Abstract: Abstract This paper describes the domestic livestock of the Republic of Yemen and aspires to complement earlier sources listing or partially describing `breeds'. It attempts to cover all species and provide indications of production parameters through a literature review and via field observations made by the author in 1999. Information is provided on livestock numbers and the economic importance of animal production. Most animals are kept in sedentary mixed crop-livestock production systems; transhumant systems have the next greatest number of stock; with nomadic systems being of least and declining importance. Yemen's livestock appear to comprise at least 11 breeds of sheep, 5 breeds of goat, 2 breeds of cattle, 4 breeds of camel, 2 breeds of donkey and 1 breed of horse. There are no data on breeds of poultry but domestic fowl (where clearly considerable diversity exists) and pigeons are kept. There is little formal information on the history and relationships of most breeds. Some appear to be of ancient local origin, whereas others show affinities with those of neighbouring and other countries. None of the identified types is considered endangered, so conservation would be premature. A more formal and detailed genetic characterization, to add to the largely morphological and traditional classification, may, however, reveal such a need.

Abstract: A previously described (Windschnurer et al., 2009) avoidance distance test was used to assess animals’ fear of humans in order to quantify the human–animal relationship (HAR). This study investigated the influence of the dominant and flightiest animals within a group on the responsiveness of animals during the avoidance distance test. Eighty-eight pregnant heifers comprised of four different genotypes were used (22 animals per genotype): Limousin × Holstein-Friesian, Limousin × Simmental, Charolais × Limousin, and Charolais × Simmental. Sixty of the 88 heifers were group housed (n = 5) into 12 pens with 3 pens per breed, while 28 heifers were singly housed (seven heifers per breed). A reactivity test was performed on days 10, 18, 25 and 30 post-housing on the singly housed heifers, and then on the group housed heifers, on the same days, to calculate a reactivity score. On days 33 and 37 flight and dominance tests, respectively, were performed to identify the flightiest and the dominant animal within each group. On day 41, an avoidance test, measuring both the avoidance distance towards a familiar and an unfamiliar human, was performed on all heifers. No difference (P > 0.05) in reactivity scores was found between the genotypes, between pens for the group housed heifers or between singly housed and group housed heifers (P = 0.28). The avoidance distance (AD) of singly (S) housed heifers towards a familiar (F) (ADSF) human was shorter (P < 0.001) than the avoidance distance of group (G) housed heifers towards an unfamiliar human (ADSU). The ADSF and ADGF were correlated with the ADSU and ADGU (R = 0.87 for singly housed heifers; R = 0.61 for group housed heifers, P < 0.001). For the singly housed heifers, no correlation was observed between reactivity score and ADSF (R = 0.36, P = 0.18), whereas the reactivity score and ADSU were correlated (R = 0.68, P = 0.004). For the group housed heifers no significant correlation was detected between the reactivity score and ADGF (R = 0.18, P = 0.22) or ADGU (R = &#8722;0.11, P = 0.39). No influence of the most dominant animal and the flightiest animals was found on the behaviour of the group in term of avoidance distance and reactivity (P > 0.05). It is concluded that the assessment of the fear of the animals towards humans using the avoidance test at the feed bunk may be useful for singly and group housed heifers and that the leaders of a group such as the flightiest animal or the dominant animal did not influence the avoidance distance test.

Abstract: A common characteristic of horses, Rocky Mountain goats, and cattle is that they all have a well developed lingual prominence on the dorsal surface of the posterior area of the tongue. Foliate papillae were found in the horse studied but not in the goat or in cattle. The horse filiform papillae had a long and slender external form with a thin and slender CTC, while in the goat and cattle the external form consisted of a large thick main process and the CTC consisted of a bundle of numerous rod-shaped protrusions. The special papilla found on the lingual prominence resembled larger filiform-like papillae in the horses; however, in the goat and cattle it was a very thick and large tongue like papillae. The horses had two large vallate papillae, while the goat and cattle had 15 or more vallate papillae at the posterior area of the lingual prominence. This suggests that the fine structure of horse tongues may display a more primitive pattern than that present in goats and cattle.