(talk) 03:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Proto-Indo-European, this article is not about the Aurochs. 65.94.77.11 (talk) 06:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

User:75.73.235.181's point is not valid, I'm afraid. If every word had to follow its etymology we would have to rewrite a lot of dictionaries! There can be no doubt that until quite recently the word for the species in modern English was "cattle", and no-one would have used "cow" – because in a more rural society everyone was very familiar with what a cow actually is. The discussion here is about whether the word "cattle" has been fully replaced by the word "cow", not what the species was called in earlier languages.

As for Dondegroovily's point, are you seriously suggesting that anyone would say "a bull is a male cow", or "a steer is a castrated cow"? Richard New Forest (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I amsaying that, a lot of people do, and I've heard that a lot. I don't hang out with farmers so I don't talk like one. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Don, "I don't talk like one" is a serious expression of bigotry, perpetuating the urban stereotype that "farmers" are stupid people. This is not winning you friends nor winning your argument, nor does it convince anyone that you have a clue. You will be well advised to stop. Montanabw^(talk) 21:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Don – can you provide a ref for any examples of that usage? I've never heard it, from either farmers or townies. Richard New Forest (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Everything has already been said, this is a bad idea.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Montanabw et al. I would support a move to Ox, or better still to Bos taurus. DuncanHill (talk) 08:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately neither of those would do. "Ox" is no good because it is simply not used by anyone as the name of the species. "Bos taurus" is no good because (depending upon your preferred taxonomy) it either includes aurochs or it excludes zebu; either way it does not mean the same as this article's subject. Richard New Forest (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

We also have had this "common name versus species name" argument all over WP in most of the domestic animal articles (cat, dog, sheep, etc.) for years, all of which (at the moment at least) remain at the English, not Latin, form of the name. No reason not to keep "Cattle" with that alternative. Montanabw^(talk) 21:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The use of "cow" for cattle is indeed very widespread, but mainly (or perhaps exclusively) amongst people who know very little about the subject, and who therefore do not need a term to distinguish a cow from a bull, steer, heifer etc. In fact I am doubtful that they are really using the word "cow" for the species as covered in this article: they are merely extending a word they know to apply to a species whose "proper" name they are vague about. If you asked the same people what the word "cattle" meant I suspect most would readily agree that it was the name of the species. Similarly most people will call a spider (or any other land arthropod) an "insect", but I think few would argue that we therefore have to change the name of arthropod; likewise "England" and "Britain", "stomach" and "belly", "monkey" and "ape", "mouse" and "vole" etc etc. WP:COMMON surely only applies when the commonly-used word is an exact synonym for the very same thing, not merely when a word is commonly misapplied to a poorly understood concept. The purpose of Wikipedia is surely to reduce ignorance, not to compound it. Richard New Forest (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Article is about "Cattle", not just the female of the species. Dolovis (talk) 03:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Side note: I'll just add to the arguments above that the cow-only-as-female is WP:POINTY linguistic prescriptivism, given that the language has fully shifted on that point – not just in "children's books" & such. Nonetheless, it was still a bad idea since cattle is quite as common in reference to the species. — LlywelynII 06:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Bovine range

The world map entitled 'Bovine range' seems wildly inaccurate. Any comment? --Greenmaven (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Nuke it. Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

More seriously: Removed from every page it occurs on: it may be an accurate map of something, but modern cattle do not range the Sahara freely while being absent from the eastern US, South America, and Australia. Either the map or the description need adjustment. — LlywelynII 06:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It appears to be the range of the ancestral animal, modern cattle definitely did not show up in the Americas until after 1492, and what bovines were here were primarily bison. Someone probably needs to fix the caption. Montanabw^(talk) 18:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Cattle exhibit at Louisiana State Exhibit Museum in Shreveport IMG 3351.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Cattle exhibit at Louisiana State Exhibit Museum in Shreveport IMG 3351.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Cattle exhibit at Louisiana State Exhibit Museum in Shreveport IMG 3351.JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 April 2012

I think a more fair and unbiased opinion is needed on the "greenhouse gas section". A lot of more traditional farming techniques and scientists have shown that when pastured, and not planted on CAFOs, that cows actually are a huge influence in sequestering greenhouse gasses in the rich composted soil when a more natural and diverse approach is taken. For example, rotating fields to allow grass to recover, allowing chickens to sanitize the cow manure and scratch it into the soil, and by managing the manure through composting it helps the soil to be able to sequester many more greenhouse gasses than even a large unkempt forest.

66.145.208.136 (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Danger ^{High voltage!} 22:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

If you want to draft up some wording with sources here, we can add it in if you want. Montanabw^(talk) 19:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Environmental Impact

The environmental impact section includes content not relating to the environment (i.e.. increased ruminal acidity from feeding grain). The section lacks neutrality, emphasizing negative effects and virtually ignoring positive effects. The discussion of methane in relation to warming is misleading because it focuses on methane emissions from livestock without indicating the lack of relationship of those emissions to changes in atmospheric methane content. The GWPs given are meaningless because the time horizons are not indicated. The scope of mitigation options indicated for methane is limited, and better supporting citations (various comprehensive reviews) can be used. The article states: "Cattle emit a large volume of methane, 95% of it through burping (eructation), not flatulence." The source cited for this is a dead link; it is a newspaper column, rather than an authoritative source. The percentage given should be either supported by a credible citation or deleted. The figure is not credible. One could reasonably expect something like 95 percent of methane from the rumen to be emitted by eructation, with the remainder inhaled and subsequently emitted from the lungs. However, sources of the total methane emitted involve formation not only in the rumen, but also in the hindgut, with the latter accounting for about 9 percent of cattle methane (Mills et al. 2001. J. Anim. Sci. 79: 1584-1597). Hindgut methane is not subject to eructation; most of it is absorbed across the intestinal wall into the blood, and exhaled via the lungs; a small fraction is emitted via the anus. [See also data of Murray et al. (1976. Br. J. Nutr. 39:337-345), indicating that for sheep, about 83 percent of the methane produced is emitted by eructation, about 16 percent from the lungs, and about 1 percent from the anus.] Schafhirt (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem here will be to keep very strict neutrality and not drag the whole climate change fight that is elsewhere on WP into this one. I'll tweak at the changes and see if I can refine them a bit. In this situation, however, respected newspapers can meet WP:RS for the statements they contain. Montanabw^(talk) 19:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Oxen

The statement regarding use of oxen worldwide lacks documentation and includes nothing regarding numbers or significance. The following could be added after the last sentence of this section:

It has been estimated that about half the world's crop production depends on land preparation (such as plowing) made possible by animal traction. [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.] About 11.3 million draft oxen are used in Sub-Saharan Africa. [ 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.] In an IEER (Institute for Energy and Environmental Research) analysis of draft animal power, draft cattle were assumed to account for one-third of total cattle in South Asia (i.e. Pakistan, India, Nepal, Bangladesh). [Makhijani, A. 1990. Draft power in South Asian food grain production: analysis of the problem and suggestions for policy. Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. 30 pp.] For India alone, the number of draft cattle in 1998 was estimated at 65.7 million head. [Phaniraja, K. L. and H. H. Panchasara. 2009. Indian draught animals power. Veterinary World 2:404-407.]

Schafhirt (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Add it, looks good. I may make a few punctuation and wording tweaks, but overall, it's well worth adding. Montanabw^(talk) 20:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Environmental Impact: CAFOs

The new paragraph about CAFOs is problematic for several reasons; it needs revision.

• The "However ... as well" wording should be removed. (The immediately preceding article content has been re-edited to clarify that it relates to overall changes in US beef production, not just CAFOs.)
• The focus on CAFOs, with no mention of AFOs, may be somewhat misleading to a reader who happens to be unaware that while there are about 6,600 CAFOs in the US, there are about 450,000 AFOs (animal feeding operations) overall (US EPA. 2000. Profile of the agricultural livestock production industry. Office of Compliance. EPA/310-R-00-002. 156 pp.).
• Nearly all of the content regarding CAFOs is not specific to cattle CAFOs. This is arguably inappropriate for an article on cattle.
• The paragraph associates several issues with CAFOs, but provides no indication whether these issues are characteristic or exceptional.
• Only the conference paper by Koelsch et al. is cited in putative support of the the statement about runoff contamination issues, but that paper actually addresses prevention, rather than occurrence of such issues. To avoid giving readers an exaggerated impression of CAFO runoff contamination issues, it could be noted that any CAFO that discharges or proposes to discharge is obliged to obtain a permit (40 CFR 122.23), and the permitting requires management planning involving nutrients, manure, chemicals, contaminants, wastewater, etc., as applicable, to meet environmental regulatory requirements (40 CFR 122.42) pursuant to the Clean Water Act.
• A presentation by Ikerd is the only basis cited in putative support of the statement claiming association of erosion with CAFOs. However, Ikerd has no apparent credentials in relation to soil erosion, and Ikerd's comment about erosion is not only unsupported by any evidence or documentation, but is in relation to "ìndustrial farming", rather than specifically in relation to CAFOs (or to cattle).
• Ikerd is the only source cited for the statement regarding "human and animal exposure to toxic chemicals, development of antibiotic resistant bacteria and an increase in E. coli contamination.", but Ikerd provides no review of evidence and no review of multiple sources on this, instead simply making the one-sentence allegation and citing one reference for it. Thus the reader who seeks verifiable information that might support the Wikipedia statement on these issues will not find it in the Ikerd reference, but will be obliged to look elsewhere. A Wikipedia statement on these matters should be based on a more satisfactory supporting reference (or multiple satisfactory references).
• Moreover, Ikerd nowhere mentions cattle. The reader who consults that source will be unable to determine whether his statement regarding toxic chemicals, for example, is meant to refer to cattle CAFOs or to CAFOs involving other species. In fact, for his statement regarding toxic chemicals, Ikerd cites only Lawrence (2005), who nowhere mentions toxic chemicals in relation to cattle CAFOs.

Schafhirt (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

SO go find more sources. The information is accurate but if you can refine and improve it, that is fine with me. Just keep it factual and neutral, not industry drivel. Montanabw^(talk) 22:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Cattle on Feed: numbers, percentages and trends; CAFOs

The article's assertion of a general upward trend in the number of US cattle in confined feedlot conditions could be improved by some amendment, because it is not accompanied by a supporting citation, and it does not indicate the time period over which the trend applies. There was no significant overall upward or downward trend in US "cattle on feed" numbers from January 1, 2002 to January 1, 2012; however, USDA data indicate a previous upward trend. With reference to the percentage of US cattle in feedlots, the article states "In 2009, for example, 47.7 percent of all cattle were kept in operations of 500 head or more." In the feedlot discussion context, that statement appears misleading, because it does not clarify that that percentage does not pertain only to feedlots with 500 or more head, but also includes (for example) cow-calf operations and backgrounding operations on pasture and rangeland with such numbers. A percentage relevant to feedlots should be substituted. For January 1, 2012, USDA estimated there were 14.1 million US cattle on feed (for slaughter) in all feedlots, i.e. about 15.5 percent of the estimated US inventory of 90.8 million cattle (including calves) on that date. The CAFO definition given in the article is inaccurate because of some important omissions; it can be amended to improve agreement with the current regulatory definition. Also, the article alleges that "Supporters of CAFO management state that wastewater and manure nutrients are safely applied to land at agronomic rates for use by forages or crops. They argue that various constituents of wastewater and manure, such as organic contaminants and pathogens, are retained, inactivated or degraded on the land with application at such rates." The allegation can be compared with a statement in a previous article version, citing Bradford et al. (2008). Common assumptions in CAFO NMPs, noted by Bradford et al., have been made to appear as if they were statements made by supporters of CAFOs; however, Bradford et al. made no such attribution. Either the current allegation should be supported by a citation to demonstrate verifiability of attribution to supporters of CAFOs, or the statement should be amended to restore the nature of the assumptions described by Bradford et al. Schafhirt (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Having more accurate summary language is fine (numbers not trending, for example) but otherwise, be careful that your edits don't sound like you are POV-pushing a pro-feedlot position, because it does sound that way a bit. Montanabw^(talk) 17:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 August 2012

"Japanese Ox" should be altered to "Jap Ox". This is not being disrespectful to Japanese people. It's just the term that is used in the industry in Australia. For example: http://www.ekka.com.au/competitions/competition-results.aspx

124.186.120.74 (talk) 08:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

References

Absolutely not! The term is extremely offensive in some parts of the world! For example, in the USA you will be immediately challenged as a racist! Nothing personal, bless ya, and from what I hear informally from Yanks who live there, Aussies are not precisely known for having a lot of racial sympathies; the stuff you guys can get away with saying in a social context would put you in serious hot water in the USA! (Not that we don't say stupid things sometimes too). Montanabw^(talk) 22:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

One on hand, the article is not just about Australia so I feel it should reflect worldwide language; however at the same time the sentence begins with 'In Australia' making me think the term may be okay... I'd say Not done for now: please establish a consensus before requesting the change again. Cheers — Deon^talk 08:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Slag with racist connotations has no place on wiki other than in articles about racism. Montanabw^(talk) 21:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Historically, ox was a non-sex-specific term for adult cattle

If you do accept that "Historically, "ox" was a non-sex-specific term for adult cattle...", how can you also dispute that meaning in Early Modern English literature? tahc ^chat 05:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Your edit exceeded the source cited. Add another source for a statement about early Modern English Literature. Montanabw^(talk) 22:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Toolserver link expired

I tried to view a diagram using the link under heading population. However the link to the account belonging to user al on toolserver was expired. I opted not to delete it, but to make it known. This way, the person who put it there can fix the issue. Or when that doesn't happen, someone could delete the link at a later time. Svanriesen (talk) 08:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Environmental Impacts Section Must be Specific to Cattle

Regardless of where you stand on the facts, this is an obvious flaw that needs to addressed. It wouldn't stand if an article on some energy technology has a huge section about the environmental impacts of electric power generation as a whole and it shouldn't stand here either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.69.198.191 (talk) 07:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Merge?

See also: Talk:Dairy_cattle § Merge?

111.69.198.191 recently attempted to "delete" the contents of Dairy cattle, and redirect to this article, under the reasoning:

"Deleted. This is a redundant with the superior cattle article and obviously being used to promote an animal rights message."

As I see no discussion of such changes (and no attempt to merge the contents, and only one other edit by this IP (specifically, the section above)), I've reverted. However, as it seems it was two days before anyone noticed an IP removing a 7-year-old 20+ kilobyte article, it's possible there was a discussion I've missed. If such a discussion exists, please post it clearly on the relevant talk pages. Elsewise, please discuss before making such major edits. I personally have no interest or opinion on the matter, although a cursory glance suggests some redundancy and that a proper merge is definitely possible. Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT) 18:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

In this case, while the Dairy article probably needs work and has been neglected, it is a legitimate spin off and not a content fork. See also beef cattle. Montanabw^(talk) 20:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

"ruminant biology"

How does the milking of cattle "exploit the cow's ruminant biology"? (under the image) I don't get what's the link... Asmrulz (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Who's the Bos ?

Hi, compare taxoboxes of Aurochs and Cattle. How can you keep two articles whith Bos primigenius as a binomial name ? If you follow Mammal Species of the World, or "Systematics and taxonomy" section in Bos article, you should update the classification, and redirections... and maybe Wikidata links as well (it's a mess up there). --Salix (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 October 2013

i would like to add uses to cattle.

Awesometed32323232 (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Stfg (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Ox and Steer curiosity

In Europe, the ox (Ochse) is castrated, while the steer (Stier) is used for breeding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.121.14 (talk) 07:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Um, what part of "Europe"? Lots of languages there... not the same thing. Montanabw^(talk) 00:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

And what does "Europe" call a male animal that is castrated and designated for meat consumption? Student7 (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. Only how many languages in "Europe"? Methinks yon anon IP needs further clue. Montanabw^(talk) 23:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

English is my second language 70.26.38.39 (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Correct trinomial for common domestic subspecies

Here is the cited source for the taxonomic names:

Grubb, P. (2005). "Bos taurus primigenius". In Wilson, D. E.; Reeder, D. M. Mammal Species of the World (3rd ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 637–722. ISBN 978-0-8018-8221-0. OCLC 62265494.

Note that the source gives the trinomial Bos taurus primigenius, as opposed to Bos primigenius taurus. Do not revert edits made according to what the source document actually says. Calling the version that contradicts the source the "Sourced version" is a very poor excuse indeed. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

uhh, cattle..

how come these things are called cattles, I thought there were call cows — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.143.145 (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

"Cow" is not colloquial in the slightest - it's the standard English word for this animal. Cattle is not an animal name. It's like "livestock" and is used to describe cows as property. If this page is about the animal it should be called "Cow". If it is about the practice of keeping domesticated cows, it should be "cattle."--94.200.220.210 (talk) 04:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

If you read the article, you will see that there is no singular for cattle that is not specific to the sex of the animal. While "cow" is a common shorthand, the word "cow" actually refers only to female cattle. We've been down this road before people, so we're done here. Montanabw^(talk) 06:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

"Western US" terminology

The article claims that "critter" is used in the West to refer to cows, yet its reference quotes a Free Dictionary entry from 2013 that said the term was used in the Southern US/Appalachians, and the current entry only says it's near-archaic but was historically used in "some regions of the US." Similarly, the article also claims that ranchers in the West use the word "dogies," but AFAIK (as a Californian from a valley full of dairy ranches) that's only in old cowboy stories, not modern reality.

I didn't want to delete the sentences outright, and quick research didn't show me anything that would've backed the claims. Could another editor please review and see whether the claims about the West are based on factual reality or someone's stereotyped beliefs about how folks out here talk?  :-) —xyzzy 07:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, also as a westerner (Montana and early years spent on a wheat-cattle operation), I would agree that "dogies" is probably archaic at best. Certainly in 50 years living here I have never heard a living person utter the word in everyday use, save when joking about the eponymous song or in other forms of mockery. (yes, I know, that's WP:OR) "Critter" is still occasionally heard as a colloquialism, usually when humor is intended or preceded by the adjective "damn". More often I hear it refer to livestock of multiple species collectively (if there are both sheep and cattle in a place, for example, they are, collectively, the 'damn critters" for which you have to leave the party early because they need to be fed...) ;-) The best source to actually figure this out is probably the Dictionary of American Regional English. So I guess my thinking is to properly source both terms and explain them, lest someone else just re-add what we remove. IMHO. Montanabw^(talk) 20:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Why GAN?

A load of bull if you ask me

Who decided to nominate this article for GA? It is so not ready, and I don't know who has time to work on it! (IF someone does want to do the work, I won't oppose, but it's a fail right now.) Montanabw^(talk) 16:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I simply got the template in a state where it was working. I briefly looked at the article and saw over 100 citations and a former FA flag and concluded it was not worth me quickfailing it there and then, though on closer inspection it appears to have lots of unsourced bits and a tag in the middle. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I pinged the editor who did it, checking contribs, I think we have an overenthusiastic newer wikignome. IF they would be willing to actually do the work to get it to GA, that would be cool. Clearly, those of us active on WP:FARM stuff haven't prioritized this article, so maybe some mentoring would be in order. Montanabw^(talk) 17:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It would be a worthy article to get to GA and I dare say earn whoever got it there a million award, but I'm afraid I don't have the sources and expertise for such an important topic. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Pinging possibly interested editors to help: @Cwmhiraeth: (an experienced GAN contributor on animal articles) and @Justlettersandnumbers: (an experienced contributor to livestock articles). I'm useful for wikignoming and was on the team that brought horse to GA, but though I spent my childhood on a cattle ranch, I am less of an expert on things bovine. Montanabw^(talk) 19:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, I grew up on a housing estate in southwest London, so of course seeing a cow was a bit of a novelty. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, the article certainly does need help! However, flattered though I am by the ping, I'm not the person to provide it. TheMagikCow has been going great guns on breed articles, but perhaps has not fully realised how much work it would take to bring this up to standard. I certainly wouldn't want to discourage anyone from trying, though. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Here's some stuff for starters: We need sources for pretty much EVERYTHING. (When in doubt, figure at least one source per paragraph, minimum). And it's best if sources are to things that can be verified by other wikipedia users, either via google books (not always visible worldwide, but someone in some nation can check) or web links to reliable sources. Montanabw^(talk) 22:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

History of cow

Where is the history of the cow? Where did the 1st cow come from?--Inayity (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

SeeCattle#Domestication_and_husbandry. Montanabw^(talk) 06:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

African origin of African cattle?

An African origin for African cattle? — some archaeological evidence. I think this might help. Komitsuki (talk) 06:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Disagreement over the definition of bloodsport?

The definition of bloodsport seems to be pretty clear:

Bloodsport or blood sport is a category of sports or entertainment that causes bloodshed. It is defined by Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary as "a sport or contest (as hunting or cockfighting) involving bloodshed". Alternatively, the Cambridge Online Dictionary defines blood sport as "any sport that involves animals being killed or hurt to make the people watching or taking part feel excitement".

Bloodsport includes coursing, combat sports such as cockfighting and dog fighting, or other activities of human-animal blood sport. These usually involve blood being drawn, and often result in the death of one or more animals.

Further down that article, it even explicitly mentions bullfighting amongst other activities described as bloodsport. Is there any reason why my edit really should remain reverted? --TiagoTiago (talk) 05:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Because it wasn't needed here? Bullfighting is blue-linked, so anyone who wants to read more about it can do so at that page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. People interested in bullfighting and the questions you raise can read that article. We don't need to beat the reader over the head about it here. Montanabw^(talk) 21:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2015

There is a typo in the second sentence of the Etymology section. It currently reads:

It was borrowed from Anglo-Norman catel, itself from medieval Latin capitale 'principle sum of money, capital', itself derived in turn from Latin caput 'head'.

"principle sum" should be "principal sum"

Thanks.

Wikijaymac42 (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikijaymac42 (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for noticing that. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 16:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2015

12.5.76.35 (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC) Cows are the best thing, they love humans and other animals!!

Not done: NiciVampireHeart 18:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Lead image

Cropped version of current image

Sapi or Aplon in Lake Lanao — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.94.229.35 (talk) 04:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC) The current lead image is a terrible illustration. It has twice as much pretty clouds as cow and seems intended more to be artistic than to illustrate what a cow is. There are tons of images on Commons that are better illustrations (i.e. show the entire animal standing). At the very least, the current image should be cropped in half to remove the giant expanse of sky. This is an encyclopedia after all, not National Geographic. Kaldari (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, it IS a featured image and a bit of artsy isn't entirely a bad thing, IMHO. That said, consensus can always change, but for an article like this one, I think it needs some thoughtful input. I think there was a fair bit of discussion about this at the time, though I'm not finding it in the talk archives (the article had some title moves, so possibly the thread is elsewhere). We've also had Jokes about it too. There exists an alternative version File:CH cow 1.jpg but it would not work as well here because of its horizontal orientation; . I guess I have two suggestions: 1) Find the best of the "tons of images on Commons" that are better than "generic so-so photo of grazing cow" that might be selected to replace this. ( say, 5 or 6 examples, including any other featured images ) 2) Then see if we can post at WP:FARM or WP:MAMMALS and see if anyone wants to comment further about whether to swap or not. Montanabw^(talk) 23:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

As an amateur photographer, I like "pretty" photos in WP. There is no doubt this is a pretty photo. As a scientist, I want the image to be informative and accurate. I take the point that the cow is not standing, and I have changed lead images for this very reason. However, cattle are such a ubiquitous animal that in this case, I think the vast majority of readers will know it has 4 legs underneath it. I think pretty wins in this case. Having said this, I agree with Montanabw - suggest some alternatives and let editors discuss them.DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm honestly surprised it's a featured image. It looks like 3 people opposed during the FPC discussion because they felt like it wasn't a good illustration, but the supporters were more numerous. Kaldari (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

How about a cropped version of the current image? Kaldari (talk) 22:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I could live with that. Montanabw^(talk) 03:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The photographer in me does not like it, but I guess WP is not a repository of pretty images, so I can live with it too.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Per User:Diliff, I created a less cropped crop (square instead of 4:3). It's still a bit artsy for my tastes, but it seems like a decent compromise between pretty and illustrative (at least now you'll actually be able to see the cow on an iPhone without scrolling down). What do you think User:Montanabw, User:DrChrissy? You may have to clear your cache to see the new version of the image to the right. Kaldari (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with it, pop it in and see how it looks. Montanabw^(talk) 03:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

That crop is exactly what I was thinking of. I agree with Montanabw, see how it fits. Incidentally I took a photo of a cow last year that I'd been meaning to upload to Wikipedia. It's a bit bog-standard and probably not quite as pretty as this one, but it perhaps has a bit more EV. Let me find it and upload it. I'm not sure if it's got a place in the article (perhaps the breed's article instead) but worth a thought. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Improvements

I am going to try to improve this article to GA status. Please can I have some suggestions of sections that are/aren't GA and what needs to be done overall. Thanks! TheMagikCow (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It is going to take a LOT of work. The taxonomy section alone is a disaster. Just sourcing alone is not enough, for a major article like this one, we need to be comprehensive and very accurate. I'm willing to dig in and help with a team effort, though. See for an example horse, which is GA - took us about six months of pretty diligent work. Montanabw^(talk) 03:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think that I will certainly try to get it to GA. Starting with udders and taxonomy! TheMagikCow (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It's definitely a team effort, I suggest posting at WP:FARM and WP:MAMMALS for helpers! Took about four of us to get horse to GA! Montanabw^(talk) 17:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I am happy to help with Behaviour, General biology (e.g. senses), and animal welfare.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I am happy to do Economy, domestication and weight (I think it should be a subsection) TheMagikCow (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• My thinking is to start with sourcing what is in there already, and tossing any cruft that should not be there (at least, after discussion). Then we can figure out how to organize the sections and subsections. We need a more complete evolution section, we need a discussion of the different types (beef cattle, dairy cattle, etc.) and so on. Shall we take a look at other animal FAs for guidance? Sheep is a featured article and thus might be a very good template for us to strive for. In fact, perhaps we could mimic its organizational scheme to some extent. How does that sound? Montanabw^(talk) 20:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Someone needs to create an article for Bos taurus taurus (the European cattle subspecies). All the subspecies have an article except for that one. Kaldari (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
    • • Bos taurus redirects here. Perhaps B t.t. should too? Montanabw^(talk) 01:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Why would we redirect European cattle to Cattle, but have a separate article for zebus? That seems a bit Eurocentric :P Kaldari (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
          • That struck me as weird too. I don't know enough about cow evolution to know how these break out taxonimically. Is there some article equivalent to Equus (genus) that could help us locate some good refs and sources? Montanabw^(talk) 17:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
            • I created a separate article for taurine cattle. Feel free to add more info to it. Kaldari (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
              • • YAY! Montanabw^(talk) 06:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I strongly agree the Sheep article is a great template/guide we could try to follow. I have always looked at this as a good standard for livestock.DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Using sheep as a template seems like a very good idea. TheMagikCow (talk) 06:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The Domestication section needs a much better explanation of current scientific understanding of how cattle were domesticated. For example, it currently doesn't explain the domestication of zebus at all. Kaldari (talk) 07:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

If you find good sources let's post them here at talk. I'll create a subsection for doing so. Montanabw^(talk) 22:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Do we need a section on what they are fed? I have a good copy of the EB with lots in. TheMagikCow (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Ahhh... Makes sense now! Thanks! TheMagikCow (talk) 06:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so, there is a lot of worldwide variation. We have articles like fodder, animal nutrition and such. (Do we have bovine nutrition or cattle feeding?) I think just a discussion at the anatomy section akin to Horse#Digestion that describes the general types of food they can eat will be adequate.

Whilst it is very good that we are expanding. I think that the article has too many sections. Before making any more can we have a discussion. We probably have to remove some. TheMagikCow (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I suspect you are talking about my recent edits. Having fewer sections here is not a problem. The increasing number is due partly to my style of editing. I often use material that belongs in two or more sections, or I am not sure where it should be placed, so I tend to create a section. This is only as a "signpost" to assist during the major editing phase, and I consider many of them to be temporary. For example, the different sections in "senses" could go. We can have the discussion with no problems. I suggest the "oxen" section is almost completely shed (having commands for directing cattle!) and instead we have a section on the "major uses of cattle" (dairy, beef, "beasts of burden", others). I also do not really see why we need entire sections on "udders" and "male genitalia". By the way, I am terrible at editing in American English. Please anybody, do not hesitate to correct these.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not worried about the sections, subsections and layout. When we took horse to GA, there was a similar process. Because, as DrChrissy says, the article is under development, it will have some messy growth spurts. I have yet to dive in and do my wikignoming, which will help to streamline things. (I'll be pretty bold, but also totally open to being reverted if I screw things up!) As for the rest, I think that there was a big debate at one time over what should be at oxen and what should be here. I'd hesitate to delete anything until we have that sorted. As for the stuff on "private parts," that's User:Jarble's thing, maybe compare to sheep or horse and we can have parallel weight here. We have a separate article for bull, but not cow (which redirects here), though we do have mare and stallion for horses, (though, oddly, only jenny (donkey) not one for jacks... go figure.) My take is "let's add, and then start moving, merging, cutting, slashing and burning." LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 17:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Annotated list of potential sources

Post links we can use to improve the article with url and brief explanation here. I've primed the pump with a couple: Montanabw^(talk) 22:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=183838 ITIS Taxonomic Hierarchy for cattle (presume this is a RS for that issue)
• http://genomics.senescence.info/species/entry.php?species=Bos_taurus HAGR information on lifespan and other issues of maturity and reproduction

To Do

Please add to this as you see fit. TheMagikCow (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• More sources
• Cleanup Sources - See references section many have red text.
• Add missing sections (parallel to similar livestock FA- and GA-class articles)
• Cleanup formatting
• Copyedit
• Expand Lead once article improvement is solidified

Final sentence of intro

"Some consider cattle the oldest form of wealth, and cattle raiding consequently one of the earliest forms of theft." Who, exactly? Reference? 2602:306:CC95:70A0:A141:1920:1B5F:F9B3 (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Terminological errors

The first note (indicated as "note 1") explains the confusion behind "cattle" being called "cows" familiarly. Actually, "cattle" is an extremely generic term that also includes sheep and goats. Why is it not stated somewhere that the animal is correctly termed a domestic ox?

73.49.1.133 (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2015

There is a typo in the Terminology section. Specifically, the third sentence of the last paragraph in the Other terminology subsection currently reads:

Bawling is most common for cows after weaning of a calg.

"calg" should be changed to "calf".

Thanks.

Tomrlu (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Request to change definition shown in iOS/Android Wikipedia app.

When I search for "cattle" in either the iOS or Android Wikipedia app, it shows a definition under the title of the article. The definition that's currently showing doesn't seem correct. It reads "Species of mammal (or half that species) or a different species (or two thirds of that species)". If I knew how to change that, I would. I've included a link to an image that shows what I'm talking about. Fishnet37222 (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

http://i.imgur.com/TTAvdlr.png

Interesting. It's actually pulling that strange text from the Wikidata page http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q830, not from the wikipedia article Cattle. Faolin42 (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

And there is a discussion on the Wikidata talk page: d:Talk:Q830#Disambiguation. I'm trying to make sense of it. I have added a comment and a link back to this thread. – Wdchk (talk) 04:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC) updated 04:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

That's just bizarre. I have no idea how to fix that... anyone else have an idea? Perhaps @Pigsonthewing: can help? Montanabw^(talk) 07:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be fixed already, but the way to change such things is to use the fist "edit" link on the Wikidata page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

But how come wikidata from there shows up on this article at all? Montanabw^(talk) 19:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)