Dairy farmers' perspectives on providing cow-calf contact in the pasture-based systems of New Zealand

Abstract

Separation of the cow and calf shortly after birth is a common practice on commercial dairy farms around the world, but there are emerging concerns about this practice among citizens and other stakeholders. Continuous improvement of on-farm management practices in collaboration with dairy sector stakeholders increases the likelihood that farming systems evolve in a way that is consistent with societal expectations. Few commercial dairy farms provide extended cow-calf contact, and there is little understanding of how dairy farmers view this practice. This study examined the views of New Zealand dairy farmers toward providing cow-calf contact, particularly the barriers to adopting such a system in a seasonal-calving pasture-based dairy system. Standard farm practice in New Zealand is to remove the calf from the cow around 24 h (but could be up to 48 h) after birth. These conventional farmers (n = 63) were randomly selected from the database of all dairy farmers in New Zealand and telephone-interviewed using a semistructured interview format. Their responses to questions about providing cow-calf contact (defined as contact beyond the standard practice of 48 h) were analyzed using thematic analysis. Three major themes of concern were identified by these farmers about providing cow-calf contact as follows: (1) poor animal welfare, especially the risk of mastitis in the dam, inadequate colostrum for the calf, increased stress from delayed separation, and lack of shelter for calves while outdoors with the cow; (2) increased labor and stress on staff; and (3) system-level changes required, including infrastructure and herd management. Many of these concerns stemmed from challenges related to the nature of large-scale seasonal-calving pasture-based dairy systems, where a large number of calves are born in a short period of time and may be exposed to inclement weather in late winter in some areas. Several small-scale farmers (n = 4) providing cow-calf contact for longer than standard practice of 48 h were also interviewed; all permitted contact for at least 4 wk. These farmers also felt that animal welfare and health were important, and that this was promoted in their cowcalf contact systems. Concerns about colostrum and mastitis, for example, were not raised by these farmers, but they did agree that additional infrastructure and shelter were important considerations for cow-calf contact systems. Some conventional farmers expressed cognitive dissonance in that they theoretically preferred cow-calf contact but could not see it being realistic or practical to implement. Farmers currently providing longer cow-calf contact may be a useful resource for better understanding of how practical and economical cow-calf contact systems could be adopted on commercial pastoral dairy farms.

Effect of Type of Cow-Calf Contact on Health, Blood Parameters, and Performance of Dairy Cows and Calves

“…Successfully adopting new farm management systems depends, among others, on inner motivation, former experience with change, and the period of time over which new practices are implemented ( 68 ). Farmers that transformed their calf rearing system from a conventional to a full CCC system reported calf health benefits ( 17 , 67 , 69 ), but also acknowledged that it required additional infrastructure ( 69 ) and that it took time to reach the necessary change of perception on calf monitoring ( 17 ). We highly recommend future research focus on identifying and optimizing suitable cow-calf housing systems and managerial changes to ensure optimal calf health in CCC systems both during and after the transition period.…”

Developing ‘Smart’ Dairy Farming Responsive to Farmers and Consumer-Citizens: A Review

“…Consumption patterns-what consumers choose to eat and influences on such choices-are critical factors shaping how food and land use systems evolve. Moreover, public opinion can become a major driver for industry changes [34]; even if attitudes do not influence purchasing behavior (consumer perspective), moral discomfort can be expressed as support for changes in legislation (citizen perspective) [32]. Given the historical fall-out of failing to gauge public risk perception on agricultural issues in the past (e.g., BSE, GMOs) [4], there is a recognition that socio-cultural perspectives, including consumer-citizen perspectives, are inadequately reflected in discussions on more recent on-farm technologies [22,33,35].…”

“…Thus in many countries, indoor feeding systems such as zero-grazing are increasing while simultaneously the number of grazing dairy cows is declining [70,71]. Grazing is, however, inherently close to the natural behavior of dairy cows [34] and is viewed favorably by consumer-citizens whose concept of an ideal farm is one that incorporates natural living where animals are provided with access to space and pasture [38], and are less stressed. In describing an ideal dairy farm, Brazilian citizens state that such a farm has "adequate pasture and feeding, as natural as possible" (Citizen 78); " .…”

“…Separation of the cow and calf immediately or shortly after birth is routinely practiced on dairy farms [9,34]. It is however the focus of increased interest among the public because of calf welfare concerns, with high profile campaigns by animal welfare groups targeting this practice.…”

“…There has been increased interest in extended cow-calf contact by the farming population as well as researchers and advisors, but while some European farmers provide extended cow-calf contact [34] dairy farmers were found not to be favorably disposed to it in research conducted in six European countries [85] and Brazilian farmers have concerns regarding animal welfare, labor, and the suitability of the dairy system for providing extended cowcalf contact [77]. Farmers in New Zealand had similar concerns relating to (1) poor animal welfare for both cow and calf (relating to mastitis in the cow, inadequate colostrum for the calves, lack of shelter for calves while outdoors with cows and increased stress to both due to delayed separation); (2) increased labor and stress on staff; and (3) requirement for system level changes, relating to infrastructure and herd management [34]. Some illustrative quotes from this research include: "The reason I don't do it [keep cows and calves together] is the failure rate of calves not feeding off their mothers.…”