Talk:Cattle

Citation needed for the word origin

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

cowsssssssssssssssss

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)

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

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

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 [1]. Richard New Forest (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2009 (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)

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: [2] (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 [3]. 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)

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)

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)

"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

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 [4]). Richard New Forest (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2010 (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)