cows

In 1871 a farmer abandoned five cows to their fate on a remote island. Against all odds, they colonized the island

by

A Frenchman goes and releases five cows on a small island where Christ lost his lighter. It sounds like a joke, but it’s true: it happened in 1871, the Frenchman was a farmer on the island of Réunion and the destination island is called Amsterdam, it is only 55 square kilometers and is in the southern Indian Ocean. What happened next will surprise you because, well, it also left the scientific community in awe, as demonstrated by the quintet’s different studies. Introducing an exotic species into new habitats is a box of surprises that usually ends up regular: ask the crabs that were native when the American crab arrived, the fish that were in the Ebro before the catfish or the mythical Pitiusas lizard, which has found in the invasive snakes that you may encounter swimming a new and ferocious predator in the waters of the Balearic Islands. But hey, there are only five cows and the island is very small, right? Well yes: biology maintains that for a foreign population to establish itself successfully it is necessary that there be a sufficient number of initial individuals to guarantee genetic diversity and avoid extinction due to inbreeding. But there are also exceptions: genetic invasion paradoxwhere tiny populations manage to prosper in a surprising way. This is the case of our beef quintet. Once upon a time there were five cows abandoned to their fate.. In reality, the farmer came to the island with other people with the idea of ​​staying, but in the end it didn’t work out and five cows is not the lightest carry-on luggage in the world, so they stayed there. The subantarctic conditions were harsh and genetically there was a bottleneck, but the animals not only survived but reproduced successfully and happily. In fact, the population grew exponentially over the decades, reaching historical peaks of up to 2,000 individuals: yes, Amsterdam Island became the island of cows and is also one of the few cases recorded worldwide of completely feral cows. Why is it important. Because it challenges one of the central principles of conservation biology: the minimum viable population sizewhich establishes that below a threshold a population has a high probability of becoming extinct due to genetic drift, inbreeding and accumulation of mutations (the figure depends on the species and the model, but classical models point to hundreds or even thousands of individuals). Understanding these processes provides theoretical tools to better manage invasive species and the conservation of genetic reservoirs. That five cows founded a viable population for more than a century is, in that context, an anomaly that science could not ignore. In addition, it offers a valuable perspective on the speed at which evolutionary and behavioral changes can occur in a mammal when the bond of domestication is broken. Context. Amsterdam Island is part of the French Southern and Antarctic Lands. We are talking about an isolated island ecosystem where there were neither large predators nor other large competing herbivores, so what is a bit of cold and wind. This initial condition made it possible for livestock to spread, although in the long run overpopulation ended up causing serious damage to the native flora and threatening endemic birds. Under the microscope, the samples analyzed revealed that there was a mixed ancestry: a combination of mainly European bullfighting cattle, but also Indian Ocean zebu. After analyzing the climate, they found that the conditions were not too different from other known scenarios in old Europe, such as Brittany, so the cows were not starting from scratch: your preadaptation to the climate cushioned the impact to the new habitat. What really happened. Some initial research they pointed to the fact that the cattle suffered from accelerated “island dwarfism” to adapt to the scarcity of resources, although genomic analyzes ruled it out: if these island cows were small it was simply due to direct inheritance from their ancestors, the also relatively small zebus of Madagascar and Jersey breed. The real change occurred in his behavior: the study identified that the genes that evolved the fastest were related to the nervous system, which the authors interpret as the genomic signature of feralization: the ability to organize in herds, reactivate alert responses and survive without human intervention. Yes, but. What this quintet of cows achieved was a feat of survival, but at what price: the genetic analysis showed a moderate reduction in their genetic diversity and a slight accumulation of potentially harmful variants, something to be expected after such a severe bottleneck, although without reaching the critical levels associated with populations at risk of extinction. Furthermore, the story had a sad and controversial ending: considering the damage they caused to the island’s environment, the authorities decided to sacrifice all the cows in 2010 and this unique experiment and its extraordinary and particular genetic lineage came to an end. In Xataka | In 1788 the English took five cows to Australia. Unknowingly, they activated a “time bomb” that exploded 200 years later In Xataka | That time the Australian army took out the tanks against the emus… And lost Cover | Copernicus Sentinel 2021 via Wikimedia and Iga Palacz

the perfect shelter for your cows

by

Having a solar installation on rural land is something that can benefit both humans and animals. We have already told on other occasions how the agrivoltaics can have positive effects on animals, such as in birds and insectseither even in sheep. A team from the University of Minnesota has discovered that it also provides benefits to a much larger and much more heat-sensitive animal: the dairy cow. And they have answered the question of what would happen if we let cows graze under the shade of a solar panel system. What is the study about? According to the authors of the work themselvespublished in the proceedings of the AgriVoltaics2021 conference, there was no previous research that analyzed the use of a ground-mounted solar system to shade dairy cows and measure how it affects them. So without further ado, they got to it. Everyone wins. Livestock farming is heavily dependent on fossil fuels, with the economic and environmental cost that this entails. The idea of ​​agrivoltaics is to kill two birds with one stone, using the same land to generate clean electricity and, at the same time, to produce food. In the case of a dairy farm, the panels could shade cows during heat waves, as heat stress directly affects their well-being and production. On a farm in Morris, Minnesota (where the study was done), about 275 cows are milked twice a day, figures that represent the average for the State. How have done. In the summer of 2018, they installed a 30-kilowatt ground-mounted solar system in a pasture, with the panels placed 8 to 10 feet high so the cows couldn’t reach them. The animal study was carried out from June to September 2019 with 24 cross-breed cows, divided into two groups: half with access to the shade of the plates and the other half grazing without any shade. To measure everything without relying only on the human eye, each animal wore a CowManager ear sensor (which recorded whether it ruminated, ate or was active) and a SmaXtec bolus housed in the stomach reticulum, which measured internal body temperature, activity and how many times they drank. Added to this were daily visual observations of hygiene, lameness and injuries, as well as fly counts. Maximum temperatures during the study ranged from 27 to 34°C. What didn’t change. On many key indicators, there were no differences between the two groups. Not in the number of flies, nor in the production of milk, fat or protein, nor in body weight, physical condition, how many times they drank, injuries or the way they walked. So the shade did not trigger milk production as one would expect. The reasons for the absence of these changes, according to the authorsis that the cows were only in the shade 28 of the 175 days they grazed during the summer. That is, the experiment was too brief in actual exposure to determine long-term effects. They themselves point out that, if it had been under the plates all summer, perhaps changes in the milk would have been observed. What did change. Where the sun really shines, the plates made a difference. During the afternoon, the shaded cows breathed more slowly (about 66 breaths per minute compared to 78 for the unshaded cows), a clear sign of less heat stress. And the internal body temperature also confirmed it, because between one in the afternoon and midnight, the cows without shade registered temperatures up to half a degree higher. During the middle hours, between milkings, the cows in the shade stayed cooler. Bad. The shady cows ended up with dirtier bellies and legs. The reason is that the cows used the shaded area to rest and lie down, and since they also defecated and urinated right under the panels, the floor became dirty. Added to this was that the ground under the plates was cooler and more humid, and the cows tended to crowd into less space. It was also observed that the cows with shade had fewer peaks of high activity, because they spent the hottest hours quiet under the panels. ANDenergy. It should not be forgotten that the system was still, above all, a solar plant. During 2019, those 30 kilowatts generated 35,535 MWh of energy. According to the environmental benefit calculations that collect the studythat is equivalent to saving 37,238 kg of CO₂ emissions, the same as planting about 2,066 trees, according to what they say. Conclusions. The team says it is possible that the cows sacrificed pasture time in exchange for shelter in the shade. Even so, they conclude that agrivoltaics can be a more than acceptable method to combat the heat in grass-fed dairy cows, while generating energy and reducing the carbon footprint of the farm. Additionally, they say, incorporating agrivoltaics into a pasture dairy system could improve cow health, reduce heat stress and increase land use efficiency. And now what. The study was explicitly a starting point. The team itself announced a new project that same year with the idea of ​​designing solar structures that serve as both shade in summer and windbreaks or screens against snow in winter, in addition to testing solar tracking systems and arrays on marginal lands. To do this, they built a “portable solar shade station” towed by an electric tractor. In that study they concluded that good quality forage grows under the panels and that they improve the well-being of livestock by providing shade in summer and protection from the wind in winter. Of course, they also said that in total shade, grass production plummeted, so the key was to balance shade and cultivation. Cover image | Twin Cities PBS In Xataka | Zaragoza rests on a gigantic aquifer. And he is exploiting it in an exemplary way to lower his electricity bill

Vegetable milk has fewer nutrients than cow’s milk

by

In recent years, plant-based drinks have become an alternative to conventional milk. “They destroy” some experts have said. And these drinks are no longer just the resource of those who avoid products of animal origin or the lactose present in milk and have become one more option for many. The question of the extent to which these alternatives are nutritionally comparable is very different. A whole series of studies. A whole series of analysis of nutritional properties of some plant-based milk alternatives (PBMA) are drawing a clear horizon. The team responsible for the study observed that some chemical reactions in the process of these drinks reduced the nutritional contribution of the final product. There are more studies in recent years, but all they go in the same line. That these types of alternatives are less nutritious than milk is not a big surprise, just compare the nutritional values ​​of both foods. The study in question shows us the reason for this difference and points out that its magnitude could even be greater than we believed. Maillard’s reaction. The key is in the Maillard reaction. This is a chemical reaction that usually occurs when heating some foods and we usually associate it with color since it is the reaction that occurs, for example, when toasting bread. The changes in the chemical composition of the food associated with this reaction also affect the flavors and nutritional contribution of the product. The question of the extent to which these alternatives are nutritionally comparable is very different. Different processes. Both the milk we drink and PBMA drinks are processed foods, although the difference is important. While the milk goes through minimal processing, typically ultra-pasteurization (UHT); Vegetable alternatives are processed foods that include steps that seek to resemble the final result to animal milk. These alternatives are also subjected to a UHT process, such as explains the team responsible for the study. 12 “milks”. The team compared 12 different drinks: two dairy drinks and 10 plant-based drinks. The team compared the drinks based on their nutrients and examined them for the presence of Maillard reaction products, or MRP, in these drinks. The team quantified the amount of protein present in milk at 3.4 grams per liter. Of the 10 alternative drinks studied, only two exceeded this amount, while the rest contained between 1.4 and 1.1 grams per liter. The amount of essential amino acids present in these plants was also lower in plant milks. They also found a higher amount of sugar in seven of the ten vegetable drinks. In their analysis, the team found various MRPs in plant milks. Among these compounds were acrylamides, found in oat and almond milk. The team points out that their low presence was not alarming, and that the probable origin of these was in the previous roasting process to which almonds and oats were subjected. The details of the study were published in an article in the magazine Food Research International. Interpreting the data. Does this mean that we should avoid plant-based alternatives to milk? Well probably not. The reasons for choosing one type of drink or another may vary and may not always depend on the nutritional contribution. For example, the decision may be based on environmental criteria. In any case, for this type of decisions it is convenient to have accurate information. Above all, because as I say ‘nutritional composition’ and ‘poor health’ do not always go hand in hand. Sometimes, it’s even good. In March 2026 was published in Advances in Nutrition The first meta-analysis on the cardiometabolic impact of vegetable drinks and the results are clear: replacing cow’s milk with soy drink reduces LDL cholesterol and can reduce blood pressure; oat drink shows favorable effects on total cholesterol, etc, etc, etc. According to the original study team, the key should be better labeling that helps consumers choose the product that best suits their needs. “If there were requirements for producers to specify on the labels how many essential amino acids the drink contains, it would give consumers a clearer picture of the quality of the proteins,” explained in a press release Marianne Nissen Lund, co-author of the study. Lund and his colleagues also highlighted the importance of reducing our consumption of processed and ultra-processed products in general. Not only as a way to eat healthier but also to do so in a more sustainable way. A version of this article was published in Xataka in 2025 In Xataka | Fish milk, Indonesia’s idea to create a substitute for cow’s milk. And they are not the only ones Image | Alexa Photos

The most farmed animal on the planet is not chickens, pigs, cows or fish: it is prawns.

by

Christmas is a time of carols, millions of led lightsnougats, empachos and a particular culinary ‘lore’ in which prawns and prawns are not usually missing. If tomorrow you have the opportunity to taste them during New Year’s Eve dinner, think about the following: what you have before you, on the plate, They are unique animals for humanity. And they are for a very simple reason. There is no other species that we raise more massively, not even chickens. There are those who estimate that approximately 51% of all animals What we have on ‘farms’ are precisely decapods, especially prawns. Prawns galore. If these days (lucky you) you have the opportunity to enjoy a good tray of prawns you should know a couple of things. The first one there are two typesdepending on their origin: there are wild prawns, caught in the ocean and the coasts; and those from aquaculture, which come from specialized farms and play a crucial role to supply the market. These fish farms are also interesting for another reason: they represent the largest farms in the world, at least if we are based on the number of living animals they contain. There are many (many) more breeding animals in them than in farms specializing in chickens, pigs, cows or even insects and fish. Click on the image to go to the tweet. But are there so many? This is what he suggests a study from 2023 that a few months ago rescued in Asterisk Magazine Andrés Jiménez Zorrilla, former investment expert and co-founder of Shrimp Welfare Project (SWP), an organization dedicated precisely to promoting more ethical decapod breeding practices. The report estimates that the planet’s fish farms usually host around 230 billion of these creatures at any given time. To be more precise, between 150,000 and 370,000 million, which exceeds any other known farm animal estimate. Even, the authors clarify, insects. “440 billion (300-620 billion) farmed shrimp are slaughtered each year, far exceeding the number of the most numerous farmed vertebrates used for food production, such as fish and chickens,” specify the articlesigned by Daniela R. Waldhorn and Elisa Autric and published in August 2023 by Rethink Priorites. The photo is completed with the specimens that arrive our months from fishing at sea. Are there more figures? Yes. And they are striking. Although both authors acknowledge that today there is only “partial data”, there are studies that indicate that every year hundreds of thousands of decapods are grown in fish farms on the planet, especially prawns and shrimp, which represent more than 80% of the total. In their report (in English) Waldhorn and Autric generally speak of “shrimp”but when delving into the problems surrounding the aquaculture of these species, both authors provide some extra detail. For example, when listing the species with the highest number of deaths, they specifically cite the P. vannamei and P. monodon. The most correct In Spanish it is to speak of “prawns”, rather than “prawns”. A percentage: 51%. The figures for the aquaculture industry are overwhelming, but they are better understood when compared to those of other sectors dedicated to raising animals in captivity for consumption. Jiménez Zorrilla points out that, in generalregardless of the moment, prawns represent 51% of the total number of animals raised on farms. They are followed at a considerable distance by fish (23%), insects (19%), chickens (7%) and pigs and other livestock (< 1%). Translated into figures, this means that compared to the 230 billion shrimp and prawns that (on average) live in fish farms, there are ‘only’ 779 million pigs and 1.55 billion cattle, 33 billion chickens and 125 billion farmed fish. In case the data were not clear in itself, the activist points out that every year 440,000 million of these decapods are slaughtered for consumption, “more than four times the number of humans who have walked the Earth.” Why is it important? Because Jiménez Zorrilla, like Wadhorn and Austric in their day, do not limit themselves to probing the size of the industry. Its objective is not so much to answer the question of how many shrimp live in the world’s farmers as to draw attention to the conditions in which they develop. “The problem is larger in scale than that of insect farming, fishing or any vertebrate for human consumption,” researchers warn. “If these animals are sentient, current commercial practices pose serious welfare risks during cultivation, handling, sale and slaughter.” Image| Kawê Rodrigues (Unsplash) Via | DAP In Xataka | Prawns, prawns, shrimp, prawns and carabineros: how they differ and which ones are better

open one with cows

by

Do zoos make sense in the 21st century? The debate is old. And it has already led to some cities rethinking the model of their zoos (just as they have done with the circuses), renouncing to have wild animals in captivity and even the use of that label. With that backdrop, in Villagarcía de Camposa small town of Tierra de Campos (Valladolid) by just 300 neighborsthey have had a peculiar idea: open a new zoo of several hectares. Of course, there are only cows and oxen. What happened? That in the province of Valladolid they have just done something less and less common in a Spain (and Europe) in which The debate About animal welfare has been gaining ground: release a zoo. That would be striking in itself, but the new enclosure assures also that it is “unique” in Europe. In it you will hardly see bears, lions, elephants, giraffes, hippos, kangaroos, chimpanzees or any other of the exotic species that urban zoos usually populate. No. The new Valladolid installation is consecrated solely and exclusively to cows, oxen and calves. Only beef Nothing else. With you, bos taurozos. The enclosure occupies about 17 hectares, is located in Villagarcía de Campos, less than an hour by car from the city of Valladolid, and its name is a presentation card: “Bos Taurozos”, combination of the species Bos Taurus and Mountains Torozosthe environment in which the center is located. The enclosure either It is presented As a conventional zoo, it is rather a “interpretation center of the Bos Taurus Iberian “,” the animal species that brings together all the beef rates of the peninsula, “their promoters highlight. Those who visit it will be in fact with copies of more than 30 different races of cattle that inhabit Spain and Portugal, from the CACHENA Galician either Sayaguesa to the Black Andaluza, retinta, Blanca Cacereña, Menorcan either Albera. And that to quote only some of the varieties that inhabit the nearly 17,000 square meters (m2) of Valladolid field that Taurozos occupies. A walk between great rivers. If their ‘inhabitants’ are not what one would expect to be normally in a zoo, the structure of Bos Taurozos is not usual in this kind of enclosures. The park is divided into a dozen areas baptized with names by Ríos of the Iberian Peninsula, such as Miño, Duero, Ebro, Guadalquivir, Tajo or Guadiana. The reason? ‘Order’ the different races so that visitors have a more precise idea of how they are distributed throughout the territory. “You can see the cattle of each of the races that live on their banks”, Explain The park, which offers the possibility of “knowing in the first person each of the 32 Bóvidas races in Spain and Portugal, live and first person.” Who is behind? Two siblingsCarlos del Amo (30 years) and Alicia (33), who make up the third generation of a family linked to the livestock and native of the neighboring town of Villabrágima. In their day to day they are responsible for managing hundreds of cattle In several farms and work with the Alistana Sanabresa and Sayaguesa races, but both had a dream that went further: claiming livestock diversity. Neither easy nor fast. “We decided to set up this business because we believe there are many breeds that are being lost and people don’t even know that they exist,” Explain Alicia a The Spanish. “Many do not know that we have so many races with very different characteristics.” However, achieving his dream and gathering about thirty varieties in Bos Taurozos has not been a simple task. The brothers report that to achieve certain specimens, such as the Marshaen, subject to quotas, they have needed to move “A large amount of permits”. In other cases, logistics did not make it easy either. For example, they wanted a Menorcan cowbut the idea that the animal had to spend several days of “suffering” aboard a ship and then travel in a truck frightened them, so they opted for an imaginative solution: implement an embryo in one of their cows. Cattle and something else. To complete its offer and be more attractive to visitors, Bos Taurozos also incorporates extra activities, points Valladolid Diario. In addition to walking between 32 races of different cows, people can enjoy adventure sports, such as archery, horseback riding or paintball. The enclosure also incorporates a Bicycle service free and plans to include an leisure and restoration zone with foodtruck. The price for those who want to visit their peculiar zoo? 10 euros adults and eight children. The little ones do not pay. Images | LOMIG (UNSPLASH) and Bos Taurozos In Xataka | Cantabria wants more visitors in the Cabárceno Park. So you will create a large alpine slide to travel at 40 km/h

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.