Welfare implications on management strategies for rearing dairy calves: A systematic review. Part 1–feeding management

Introduction: Calves are very susceptible to stress in the early stages of life, and it is necessary to ensure maximum welfare. Feeding management has been identified as a major risk factor for calf health and welfare at this stage. However, the management protocol for calf rearing and its impact on animal welfare is unclear. A systematic review of different management strategies for rearing dairy calves according to the three spheres of animal welfare was conducted using an electronic search strategy. In this review, management strategies were studied to identify scientific gaps, to know the welfare problems of these animals in order to prioritize actions and future research and to study the interpretive approach of this management from the three welfare spheres.

Methods: A protocol was used to analyze and extract information from the studies. Of the 1,783 publications screened, only 351 met the inclusion criteria for the management or welfare of calves' items.

Results: The publications identified in the search can be divided into two main groups feeding and socialization, based on the main topic of the publication. The main topics that emerged from the search in the feeding management group were milk replacer, colostrum, and weaning, divided into the three main areas of biological functioning and health, natural life and affective states or cognitive judgement.

Discussion: The main issues to be addressed were the different types of feed consumed by animals from birth to weaning and the weaning management. It has been found that the most researched issues are colostrum and solid starter feed management. Unresolved issues were highlighted, such as the lack of a clear protocol for the administration of milk replacers to reduce hunger and the best management of weaning to reduce stress.

1. Introduction

One of the major challenges in livestock production's is to ensure animal welfare at all stages of rearing. In dairy cattle, calf rearing is one of the most challenging aspects of animal welfare and the second-highest variable cost after feeding (1). Furthermore, optimizing calf rearing has a massive impact on the future production of the cow, thus making it a key issue for welfare, production, and economic sustainability.

To ensure animal welfare, it is necessary to know how to assess it. There have been significant changes in the assessment of animal welfare in recent decades. The current scientific approach to animal welfare by science is not yet standardized. Although there is a scientific process and an increasing consumer demand for animal welfare, regulations are only focus on the basics (2, 3). One of the reasons for this lack of specific regulation may be the lack of consensus on the concept of animal welfare. In recent years, there has been an evolution from avoiding negative experiences to exploring positive experiences for animals, recognizing that good welfare, a “good life,” is not only about preventing negative states, but also about promoting positive experiences and emotional states (4–6). Positive animal welfare and its evaluation emphasizes resources valued by animals, positive emotions, and the natural behaviors that animals are motivated to perform (5).

It is therefore essential to define animal welfare before evaluating any management strategy. Animal welfare indicators can be grouped into three basic concepts (represented by spheres) first defined by Fraser et al. (7) and later adapted for dairy cattle by von Keyserlingk et al. (8). The three key spheres are (i) biological functioning and health, where good health indicates the correct physiological functioning of the animal; (ii) affective states or cognitive judgement, which considers how the animal feels when experiencing and perceiving its environment (8); and (iii) natural life, which refers to the evolutionary adaptation suffered of the animal to its environment, such as gregarious behavior (9) (Figure 1).

FIGURE 1

Figure 1. The three spheres of animal welfare and corresponding keywords: (A) biological functioning and animal health, (B) affective states or cognitive judgement, and (C) natural living (Adapted from 9).

Ensuring optimal welfare in all three spheres during the rearing period has a direct impact on calf development. This is important because it has been shown that optimal development during the early stages of an animal's life influences its future (10), for example, neonatal diarrhea and other neonatal parameters have an economic cost and are associated with adverse effects on future cow production and reproductive performance (11, 12). This concept implies that rearing a healthy calf up to puberty under the highest welfare conditions will result in optimal production in future lactations (13). Growth rate during the first 6 months of life has been shown to be a direct determinant of age at first calving (14). In addition, body weight at first calving is associated with higher milk yield in the first lactation (15). Therefore, the efficiency of the dairy system can be improved through optimal calf rearing, a lower age at first calving, optimized future performance (16, 17), reduced rearing costs and shorter non-productive periods.

Dairy calves are highly susceptible to stress throughout their rearing period, but the most critical period is before weaning. There are many stressors during the pre-weaning period. The first stressor is the separation from the mother (18) and the potentially negative effects of human-animal interaction (19). Later in the animal's life, transport to a new location (20) and other management practices, such as pain during the disbudding (21), discomfort due to suboptimal housing conditions, and the limited opportunities for social interaction with their conspecifics (22), can also affect animal welfare. In addition, dietary management is key to the proper physiological and immune development of the animal (23). However, it is necessary to examine the interpretation of this management from an animal welfare perspective.

Significant changes in calf management have occurred over the last few decades, and many different realities have coexisted (24, 25) due to the diversity of production systems around the world. Despite the existence of some calf rearing guidelines such as FAO (26) and NASEM (27), there is little research on how management or the lack of an appropriate management affects welfare. Farm management strategies need to accurately identify, target, and intervene when different calf stressors occur. Focusing on feeding programs (16, 28) and social management (20) are high potential strategies that farmers can implement to avoid welfare problems. It is also important to address the lack of standardized and universal good management practices related to the welfare of dairy calves.

However, there is an unclear protocol available in the literature to ensure the highest welfare from feeding and social management strategies for preweaned dairy calves to have a base on which all realities can be established. In addition to studying how each of the management strategies affect the three spheres of animal welfare. Furthermore, no literature review has been undertaken to examine all these issues.

For these reasons, the first part of this systematic review was undertaken to systematically map the research in feeding management strategies and identify any existing scientific gaps in knowledge. This work is also intended to prioritize actions and future research, as well as exploring the interpretive approach to this management. However, such a comprehensive review is lacking in the current state of knowledge. The following research question was formulated: What is known from the literature about the feeding management of preweaned calves and how does it affect welfare? What needs to be investigated?

2. Materials and methods

A systematic review was used to address our research objectives. The literature search was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines (29). PRISMA stands for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. These guidelines provide an evidence-based minimum set of items for the methodology and identification of publications and reporting in this review.

2.1. Search terms and search strategies

As a first step, the authors discussed the objectives of the search and the inclusion/exclusion criteria. It was decided to identify preweaned calves' feeding and social rearing strategies and to analyze their impact on the three welfare domains. Other management issues, such as disbudding, transport, or veterinary treatment, as well as more specific issues, such as milk composition or osmolarity, were not investigated. The search included literature published between the years 1975 and 2022. Only studies published in English and with a full scientific text available were included.

The search terms were defined using the PICO approach (population, intervention, comparison, and outcome) (30), modified for the study objectives (Table 1).

TABLE 1

Table 1. Approach and structured steps used to search the literature for this review.

2.2. Data extraction and search process

The searches were performed on May 27th, 2021. The defined search terms resulted in two databases in Pubmed and Scopus, which yielded 984 publications (Pubmed) and 697 (Scopus). This means that the search identified 1,681 publications as potentially relevant. An update of the search was performed on July 26th, 2022, just before the manuscript was finalized, using the same search terms but restricting the search to the period after the original searches were performed, thus including literature between May 27th, 2021, and July 26th, 2022, and yielding 102 new results.

After the initial search, the publications were scanned in several steps (see Figure 2). The papers were transferred to Abstrackr (31), a web application that facilitates the screening of systematic reviews by title and abstract. The publications considered relevant in terms of management or welfare issues in each of the Abstrackr filters were combined, resulting in a single dataset of 334 publications. These studies were included in a database with title, authors, journal, year of publication and DOI.

FIGURE 2

Figure 2. Search process for identifying publications on feeding and social management strategies in calf rearing.

The same person (first author) filtered all the papers, and each author double-checked for each 25% of the papers. In this study, the level of agreement between the authors was 86.3%, with 80% or more being strong agreement, as reported elsewhere (32).

The updated search identified an additional 102 publications. Only 29 of the new articles were considered as relevant. The 80.2% were excluded throughout the review as they did not meet the inclusion criteria. Abstracts were removed if they did not relate to the welfare, feeding, or social management strategies of dairy calves.

After screening the titles and abstracts, the search results were refined using the screening tool “Rayyan” (33), where duplicates were removed and 322 publications were relevant to be included as results of the systematic review search. Each of the remaining publications was examined by reading the abstract and categorized according to animal welfare sphere and management resources. For animal welfare, publications were grouped into three spheres of biological functioning and health, affective states or cognitive judgement and natural living. As there is an interrelationship between the spheres, when publications addressed welfare from more than one area, they were included in the corresponding groups. Clustering was done according to: colostrum, milk replacer, started feed, weaning, mother bonding, social interaction, and human interaction. After a full reading of the abstract, a complete reading was performed to sort into the correct category if this information was unclear. After updating and screening, 351 studies met the inclusion criteria, as shown in Figure 2.

3. Results

3.1. Study characteristics

Based on the available scientific publications, there has been a noticeable upward trend since 1975 which continues up to the present day, with 82% of the publications having been published in the last 10 years (62% of which have been published in the last 5 years). The scientific research can be broadly grouped roughly under three broad, interrelated headings of welfare: 68.1% relates to biological functioning and health, 18.9% to natural living, and 13% to affective states or cognitive judgement. However, publications with the last two major components were published very recently, in the last decade. From 1975 to 2000, all the publications were related to biological functioning and health. In 2001–2010, 80.5% corresponded to biological functioning and health, 9.7% to natural living, and 9.8% to affective states or cognitive judgment. In particular, in the last interval from 2011 to 2022, 65.2% of the publications covered biological functioning and health, 20.9% natural living, and 13.9% affective states or cognitive judgment (Figure 3).

FIGURE 3

Figure 3. Distribution of publications according to the year of publication and three spheres of animal welfare. The blue line represents the number of publications per year related to animal welfare during the rearing of Holstein's calves. The size of spheres is weighted by the percentage of publications related to each animal welfare sphere. Dotted spheres represent biological functioning and health, spheres with horizontal lines refer to natural living, and gray spheres refer to affective states or cognitive judgements.

The 351 studies were published in 50 journals representing 49% of the Journal of Dairy Science articles. Preventive Veterinary Medicine represents 5.9%, Animals 5.4%, Journal of Dairy Research and PLoS One 3.7% each, and Frontiers in Veterinary Science 1.7%. The remaining 30.6% is spread over 44 other journals.

In this first part, we analyze all the feeding management techniques and their impact on welfare. According to the specific topic addressed, the publications can be classified, from most to least number, into general management (22.5%), milk replacers (20.5%), colostrum (19.7%), social interactions (16.9%), weaning (8.8%), mother bond (5.4%), started feed (3.4%) and human-animal relationship (2.8%) (Figure 4). Although many topics were addressed, even when dealing only with management practice were considered, the studies could be divided into two main groups according to the nature of the practices: (i) feeding and (ii) social management. As these groups are so large, they are considered separately.

FIGURE 4

Figure 4. Distribution of papers by topic of publications when searching for feeding and social management strategies. The size of each is proportional to the number of publications found.

3.2. Synthesis of results of feeding management

Feeding in the early stages of calf life is critical for good development. Several studies have investigated the effect of feeding management techniques during the early stages of calf development, particularly in preweaned calves. Compared to the framework of the three spheres, all the different steps of feeding management have been studied in a compartmentalized manner. Under the umbrella of feeding management each component of colostrum, liquid feed, solid feed starter, and weaning strategies are evaluated and analyzed in Figure 5.

FIGURE 5

Figure 5. Critical points of each phase of feeding management are identified and their relationship to animal welfare spheres. Dotted spheres represent biological function and health, spheres with horizontal lines relate to natural living, and gray spheres relate to affective states or cognitive judgement.

4. Discussion

Despite the importance of the neonatal and infant period for appropriate physical, behavioral, and cognitive development into adulthood (34), the literature review over the last two decades has produced many publications on different management strategies, but few studies from the perspective of the three welfare domains.

However, there has been a shift in the approach to animal welfare assessment, incorporating animal-based indicators related to affective states and natural living. The application of this new welfare knowledge will improve the daily lives of animals.

4.1. Feeding management for welfare

Feeding management during the first period of calf life is crucial to ensure their development, welfare, and productivity (23). The effect of feeding strategies on the development of preweaned calves has been reported in several of the papers reviewed in this analysis. In addition, the effect of each feeding management practice on animal welfare has been investigated in several publications. Thus, as shown above, in Figure 5, the key aspects of each feeding management are explained from the (a) correct colostrum administration (35), (b) liquid feeding until weaning (36, 37) (c) feeding with solid starter feeding (38, 39) and (d) weaning management (40).

4.1.1. Colostrum management

According to the studies reviewed, colostrum intake affects welfare from a biological function and health perspective, as it is essential for the immunity of the calf. Publications have shown that it is crucial to provide sufficient quantities of high-quality colostrum with nutritional and immunoglobulin content and to achieve this immunity in the 1st h of life. High-quality colostrum has an IgG concentration >50 g/L (41). In the studies reviewed, two approaches were used to assess the impact of colostrum on calf immunity, colostrum characteristics and passive immunity assimilation in the calf (see Table 2) (50).

TABLE 2

Table 2. Cut-off points for passive immunity transfer in calf serum according to total serum protein and IgG concentration from different review studies and the equivalence measured with a Brix refractometer.

In terms of colostrum characteristics, maternal and commercial substitutes have been studied as two types of colostrum (according to their nature). Commercial substitutes have adequate IgG absorption and are less likely to be microbiologically contaminated (51). However, when maternal colostrum is offered, calves show increased growth at weaning, improved immune and metabolic development, and higher of blood IgG concentrations (51–53). The quality of maternal colostrum varies depending on the individual cow and environmental management factors. For example, several studies have shown that multiparous cows produce better colostrum than younger cows, as it has a higher concentration of IgG and better nutritional properties (46, 54). However, a proper vaccination protocol and adequate dry cow feeding are essential to reduce passive transfer failure (54).

The time of collection and the time between collection and administration are also important. If the quality of the colostrum is poor or if it is administered at an inappropriate time, the transfer of passive immunity will fail. This leads to a decline in the wellbeing of the biological function and health. Therefore, the longer it takes to collect the colostrum after calving, the lower the IgG concentration will be (46), and its administration to the calf must be carried out in the shortest possible time (55).

If colostrum cannot be administered immediately, hygiene and storage practices are considered key factors. Under poor hygienic conditions, colostrum may be bacterially contaminated (50, 55). If it is not possible to maintain optimal hygiene, heat treatments such as pasteurization at 60° for 60 min (41, 50, 51) or high-pressure treatment at 400 MPa for 15 min (56) can be used. These treatments reduce the concentration of pathogenic bacteria and maintain IgG quality (56, 57). In addition, colostrum can be stored frozen as freezing and thawing do not affect IgG concentrations as long as thawing is performed au bain-marie and the temperature does not exceed 40°C (58).

It is also the key to assessing colostrum quality. The Brix refractometer is an accurate, acceptable, and rapid tool for assessing colostrum quality evaluation tool with excellent repeatability (59, 60). Accordingly, colostrum can be classified as good if >22% Brix and poor if <18% Brix (61). It is important to note that mixing poor quality colostrum with good quality colostrum is not recommended (62, 63). Although the quality of colostrum has been extensively studied, its relationship to the quantity to be administered has not been established. Therefore, increasing the amount of colostrum, reducing the time between birth and colostrum administration, or increasing the amount of whole milk after colostrum have been recognized as good practices (42, 62, 64) and improve welfare from a biological function and health perspective.

As mentioned above, the characteristics of the colostrum are as important as the immunity assimilation of the calf. The success or failure of passive immunity transfer has been extensively studied (35, 43, 46). For example, a relationship has been found between successful passive transfer and a lower likehood of developing enteric or respiratory disease has been found (65). In addition, lower concentrations of IgG and total serum protein in the first 3 days of life are associated with reduced growth rates (43, 46). Based on the literature reviewed, the cut-off values for transfer failure and the calf serum IgG concentration measured with a Brix refractometer are shown in the table below (Table 2).

All of the above mentioned assumes that good quality and quantity of colostrum is essential for calf rearing and to ensure welfare from a biological function and health perspective at this stage (42, 49, 66). In short, the best colostrum management protocol, with less passive transfer failure, is administer a volume of high-quality colostrum that is equivalent to 10–12% of their body weight in the first 2h and an additional meal corresponding to 5% of body weight 6–8 h later to reduce morbidity and mortality (67).

4.1.2. Liquid feeding management

According to the studies reviewed, the management of liquid feeding affects animal welfare in all three spheres (23). From the point of view of biological function and health, it is essential to provide liquid feeding of good quality, concentration and volume so that the animal is well nourished. In addition, the amount of liquid feeding and the frequency of feeding will affect affective states or cognitive judgement, as calves properly fed should not suffer from hunger. The delivery system also affects the natural living sphere, as nipple-feeding is more similar to natural sucking behavior.

Calves must be adequately fed to meet their nutritional requirements and to support the development and maturation of the gastrointestinal tract's, allowing the calf to digest and absorb nutrients (23, 38, 68). Insufficient milk intake slows postnatal growth and can affect the development of organs such as the intestines and the mammary glands (23). Liquid feed intake also influence solid feed intake (69) and calf growth. According to Soberon et al. (70), the higher the average daily gain during preweaning, the more milk will be produced in the first lactation. Epigenetic programming, which is still under investigation, suggests that diet is one of the most important environmental factors influencing the genetic expression of milk production (70). However, the optimal feeding strategies (38) are highly uncertain in the studies reviewed. In addition, adjustments to the management in calf feeding practices will inevitably be required. At this stage, different alternatives have been studied, taking into account the type of liquid diet and supplement, the amount and concentration, the frequency of administration or the method of administration. Regardless of the strategy adopted, correct implementation of hygiene is essential to prevent health problems in calves, reduce the burden of pathogenic bacteria and break the chains of infection. For example, there are several studies that focus primarily on the cleaning of artificial nipples and buckets, as these are presented as the central critical point (71).

On the other hand, no significant improvement in calf development was found in relation to milk type. The reviewed publications have focused on the use of a milk replacer, transition milk (72), or discarded milk (73). However, when using milk replacer, the most critical factor is to maintain a protein content above 28% (74, 75), as milk protein content is directly related to daily gain (76). Fat content must be maintained in the range of 17–25% (72, 74, 77). It is important that the milk replacer is of high quality, as poor-quality milk replacers can affect welfare through morbidity (diarrhea) and also hunger through starvation (78).

There is a wide variety of feeding protocols in the reviewed bibliography, and there is no consensus on the best practice. Traditionally, restricted feeding has been used to promote solid feed intake, but these restrictions have resulted in malnutrition and immunosuppression (38), contributing to a negative welfare status. In contrast, other authors have investigated ad libitum milking administration protocols, with growth benefits but delays in rumen development as animals consume less solid feed (79, 80). Therefore, a balance needs to be found between encouraging the calves to start eating solids and avoiding starvation if they are fed with milk only. Other protocols involving the amount, frequency or concentration of milk have also been reviewed. For example, feeding 20% of the calf's bodyweight in milk has been shown to reduce feed intake and rumen development before weaning (23, 81). Alternatively, rumen development is better at 10% of the bodyweight (81). In contrast, some protocols provide an amount of milk regardless of body weight, with varying amounts and concentrations, as shown in Table 3. The optimal number of dosed meals per day is not known (86).

TABLE 3

Table 3. Quantities and concentrations of milk fed to calves, according to different studies.

Several authors have pointed out that the feeding protocol has a significant impact on welfare. Depending on the protocol, the calves may suffer from hunger or frustration, which would worsen animal welfare at affective states or cognitive judgment and natural living spheres. In order to know whether the animals are hungry, non-nutritive oral behaviors (87, 88), cross-sucking (89) and vocalizations (90, 91) could be studied. In addition, when animals do not feel hungry, they engage in more locomotor play, which is a positive indicator of welfare (82, 85). Despite the lack of a clear protocol on the amount, concentration, and frequency of administration in the review results, several authors have reported better results in terms of health and growth outcomes with fixed amounts of liquid feed at higher nutrient densities throughout the lactation period compared to a gradual increase (74, 83, 84).

Regardless of the protocol used, there are several ways to offer milk. Bucket feeding is far removed from the natural sucking behavior of the animal, and teaching animals to drink from a bucket requires training and effort. Up to 60% of calves know how to drink milk from a bucket at 3 days of age t (92). Another option is to use bottles with nipples, which are more compatible with the natural living sphere. With this method, animals show less non-nutritive sucking (88). In addition, throughout the literature reviewed, the method of feeding has been modernized with the introduction of automatic milk feeders, which are introduced to animals at around 5 days of age and can be housed in groups of 10–15 calves (93, 94). These feeders accurately control animal milk intake (95), but their effect on calf welfare is still being investigated.

For all of the above, the authors emphasize the need to provide good quality milk and choose an appropriate feeding protocol, with a fixed amount of milk offered at the beginning and gradually reduced as weaning approaches, to meet the calves' nutritional needs of the while avoiding hunger (38, 96). It is also important to monitor animal behavior to know if they are hungry if there is an increase in vocalizations or non-nutritive oral behaviors. Further research is needed to know the best amount, concentration, and frequency that ensure the best animal welfare in the three spheres.

4.1.3. Solid feed starter management

The literature reviewed shows that solid feed management has a significant impact on growth and welfare. At the level of affective states or cognitive judgement, correct feed management helps to reduce hunger or digestive discomfort. Diet composition, intake and water availability are essential for ruminal development, and therefore affect animal welfare through the biological function and health sphere.

Proper rumen development during the preweaning is critical. Solid feed intake plays a fundamental role in rumen development and maturation. The milk feeding protocol has a major influence on solid feed intake, and high liquid diet feeding programmes may compromise solid feed intake in the first few weeks of life (38, 68, 69). The most important factor in promoting solid feed intake is the decrease in milk available after 40 days of age, as this can lead to malnutrition before this time (96). In addition, social contact, which will be discussed in more detail in Part Two, also appears to influence intake, with social animals consuming more solid starter feeds (97).

A solid diet should provide the protein and energy necessary for calf growth (an average of 23.4% protein and 32.3% starch on a dry matter basis) (39, 98). In addition, the method of feeding, the palatability of the solid food, and the amount consumed are also important for the calf growth and the avoidance of digestive distress (98) which would reduce the welfare at the level of affective states or cognitive judgement.

In addition to starter feed, calf feeding practices should include the provision of water ad libitum to maximize starter intake and weight gain. Weight gain is reduced when animals are deprived of water (99), and animal welfare deteriorates (21).

On the other hand, it is currently debated whether the inclusion of forage in the starter diet can benefit calves (39). Forage feeding has been promoted from a welfare perspective. Some authors report benefits such as alleviation of ruminal acidosis, promotion of ruminal microbial diversity and abundance (100) as well as higher average daily gain. The importance of feeding hay not only for rumen development, but also for reducing stress during the weaning process (101). Others have found negative effects of including hay, such as a reduction in solid starter consumption (39), which is crucial because when calves have consumed enough starter, it is time to wean them (102).

4.1.4. Weaning management

Weaning has also been the subject of much research, as it is a turning point in the intensive calf feeding management and can cause a great deal of stress. Weaning is a very stressful event for the animals and a challenge for the farmer (103, 104). It also affects animal welfare at the level of biological functioning and health as it radically changes the diet and the calves need to have a proper rumen development. From the point of view of affective states or cognitive judgement, the procedure used to carry out weaning can cause anxiety and frustration. Finally, at the level of natural living, this event causes behavioral changes in the calves.

Weaning is the most important nutritional transition for young calves. On intensive dairy farms, calves are weaned earlier than in the wild, where weaning occurs at around 6 months (104). In the studies reviewed, it was found that the timing of weaning can be decided the basis of two main parameters in order to minimize adverse effects. Either it can be programmed according to the age of the animal or the amount of solid starter food consumed (105). In addition, weaning can be managed gradually (removal of feed), by diluting the milk, or abruptly by removing access to liquid feed (106).

As explained above, milk restriction is commonly used to encourage solid food intake to facilitate early weaning, but it can compromise calf growth if done too early (107). The earliest age at which this procedure can be done is 40 days, as it can cause malnutrition if done earlier (96). In all the studies reviewed (103, 108, 109), this weaning is carried out up to 62 days.

In addition, solid feed intake is considered the key parameter in deciding when to wean calves, and it has been suggested that calves are ready for weaning when they have consumed a minimum quantity of 0.9–1 kg of solid feed for three consecutive days (102) or 15 kg of cumulative non-fiber carbohydrates (52). The problem with deciding when to wean an animal using this method is that many calves are weaned at an older age than if age had been the deciding factor, and very individualized management is required (105).

The weaning protocol has also been widely discussed, and each strategy has a different effect (Table 4). Gradual weaning is carried out by removing meals. This encourages a greater consumption of solid feed and helps to develop the rumen better (96, 104, 109). It is the most similar to natural weaning (111), although it has been shown to cause a more prolonged frustration in the animal. In contrast, abrupt weaning removes meals all at once and causes less frustration (103). However, some animals may be unwilling to consume the minimum amount of solid feed, especially if they are on ad libitum milk allowances (109). Finally, the last option is to dilute the milk replacer until only water remains, and then remove the nipple, which causes minor frustration (110).

TABLE 4

Table 4. Weaning strategies and their effects that each of them has on the calf, according to the different authors.

However, regardless of how weaning is performed, it is a stressful process for calves (i.e., the daily gain decreases the day after weaning, and calves have high cortisol concentrations (112). It is known that calves increase the frequency of vocalizations during this period, a measure of stress and distress (90, 104), but there is still a lack of knowledge on how to minimize the stress suffered during this period. However, the effects of this process on affective states or cognitive judgement have not been investigated.

Weaning management is therefore important as it must be carried out to avoid decreasing nutrient intake and weight loss. Best management practices show a gradual reduction in milk offered from 40 days of age and complete weaning when they consume more than 1 kg of feed for three consecutive days.

5. Conclusions

Calf welfare is not sufficiently considered when making management adjustments. There are still many common calf feeding management practices applied, paricularly in the dairy farm sector, that are detrimental to the health and welfare of calves. Understanding the welfare problems caused by management and the consequences of not doing so, will help to prevent future problems. A standardized protocol helps to have a basis on which to build on according to different production systems. The most studied issues are colostrum and solid feed starter management. However, with all the information reviewed, the most important gaps in knowledge are the lack of a clear protocol for administering milk replacers to reduce hunger and the best management of weaning to reduce stress. Collaboration between the scientific research community and the dairy sector is essential to establish management standards and ensure the success of farm systems adaptated to support proper growth, ensure health and welfare, and facilitate weaning.

6. Implications

This paper provides an overview of the feeding management strategies used in the rearing of Holstein calves and how this management affects the three spheres of animal welfare. Understanding the influence of management on welfare helps to prevent future problems. From the information reviewed, the best protocol, according to the authors, is detailed below. In addition, the authors have produced a table (Supplementary Table 1), suggesting different management practices and their impact on each of the spheres of animal welfare and the missing gaps that need to be investigated in the future.

Based on the information reviewed, some advice could be summarized to optimize calf management protocols in terms of feeding management.

The most important aspect of colostrum management is to collect and administer it as soon as possible after birth, in the first 2h. If possible, pasteurize it to minimize the microbial load. Calves should drink a high-quality colostrum with a minimum of 22° Brix, and a good volume corresponding to 10–12% of their body weight. With regard to liquid feeding, it is essential to provide a high-quality milk substitute (>28% protein, 17–25% fat in powdered milk) and optimal hygiene. A fixed amount of 6–7 liters with a minimum of 660 g of milk powder in two or three daily feeds is recommended. The solid feed starter should provide the protein and energy needed for calf growth, and the animals must have continuous access to water. It is important to facilitate an increase in the rate of feed intake during the first few weeks of age to promote the correct rumen development of the calf. Finally, the best protocol for weaning is to gradually reduce the amount of milk offered from 40 days of age and to wean completely when calves consume more than 1 kg of feed for three days.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Author contributions

PC, AV, FE, and IB-P contributed to the conception and design of the study. PC and IB-P organized the database. PC drafted the first manuscript. All authors contributed to the revision of the manuscript, read, and approved the submitted version.

Funding

This research was supported by Centro para el Desarrollo Tecnológico Industrial and Cowvet S.L. by project CDTI-IDI-20200936. In addition, PC held a grant from the Ph.D. student's research program of the Universitat Politècnica de València (PAID-01-20).

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences and the Department of Clinical Sciences for facilitating access to databases analyzed in this study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

The reviewer MC declared a shared committee Red CIBA and ISAE South West Europe Region with the authors to the handling editor.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2023.1148823/full#supplementary-material

References

1. Tozer PR, Heinrichs AJ. What affects the costs of raising replacement dairy heifers: a multiple-component analysis. J Dairy Sci. (2001) 84:1836–44. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(01)74623-1

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

2. Council directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes.

3. Council directive 2008/119/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves.

4. Edgar J, Mullan S, Pritchard J, McFarlane U, Main D. Towards a “good life” for farm animals: development of a resource tier framework to achieve positive welfare for laying hens. Animals. (2013) 3:584–605. doi: 10.3390/ani3030584

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

5. Lawrence AB, Vigors B. Sandøe P. What is so positive about positive animal welfare?—A critical review of the literature. Animals. (2019) 9:783. doi: 10.3390/ani9100783

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

6. Mellor D. Updating animal welfare thinking: moving beyond the “five freedoms” towards “a life worth living.” Animals. (2016) 6:21. doi: 10.3390/ani6030021

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

7. Fraser D, Weary D, Pajor E, Milligan B, A. scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare. (1997) 6:187–205. doi: 10.1017/S0962728600019795

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

8. von Keyserlingk MAG, Rushen J, de Passillé AM, Weary DM. Invited review: The welfare of dairy cattle—Key concepts and the role of science. J Dairy Sci. (2009) 92:4101–11. doi: 10.3168/jds.2009-2326

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

9. Polsky L, von Keyserlingk MAG. Invited review: Effects of heat stress on dairy cattle welfare. J Dairy Sci. (2017) 100:8645–57. doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-12651

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

10. Kaske M, Wiedemann S, Kunz H. Metabolic programming. backgroundand potential impact for dairy cattle. Vlaams Diergen Tijds. (2010) 79:445–51.

Google Scholar

11. Smith DR. Field disease diagnostic investigation of neonatal calf Diarrhea. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract. (2012) 28:465–81. doi: 10.1016/j.cvfa.2012.07.010

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

12. Aghakeshmiri F, Azizzadeh M, Farzaneh N, Gorjidooz M. Effects of neonatal diarrhea and other conditions on subsequent productive and reproductive performance of heifer calves. Vet Res Commun. (2017) 41:107–12. doi: 10.1007/s11259-017-9678-9

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

13. Kennedy E, Coughlan F, Fitzgerald S, Buckley F. “The importance of target weight when rearing heifers,” In Proceedings of Teagasc Irish Dairying Planning for 2015. Moorepark Open day (2011), p. 65–66.

Google Scholar

14. Ettema JF, Santos JEP. Impact of age at calving on lactation, reproduction, health, and income in first-parity Holsteins on commercial farms. J Dairy Sci. (2004) 87:2730–42. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(04)73400-1

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

15. Bach A, Ahedo J. Record keeping and economics of dairy heifers. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract. (2008) 24:117–38. doi: 10.1016/j.cvfa.2007.10.001

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

16. Gleeson D, O'Brien B. Effect of milk feed source, frequency of feeding and age at turnout on calf performance, live-weight at mating and 1st lactation milk production. Ir Vet J. (2012) 65:18. doi: 10.1186/2046-0481-65-18

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

17. Van Eetvelde M, Opsomer G. Innovative look at dairy heifer rearing: effect of prenatal and post-natal environment on later performance. Reprod Domest Anim. (2017) 52:30–6. doi: 10.1111/rda.13019

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

18. Daros RR, Costa JHC, von Keyserlingk MAG, Hötzel MJ, Weary DM. Separation from the dam causes negative judgement bias in dairy calves. PLoS ONE. (2014) 9:e98429. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0098429

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

19. Calderón-Amor J, Beaver A, von Keyserlingk MAG, Gallo C. Calf- and herd-level factors associated with dairy calf reactivity. J Dairy Sci. (2020) 103:4606–17. doi: 10.3168/jds.2019-16878

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

20. Hulbert LE, Moisá SJ. Stress, immunity, and the management of calves. J Dairy Sci. (2016) 99:3199–216. doi: 10.3168/jds.2015-10198

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

21. Phipps A, Beggs D, Murray A, Mansell P, Pyman M, A. survey of northern Victorian dairy farmers to investigate dairy calf management: calf-rearing practices: a survey of northern Victorian dairy farmers to investigate dairy calf management: calf rearing practices. Aust Vet J. (2018) 96:107–10. doi: 10.1111/avj.12686

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

22. Beaver A, Proudfoot KL, von Keyserlingk MAG. Symposium review: considerations for the future of dairy cattle housing: an animal welfare perspective. J Dairy Sci. (2020) 103:5746–58. doi: 10.3168/jds.2019-17804

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

23. Hammon HM, Liermann W, Frieten D, Koch C. Review: importance of colostrum supply and milk feeding intensity on gastrointestinal and systemic development in calves. Animal. (2020) 14:s133–43. doi: 10.1017/S1751731119003148

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

24. Kertz AF, Hill TM, Quigley JD, Heinrichs AJ, Linn JG, Drackley JK, et al. 100-year review: calf nutrition and management. J Dairy Sci. (2017) 100:10151–72. doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-13062

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

25. Otterby DE, Linn JG. Advances in nutrition and management of calves and heifers. J Dairy Sci. (1981) 64:1365–77. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(81)82709-9

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

26. FAO. Calves Regulations (Protection), 2003 (L.N. 258 of 2003). (2003).

27. National National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle: Eighth Revised Edition. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press (2021).

28. Scoley, Gordon A, Morrison SJ. The effect of calf jacket usage on performance, behaviour and physiological responses of group-housed dairy calves. Anima. (2019) 13:2876–84. doi: 10.1017/S1751731119001071

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

29. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. (2009) 339:b2700–b2700. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2700

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

30. Methley AM, Campbell S, Chew-Graham C, McNally R, Cheraghi-Sohi S, PICO. PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Serv Res. (2014) 14:579. doi: 10.1186/s12913-014-0579-0

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

31. Wallace BC, Small K, Brodley CE, Lau J, Trikalinos TA. “Deploying an interactive machine learning system in an evidence-based practice center: abstrackr,” In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGHIT symposium on International health informatics - IHI'12. Miami, Florida, USA: ACM Press (2012). p. 819 doi: 10.1145/2110363.2110464

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

32. Furlan JC, Singh J, Hsieh J, Fehlings MG. Methodology of Systematic Reviews and Recommendations. J Neurotrauma. (2011) 28:1335–9. doi: 10.1089/neu.2009.1146

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

33. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. (2016) 5:210. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

34. Cantor MC, Neave HW, Costa JHC. Current perspectives on the short- and long-term effects of conventional dairy calf raising systems: a comparison with the natural environment. Transl Anim Sci. (2019) 3:549–63. doi: 10.1093/tas/txy144

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

35. Lombard J, Urie N, Garry F, Godden S, Quigley J, Earleywine T, et al. Consensus recommendations on calf- and herd-level passive immunity in dairy calves in the United States. J Dairy Sci. (2020) 103:7611–24. doi: 10.3168/jds.2019-17955

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

36. Seppä-Lassila L, Sarjokari K, Hovinen M, Soveri T, Norring M. Management factors associated with mortality of dairy calves in Finland: a cross sectional study. Vet J. (2016) 216:164–7. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2016.07.008

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

37. van Niekerk JK, Fischer-Tlustos AJ, Wilms JN, Hare KS, Welboren AC, Lopez AJ, et al. Foundation scholar award: new frontiers in calf and heifer nutrition—from conception to puberty. J Dairy Sci. (2021) 104:8341–62. doi: 10.3168/jds.2020-20004

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

38. Palczynski LJ, Bleach ECL, Brennan ML. Robinson PA. Appropriate dairy calf feeding from birth to weaning: “it's an investment for the future”. Animals. (2020) 10:116. doi: 10.3390/ani10010116

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

39. Engelking LE, Matsuba T, Inouchi K, Sugino T, Oba M. Effects of feeding hay and calf starter as a mixture or as separate components to Holstein calves on intake, growth, and blood metabolite and hormone concentrations. J Dairy Sci. (2020) 103:4423–34. doi: 10.3168/jds.2019-17676

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

40. Bach A, Ahedo J, Ferrer A. Optimizing weaning strategies of dairy replacement calves. J Dairy Sci. (2010) 93:413–9. doi: 10.3168/jds.2009-2682

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

41. Godden S. Colostrum management for dairy calves. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract. (2008) 24:19–39. doi: 10.1016/j.cvfa.2007.10.005

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

42. Atkinson DJ, von Keyserlingk MAG, Weary DM. Benchmarking passive transfer of immunity and growth in dairy calves. J Dairy Sci. (2017) 100:3773–82. doi: 10.3168/jds.2016-11800

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

43. Cuttance EL, Mason WA, Laven RA, Phyn CVC. The relationship between failure of passive transfer and mortality, farmer-recorded animal health events and body weights of calves from birth until 12 months of age on pasture-based, seasonal calving dairy farms in New Zealand. Vet J. (2018) 236:4–11. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2018.04.005

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

44. Haagen IW, Hardie LC, Heins BJ, Dechow CD. Genetic parameters of passive transfer of immunity for US organic Holstein calves. J Dairy Sci. (2021) 104:2018–26. doi: 10.3168/jds.2020-19080

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

45. Chigerwe M, Hagey JV, Aly SS. Determination of neonatal serum immunoglobulin G concentrations associated with mortality during the first 4 months of life in dairy heifer calves. J Dairy Res. (2015) 82:400–6. doi: 10.1017/S0022029915000503

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

46. Furman-Fratczak K, Rzasa A, Stefaniak T. The influence of colostral immunoglobulin concentration in heifer calves' serum on their health and growth. J Dairy Sci. (2011) 94:5536–43. doi: 10.3168/jds.2010-3253

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

47. Swan H, Godden S, Bey R, Wells S, Fetrow J, Chester-Jones H. Passive transfer of immunoglobulin G and preweaning health in Holstein calves fed a commercial colostrum replacer. J Dairy Sci. (2007) 90:3857–66. doi: 10.3168/jds.2007-0152

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

48. Hue DT, Skirving R, Chen T, Williams JL, Bottema CDK, Petrovski K. Colostrum source and passive immunity transfer in dairy bull calves. J Dairy Sci. (2021) 104:8164–76. doi: 10.3168/jds.2020-19318

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

49. Cardoso CL, King A, Chapwanya A, Esposito G. Ante-natal and post-natal influences on neonatal immunity, growth and puberty of calves—a review. Animals. (2021) 11:1212. doi: 10.3390/ani11051212

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

50. Barry J, Bokkers EAM, Berry DP, de Boer IJM, McClure J, Kennedy E. Associations between colostrum management, passive immunity, calf-related hygiene practices, and rates of mortality in preweaning dairy calves. J Dairy Sci. (2019) 102:10266–76. doi: 10.3168/jds.2019-16815

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

51. Lago A, Socha M, Geiger A, Cook D. Silva-del-Río N, Blanc C, Quesnell R, Leonardi C. Efficacy of colostrum replacer vs. maternal colostrum on immunological status, health, and growth of preweaned dairy calves. J Dairy Sci. (2018) 101:1344–54. doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-13032

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

52. Quigley JD, Deikun L, Hill TM, Suarez-Mena FX, Dennis TS, Hu W. Effects of colostrum and milk replacer feeding rates on intake, growth, and digestibility in calves. J Dairy Sci. (2019) 102:11016–25. doi: 10.3168/jds.2019-16682

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

53. Schäff CT, Rohrbeck D, Steinhoff-Wagner J, Kanitz E, Sauerwein H, Bruckmaier RM, et al. Effects of colostrum vs. formula feeding on hepatic glucocorticoid and α1- and β₂-adrenergic receptors in neonatal calves and their effect on glucose and lipid metabolism. J Dairy Sci. (2014) 97:6344–57. doi: 10.3168/jds.2014-8359

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

54. Dunn A, Ashfield A, Earley B, Welsh M, Gordon A, Morrison SJ. Evaluation of factors associated with immunoglobulin G, fat, protein, and lactose concentrations in bovine colostrum and colostrum management practices in grassland-based dairy systems in Northern Ireland. J Dairy Sci. (2017) 100:2068–79. doi: 10.3168/jds.2016-11724

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

55. Phipps AJ, Beggs DS, Murray AJ, Mansell PD, Stevenson MA, Pyman MF. Survey of bovine colostrum quality and hygiene on northern Victorian dairy farms. J Dairy Sci. (2016) 99:8981–90. doi: 10.3168/jds.2016-11200

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

56. Foster DM, Poulsen KP, Sylvester HJ, Jacob ME, Casulli KE, Farkas BE. Effect of high-pressure processing of bovine colostrum on immunoglobulin G concentration, pathogens, viscosity, and transfer of passive immunity to calves. J Dairy Sci. (2016) 99:8575–88. doi: 10.3168/jds.2016-11204

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

57. Johnson JL, Godden SM, Molitor T, Ames T, Hagman D. Effects of feeding heat-treated colostrum on passive transfer of immune and nutritional parameters in neonatal dairy calves. J Dairy Sci. (2007) 90:5189–98. doi: 10.3168/jds.2007-0219

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

58. Robbers L, Jorritsma R, Nielen M, Koets A. A scoping review of on-farm colostrum management practices for optimal transfer of immunity in dairy calves. Front Vet Sci. (2021) 8:668639. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.668639

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

59. Bartens M-C, Drillich M, Rychli K, Iwersen M, Arnholdt T, Meyer L, et al. Assessment of different methods to estimate bovine colostrum quality on farm. N Z Vet J. (2016) 64:263–7. doi: 10.1080/00480169.2016.1184109

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

60. Chigerwe M, Hagey JV. Refractometer assessment of colostral and serum IgG and milk total solids concentrations in dairy cattle. BMC Vet Res. (2014) 10:178. doi: 10.1186/s12917-014-0178-7

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

61. Denholm K, McDougall S, Chambers G, Clough W. Factors associated with colostrum quality in individual cows from dairy herds in the Waikato region of New Zealand. N Z Vet J. (2018) 66:115–20. doi: 10.1080/00480169.2017.1418684

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

62. Denholm K, Hunnam J, Cuttance E, McDougall S. Associations between management practices and colostrum quality on New Zealand dairy farms. N Z Vet J. (2017) 65:257–63. doi: 10.1080/00480169.2017.1342575

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

63. King A, Chigerwe M, Barry J, Murphy JP, Rayburn MC, Kennedy E. Short communication: Effect of feeding pooled and nonpooled high-quality colostrum on passive transfer of immunity, morbidity, and mortality in dairy calves. J Dairy Sci. (2020) 103:1894–9. doi: 10.3168/jds.2019-17019

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

64. Shivley CB, Lombard JE, Urie NJ, Haines DM, Sargent R, Kopral CA, et al. Preweaned heifer management on US dairy operations: Part II. Factors associated with colostrum quality and passive transfer status of dairy heifer calves. J Dairy Sci. (2018) 101:9185–98. doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-14008

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

65. Lora I, Gottardo F, Contiero B, Dall Ava B, Bonfanti L, Stefani A, et al. Association between passive immunity and health status of dairy calves under 30 days of age. Prev Vet Med. (2018) 152:12–5. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2018.01.009

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

66. Trotz-Williams LA, Leslie KE, Peregrine AS. Passive immunity in Ontario dairy calves and investigation of its association with calf management practices. J Dairy Sci. (2008) 91:3840–9. doi: 10.3168/jds.2007-0898

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

67. Godden SM, Lombard JE, Woolums AR. Colostrum management for dairy calves. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract. (2019) 35:535–56. doi: 10.1016/j.cvfa.2019.07.005

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

68. Schäff CT, Gruse J, Maciej J, Pfuhl R, Zitnan R, Rajsky M, et al. Effects of feeding unlimited amounts of milk replacer for the first 5 weeks of age on rumen and small intestinal growth and development in dairy calves. J Dairy Sci. (2018) 101:783–93. doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-13247

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

69. Ghaffari MH, Hammon HM, Frieten D, Gerbert C, Dusel G, Koch C. Effects of milk replacer meal size on feed intake, growth performance, and blood metabolites and hormones of calves fed milk replacer with or without butyrate ad libitum: a cluster-analytic approach. J Dairy Sci. (2021) 104:4650–64. doi: 10.3168/jds.2020-18626

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

70. Soberon F, Raffrenato E, Everett RW, Van Amburgh ME. Preweaning milk replacer intake and effects on long-term productivity of dairy calves. J Dairy Sci. (2012) 95:783–93. doi: 10.3168/jds.2011-4391

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

71. Heinemann C, Leubner CD, Hayer JJ, Steinhoff-Wagner J. Hygiene management in newborn individually housed dairy calves focusing on housing and feeding practices. J Anim Sci. (2021) 99:skaa391. doi: 10.1093/jas/skaa391

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

72. Van Soest B, Cullens F, VandeHaar MJ, Nielsen MW. Short communication: Effects of transition milk and milk replacer supplemented with colostrum replacer on growth and health of dairy calves. J Dairy Sci. (2020) 103:12104–8. doi: 10.3168/jds.2020-18361

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

73. Butler JA, Sickles SA, Johanns CJ, Rosenbusch RF. Pasteurization of discard mycoplasma mastitic milk used to feed calves: thermal effects on various mycoplasma. J Dairy Sci. (2000) 83:2285–8. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(00)75114-9

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

74. Hill SR, Knowlton KF, Daniels KM, James RE, Pearson RE, Capuco AV, et al. Effects of milk replacer composition on growth, body composition, and nutrient excretion in preweaned Holstein heifers. J Dairy Sci. (2008) 91:3145–55. doi: 10.3168/jds.2007-0860

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

75. Raeth-Knight M, Chester-Jones H, Hayes S, Linn J, Larson R, Ziegler D, et al. Impact of conventional or intensive milk replacer programs on Holstein heifer performance through six months of age and during first lactation. J Dairy Sci. (2009) 92:799–809. doi: 10.3168/jds.2008-1470

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

76. Hill TM, Bateman HG, Aldrich JM, Schlotterbeck RL. Optimizing nutrient ratios in milk replacers for calves less than five weeks of age. J Dairy Sci. (2009) 92:3281–91. doi: 10.3168/jds.2008-1750

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

77. Esselburn KM, O'Diam KM, Hill TM, Bateman HG, Aldrich JM, Schlotterbeck RL, et al. Intake of specific fatty acids and fat alters growth, health, and titers following vaccination in dairy calves. J Dairy Sci. (2013) 96:5826–35. doi: 10.3168/jds.2013-6608

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

78. Calderón-Amor J, Gallo C. Dairy calf welfare and factors associated with diarrhea and respiratory disease among Chilean dairy farms. Animals. (2020) 10:1115. doi: 10.3390/ani10071115

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

79. Gerbert C, Frieten D, Koch C, Dusel G, Eder K, Stefaniak T, et al. Effects of ad libitum milk replacer feeding and butyrate supplementation on behavior, immune status, and health of Holstein calves in the postnatal period. J Dairy Sci. (2018) 101:7348–60. doi: 10.3168/jds.2018-14542

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

80. Koch C, Gerbert C, Frieten D, Dusel G, Eder K, Zitnan R, et al. Effects of ad libitum milk replacer feeding and butyrate supplementation on the epithelial growth and development of the gastrointestinal tract in Holstein calves. J Dairy Sci. (2019) 102:8513–26. doi: 10.3168/jds.2019-16328

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

81. Tümmler L-M, Derno M, Röttgen V, Vernunft A, Tuchscherer A, Wolf P, et al. Effects of 2 colostrum and subsequent milk replacer feeding intensities on methane production, rumen development, and performance in young calves. J Dairy Sci. (2020) 103:6054–69. doi: 10.3168/jds.2019-17875

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

82. Duve LR, Weary DM, Halekoh U, Jensen MB. The effects of social contact and milk allowance on responses to handling, play, and social behavior in young dairy calves. J Dairy Sci. (2012) 95:6571–81. doi: 10.3168/jds.2011-5170

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

83. Knauer WA, Godden SM, McGuirk SM, Sorg J. Randomized clinical trial of the effect of a fixed or increasing milk allowance in the first 2 weeks of life on health and performance of dairy calves. J Dairy Sci. (2018) 101:8100–9. doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-14309

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

84. Quigley JD, Wolfe TA, Elsasser TH. Effects of additional milk replacer feeding on calf health, growth, and selected blood metabolites in calves. J Dairy Sci. (2006) 89:207–16. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72085-9

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

85. Jensen MB, Duve LR, Weary DM. Pair housing and enhanced milk allowance increase play behavior and improve performance in dairy calves. J Dairy Sci. (2015) 98:2568–75. doi: 10.3168/jds.2014-8272

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

86. Kmicikewycz AD, da Silva DNL, Linn JG, Litherland NB. Effects of milk replacer program fed 2 or 4 times daily on nutrient intake and calf growth. J Dairy Sci. (2013) 96:1125–34. doi: 10.3168/jds.2012-5738

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

87. Pempek JA, Eastridge ML, Swartzwelder SS, Daniels KM, Yohe TT. Housing system may affect behavior and growth performance of Jersey heifer calves. J Dairy Sci. (2016) 99:569–78. doi: 10.3168/jds.2015-10088

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

88. Reipurth M, Klausen SK, Denwood M, Forkman B, Houe H. The effect of age when group housed and other management factors on playing and non-nutritive sucking behaviour in dairy calves: a cross sectional observational study. Acta Vet Scand. (2020) 62:63. doi: 10.1186/s13028-020-00562-y

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

89. Jung J, Lidfors L. Effects of amount of milk, milk flow and access to a rubber teat on cross-sucking and non-nutritive sucking in dairy calves. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2001) 72:201–13. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(01)00110-1

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

90. Bolt SL, Boyland NK, Mlynski DT, James R, Croft DP. Pair housing of dairy calves and age at pairing: effects on weaning stress, health, production and social networks. PLoS ONE. (2017) 12:e0166926. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166926

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

91. Ivemeyer S, Preußer J, Haager D, Simantke C, Waldherr P, Kull K, et al. Impact of enhanced compared to restricted milk feeding on the behaviour and health of organic dairy calves. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2022) 252:105655. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2022.105655

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

92. Mandel C, Adams-Progar A, Sischo WM, Moore DA. Short communication: Predictors of time to dairy calf bucket training. J Dairy Sci. (2017) 100:9769–74. doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-13208

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

93. Medrano-Galarza C, LeBlanc SJ, DeVries TJ, Jones-Bitton A, Rushen J, Marie de Passillé A, et al. Effect of age of introduction to an automated milk feeder on calf learning and performance and labor requirements. J Dairy Sci. (2018) 101:9371–84. doi: 10.3168/jds.2018-14390

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

94. Medrano-Galarza C, LeBlanc SJ, DeVries TJ, Jones-Bitton A, Rushen J, Marie de Passillé A, et al. A survey of dairy calf management practices among farms using manual and automated milk feeding systems in Canada. J Dairy Sci. (2017) 100:6872–84. doi: 10.3168/jds.2016-12273

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

95. Jorgensen MW, Janni K, Adams-Progar A, Chester-Jones H, Salfer JA, Endres MI. Housing and management characteristics of calf automated feeding systems in the Upper Midwest of the United States. J Dairy Sci. (2017) 100:9881–91. doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-12792

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

96. Jensen MB, Jensen A, Vestergaard M. The effect of milk feeding strategy and restriction of meal patterning on behavior, solid feed intake, and growth performance of male dairy calves fed via computer-controlled milk feeders. J Dairy Sci. (2020) 103:8494–506. doi: 10.3168/jds.2020-18166

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

97. Costa JHC, Meagher RK, von Keyserlingk MAG, Weary DM. Early pair housing increases solid feed intake and weight gains in dairy calves. J Dairy Sci. (2015) 98:6381–6. doi: 10.3168/jds.2015-9395

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

98. Lusby KS. Nutrition programs for lightweight calves. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract. (2006) 22:321–34. doi: 10.1016/j.cvfa.2006.03.001

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

99. Kertz AF, Reutzel LF, Mahoney JH. Ad Libitum water intake by neonatal calves and its relationship to calf starter intake, weight gain, feces score, and season. J Dairy Sci. (1984) 67:2964–9. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(84)81660-4

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

100. Kim Y-H, Nagata R, Ohtani N, Ichijo T, Ikuta K, Sato S. Effects of dietary forage and calf starter diet on ruminal ph and bacteria in Holstein calves during weaning transition. Front Microbiol. (2016) 7:1575. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.01575

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

101. Xiao J, Chen T, Alugongo GM, Khan MZ Li T, Ma J, Liu S, et al. Effect of the length of oat hay on growth performance, health status, behavior parameters and rumen fermentation of Holstein female calves. Metabolites. (2021) 11:890. doi: 10.3390/metabo11120890

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

102. Yohe TT, O'Diam KM, Daniels KM. Growth, ruminal measurements, and health characteristics of Holstein bull calves fed an Aspergillus oryzae fermentation extract. J Dairy Sci. (2015) 98:6163–75. doi: 10.3168/jds.2015-9313

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

103. Scoley G, Gordon A, Morrison S. Performance and behavioural responses of group housed dairy calves to two different weaning methods. Animals. (2019) 9:895. doi: 10.3390/ani9110895

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

104. Vasseur E, Borderas F, Cue RI, Lefebvre D, Pellerin D, Rushen J, et al. survey of dairy calf management practices in Canada that affect animal welfare. J Dairy Sci. (2010) 93:1307–16. doi: 10.3168/jds.2009-2429

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

105. Benetton JB, Neave HW, Costa JHC, von Keyserlingk MAG, Weary DM. Automatic weaning based on individual solid feed intake: effects on behavior and performance of dairy calves. J Dairy Sci. (2019) 102:5475–91. doi: 10.3168/jds.2018-15830

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

106. Weary DM. Calf management: improving calf welfare and production. Adv Dairy Technol. (2001) 13:107–18.

Google Scholar

107. Johnson KF, Chancellor N, Burn CC, Wathes DC. Analysis of pre-weaning feeding policies and other risk factors influencing growth rates in calves on 11 commercial dairy farms. Animal. (2018) 12:1413–23. doi: 10.1017/S1751731117003160

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

108. Hulbert LE, Calvo-Lorenzo MS, Ballou MA, Klasing KC, Mitloehner FM. Space allowance influences individually housed Holstein male calves' age at feed consumption, standing behaviors, and measures of immune resilience before and after step-down weaning. J Dairy Sci. (2019) 102:4506–21. doi: 10.3168/jds.2018-15368

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

109. Welboren AC, Leal LN, Steele MA, Khan MA, Martín-Tereso J. Performance of ad libitum fed dairy calves weaned using fixed and individual methods. Animal. (2019) 13:1891–8. doi: 10.1017/S1751731119000181

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

110. De Paula Vieira A, von Keyserlingk MAG, Weary DM. Effects of pair vs. single housing on performance and behavior of dairy calves before and after weaning from milk. J Dairy Sci. (2010) 93:3079–85. doi: 10.3168/jds.2009-2516

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

111. Whalin L, Weary DM, von Keyserlingk MAG. Understanding behavioural development of calves in natural settings to inform calf management. Animals. (2021) 11:2446. doi: 10.3390/ani11082446

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

112. Black RA, Whitlock BK, Krawczel PD. Effect of maternal exercise on calf dry matter intake, weight gain, behavior, and cortisol concentrations at disbudding and weaning. J Dairy Sci. (2017) 100:7390–400. doi: 10.3168/jds.2016-12191

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar