If you discretize your field into a grid, count the number of observations in each grid cell (seperately for both spatial point patterns, cows and horses), and then treat each grid cell as a seperate observation you could calculate the correlation between the two spatial point patterns. (Sometimes this may be called "quadrat" counting, and all this is doing is calculating the correlation between the quadrats.)
That has some undesirable ad hoc steps though (how small of grid cells?), but is a useful exploratory tool. Likely a next analytical step would be to evaluate Ripley's K statistic between the two spatial point patterns. I asked a similar and relevant question on the GIS forum, How to compare two spatial point patterns?, and that has some references for the Ripley's K statistic (plus software and other references on sampling) from @whuber.
Given the update in the comment, Ripley's K is probably not appropriate (Ripley's K is calculated by examining the pair-wise distances of spatial points, you don't have spatial points though!) Still treating each "element" of your matrix as one observation you can calculate the correlations between the intensities the same as the quadrat counting I suggested above.
But, that isn't all that enlightening of whether there is spatial "co-localization" between the two variables. One potential way to identify if the variables have some type of spatial auto-correlation between the two processes is to estimate the bivariate Moran's I (Wikipedia has an intro as to what univariate Moran's I is and its calculation, and the Geoda workbook goes into more detail about bivariate Moran's I as well as more general spatial regression modeling). Another potential methodology you could use is to calculate the empirical variogram between the two processes.
The more specific details you give about the the data and how the two processes are related will likely allow for more focused feedback (but I suspect this would be a good start).