- Peer review
- Editorial & advisory board
- Manuscript tracking
Correspondence: Jan Broucek (firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com)
The objective was to find whether cow growth, milk performance, and behaviour are affected by (1) rearing conditions until weaning after a milk-fed period of 84 d and (2) the sire lineage. Thirty-five Holstein heifers were assigned to one of three treatments: SM, n=13, pen with mother to 21st day, then group pen (they received a maximum of 6 kg of milk daily); SN, n=9, after 3 d with own mother in pen with nursing cow (they received a maximum of 6 kg of milk daily); H, n=13, in hutch from the 2nd to 56th day (6 kg of milk replacer daily), then loose housing pen to weaning (6 kg of milk replacer daily). After weaning at the 84th day, all heifers were kept in pens with the same ration as during calving. During lactation, live body weight (LBW) was measured each month and milk yield each day. Maze learning was evaluated in the fifth month of lactation. The data were analysed using a general linear model ANOVA. At the 30th day, the LBW tended to be the highest in SN (SM 528.2 ± 11.4 kg, SN 571.7 ± 15.3 kg, H 533.2 ± 12.3 kg). When lactation ended, the highest LBW was in SN and the lowest in H (SM 612.6 ± 12.2 kg, SN 623.1 ± 16.4 kg, H 569.8 ± 13.2 kg; P<0.05). The SN tended to have the highest production of milk (SM 7143.9 ± 241.5 kg, SN 7345.1 ± 319.0 kg, H 7146.7 ± 234 kg), and the H for FCM (SM 6290.3 ± 203.2 kg, SN 6307.6 ± 268.4 kg, H 6399.3 ± 197.1 kg) for 305 d lactation. Group SN crossed the maze fastest (SM 1141.4 ± 120.5 s, SN 810.3 ± 160.5 s, H 1120.8 ± 118.6 s). The vocalization number differed significantly (SM 32.3 ± 5.7, SN 20.8 ± 4.4, H 9.9 ± 2.6; P<0.01). The results indicated that the rearing method up to weaning may have an impact on dairy cows' performance and behaviour.
Milk and milk replacer (MR) feeding strategies have been studied for many years. Currently, this issue is gaining in importance in connection with the welfare of calves and dairy cows.
A number of studies have explored different ways of keeping cows and calves together and examined possible benefits of this more natural rearing system (Loberg and Lidfors, 2001; Wagenaar and Langhout, 2007; Loberg et al., 2008). Suckling systems are more beneficial to the welfare of calves than the more common artificial rearing systems (Krohn, 2001; Mala et al., 2019). Contact with older animals during the first few weeks of life is known to stimulate calves to consume more rough feeds, especially before weaning. Increased feed intake manifests itself even later (Albright and Arave, 1997; Loberg et al., 2008; Costa et al., 2016). Group housing with animals of the same age may also stimulate appetite (Yanar et al., 2000; Hepola et al., 2006; Wójcik et al., 2013). The majority of studies have reported that the benefits for growth during the suckling period, compared with separated calves, persisted for up to 16 months (Flower and Weary, 2003; Khan et al., 2011; Meagher et al., 2019).
Bovines are highly motivated for social contact. Krohn et al. (1999) concluded that social interaction between cow and calf in the colostrum period and with other calves had a positive effect on the daily gain of the calf. The mother–calf bond may have positive effects on behaviour development and the learning capabilities of calves (Rushen and de Passillé, 1998; Loberg et al., 2008; Steele, 2019). The social housing in the group pen increased concentrate intake during the pre-weaning period, resulting in greater weight gains after weaning. The group housing has space enough for calves to exercise and play (Valnickova et al., 2015; Johnsen et al., 2016). Both social facilitation and social learning may result in socially housed calves showing higher intakes of solid feed and improved live body gains compared with individually housed calves (Paula Vieira de et al., 2012; Costa et al., 2015). According to Costa et al. (2016), calves raised in isolation (hutch) exhibit deficient social skills, difficulties in coping with novel situations, and poor learning abilities.
In animal husbandry it is common practice to separate a dairy cow and her calf shortly after birth, but this practice is debated because of animal welfare concerns. Early weaning has been shown to affect normal behavioural development and compromise the animal's ability to cope behaviourally with later challenges of environment conditions (Rushen and de Passillé, 1998). Under natural conditions, the cow and calf remain together until weaning at 6–8 months (Krohn, 2001). In contrast, on many commercial dairy farms, calves are separated from cows within a few hours of birth (Flower and Weary, 2003).
Abrupt weaning from milk at the same time as breaking the social bond with the mother is a known stressor (Meagher et al., 2019; Wagenaar and Langhout, 2007). According to Khattak et al. (2018) the weaning at a later age (70, 90, or 110 d) might contribute significantly to the feed intake and body weight gain of calves.
It has been formulated that intensive growth programmes for dairy heifers could lead to increased milk production in later life. Several studies suggest that a pre-weaning calf's weight gains and high live body weight (LBW) for heifers at calving had a positive effect on milk production in the first lactation (Bar-Peled et al., 1997; Langhout and Wagenaar, 2006; Terré et al., 2009; Johnsen et al., 2016).
However, we must distinguish between milk feeding and milk replacer (MR). Milk is more important in terms of welfare (Krohn, 2001; Guler et al., 2003; Langhout and Wagenaar, 2006; Johnsen et al., 2016) and later performance of heifers (Shamay et al., 2005; Moallem et al., 2010). But even heifers fed more intensively (increased MR amount or crude protein content) until weaning achieve an increased milk yield during the first lactation (Ballard et al., 2005; Drackley et al., 2008).
The use of modern housing systems needs milking cows resistant to stress and able to adapt to altered conditions of the environment in coherence with new procedures and methods of management (robotic feeding and milking). Learning has been defined as a relatively permanent change in response over time as a result of practice or experience (Kilgour, 1987). The speed and correctness of an animal in running through various types of mazes was used as a measure of learning ability for a long time (Kilgour, 1987; Stewart et al., 1992; Arave, 1996; Fraser and Broom, 1997). The ability to learn allows the individual animal to adapt behaviourally to changes in its environment (Kilgour, 1981; Albright and Arave, 1997; Broom and Fraser, 2007). Cows are able to learn to traverse a complex maze when they are provided with step-by-step learning opportunities (Wredle et al., 2004). A discrimination learning task with cattle found that high milk producers learn more rapidly than low producers (Kilgour, 1987). Hirata et al. (2016) showed that the ability of cows to learn was limited to about 20 % of animals.
The objective was to find whether cow growth, milk performance, and behaviour are affected by rearing conditions until weaning at 84 d and the sire lineage.
The authors declare that the experiments comply with the current laws of the Slovak Republic. The treatment of the animals was approved by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of the Slovak Republic (no. 115/1995 Z.z. and 377/2012 Z.z.). The experiments were carried out in accordance with the Code of Ethics of the EU Directive 2010/63/EU for animal experiments.
At birth, 35 Holstein heifers (descended from four sires) were randomly assigned to one of three rearing treatments:
Group SM (n=13) was made up of heifers separated in an individual pen with their mother until the 21st day (milked from the second day); they were suckled at the mother's udder for 10 min three times per day (08:00, 13:00, 18:00 LT). They received a maximum of 6 kg of whole milk per day. The calf was separated in a pen of 1.2 × 4.5 m. Then calves were kept in a loose housing pen from the 22nd day (6 kg of whole milk per day, twice daily 3 kg, bucket with drinking nipple). SM calves were weighted before and after each suckling. Suckling time a mother's udder (three times 10 min) was determined during the preparation of the experiment according to Passillé de and Rushen (2006).
Group SN (n=9) was made up of calves who spent 3 d with their own mother in individual pens and then moved to a pen with nursing cows from the fourth day; calves could suckle at any time (they received a maximum of 6 kg of whole milk per day). Calves had to compete to suckle at the nursing cow.
Group H (n=13) consisted of calves who, after having been nursed by their dams in individual pens for 24 h, moved to hutches from the 2nd to the 56th day (bucket with drinking nipple, MR, 2nd day three times 0.5 kg, 3rd day three times 1.0 kg, 4th day three times 1.5 kg, from the 5th day to the 21st day 6 kg per day, three times daily) and then to a loose housing pen to be weaned from the 22nd day (bucket with nipple, MR, 6 kg per day, twice daily).
From the 4th to the 84th day, the heifers of the SM group had an intake of 407.15 ± 10.73 kg (5.09 kg/d) milk, the SN group had 414.02 ± 8.92 kg (5.17 kg/d) milk, and the calves of the H group had 408.12 ± 9.12 kg (5.10 kg/d) of MR. Differences were not significant. The amount of milk drunk did not increase with age; the calves just drank faster. We needed to have consumption comparable to other groups.
In summary, group SM was allowed 21 d of suckling and 63 d of bucket nipple feeding; SN was allowed 84 d of suckling; H was allowed 1 d of suckling and 83 d of bucket nipple feeding. The weaning was performed abruptly without decreasing the milk allowance. This is common practice (Vasseur et al., 2010; Scoley et al., 2019). The majority of Slovakian farmers operate an abrupt weaning strategy. The weaning was also performed on Saturdays and Sundays. Every day, one of the authors and a technician were present.
All animals were weaned at the age of 12 weeks and moved to a group housing pen, where equal conditions of nutrition were ensured. The transfer was made at the exact age of 84 d. Each treatment group had its pens; pens were also differentiated by age. The principle was observed that the age difference in one pen was not higher than 21 d. The live body weights (LBWs) at weaning were as follows: SM, 97.0 ± 4.3 kg; SN, 104.5 ± 4.6 kg; H, 79.1 ± 3.1 kg; P=0.0023.
Experimental calves originated from four sires (S1, S2, S3, and S4). The distribution was as follows: SM – S1: 3; S2: 2; S3: 3; S4: 5; SN – S1: 0; S2: 5; S3: 3; S4: 1; H – S1: 1; S2: 3; S3: 7; S4: 2.
After weaning from milk feeding (at the 84th day), all heifer calves were kept in age-balanced groups in loose housing bedded pens with the same ration as to calving. Approximately 15 heifers were kept in a pen of 9 × 4.5 m. Feed was available throughout the 24 h periods. Heifers were fed alfalfa hay and corn silage ad libitum and 1.5 kg concentrate per day after weaning. The concentrate mixture (JKS, PZa Slovakia, dry matter (DM) 90.1 %) contained sunflower cake, cotton seed cake, corn, wheat bran, mineral mixture, and salt (crude protein 183 g/kg DM, crude fat 35 g/kg DM, and ash 92 g/kg DM).
The breeding programme of heifers began at 13 months of age; the limiting live body weight for a breeding age was 360 kg. Heifers were bred by artificial insemination (AI) with frozen–thawed semen. Hormonal breeding programmes were not used. Confirmation of pregnancy was performed by palpation per rectum 6–8 weeks after insemination. All inseminations and pregnancy diagnoses were done by the same operator.
The ages of the first service interval and the conception were as follows: SM, 432.3 ± 4.8 d; SN, 423.3 ± 7.6 d; H, 445.1 ± 4.5 d; P=0.0086; SM, 457.0 ± 6.3 d; SN, 448.2 ± 9.8 d; H, 486.1 ± 4.9 d; P=0.0007. The LBWs at the first service interval and at the conception were as follows: SM, 415.6 ± 13.8 kg; SN, 402.6 ± 15.9 kg; H, 421.5 ± 11.6 kg; P=0.4000; SM, 439.2 ± 14.8 kg; SN, 430.1 ± 17.3 kg; H, 454.9 ± 14.2 kg; P=0.3169.
Cows were kept in pens (movement area 7.4 m2 per animal, concrete alleys 2.6 m wide) with free stalls (1.15 × 2.0 m). The groups were balanced according to lactation stage. Automatic watering troughs were located next to feed bunks and at the end of free-stall pens.
All cows were milked from the fourth day of lactation in a double-five herringbone design (with vacuum level 50 kPa, pulsation rate 55 cycles per minute and pulsation ratio 60 : 40).
Individual milk yields were recorded electronically each morning and evening milking. They were calculated as the sum of the evening and morning yields. Each electronic milk meter was checked the last day before starting the trial and then two times each week in order to calculate its deviation level. This was done by comparison of the amount of milk weighed on an electronic scale. All electronic meters had a tolerance level within 3 %.
Samples for milk composition determination were taken once per week by the milk laboratory (RIAP, Nitra) using an infrared analyser.
The cows were milked twice a day at 05:00 and 16:00 LT after being driven by the herdsman a short distance within the barn to a holding area, which measured 13.5 m × 4.5 m, adjacent to the milking parlour. Cows entered the parlour individually once a milking stall was available. Upon exiting the parlour, cows remained in a separate holding area until all other cows in the group were milked. The cows then walked through an alley and had access to their free-stall pens immediately.
Feed was available throughout the 24 h period, except during milking. The total mixed ration (TMR) was balanced according to Slovakian nutrient requirements for dairy cattle. The feed ration included the factors and equations adopted for maintenance, growth, reproduction, and lactation and consisted of the following stages: early lactation (first 4 months), mid-lactation (fifth to seventh month), and late lactation.
The cows were fed a TMR consisting of corn silage, alfalfa haylage, alfalfa hay, barley straw, brewer's grain, sugar-beet pulp, and concentrate mixture for high-yielding cows throughout the study. Feed ration contained 19.2 kg DM, 131.0 MJ net energy content for lactation (NEL), 1.84 kg protein digestible in the small intestine (PDI), and 2.89 kg of crude protein (early stage); 18.3 kg DM, 120.2 MJ NEL, 1.65 kg PDI, and 2.66 kg of crude protein (mid stage); 16.5 kg DM, 104.1 MJ NEL, 1.44 kg PDI, and 2.32 kg of crude protein (late stage). The total mixed diet was administered to troughs in the new cubicle barn by a feeding wagon. Feeding was allowed throughout the 24 h period, except during milking. Feed bunks were located centrally in the free-stall pens, raised 0.68 m above ground and with 0.7 m of feeding space. Cows did not receive concentrates separately.
The methods of Slavik et al. (2009) and Novak et al. (2010) for the daily evaluation of the health condition were used. During lactation, LBW was measured each month and milk yield each day. The cows were weighed on the mobile livestock scale (Deutscher Verband für Materialforschung und -prüfung e.V. (DVM), Soehnle, Germany; load capacity up to 2000 kg, weighing accuracy ± 0.2 kg).
Learning ability was evaluated at the age of 5 months by the Hebb–Williams test. The closed field maze was constructed in a 8 × 14 m room. The arena floor was marked into 32 rectangles. Problem tasks were constructed using 2 m high plywood barriers. The path of the cow through the maze test was recorded by video. Cows solved six tests during 3 d. Tests 1 and 2 use a left-side solution, 3 and 4 a right-side solution, and 5 and 6 a central solution (Kilgour, 1981). Odd-numbered tests were in visual form, while even-numbered problems were non-visual. The motivation to finish the problem was access to a concentrate mix at the exit. Each test was performed twice (Fig. 1).
The cow was put into the maze entrance and a door closed behind it. The cow was timed from when it entered the maze until it got out. If the cow stood in the entrance for more than 3 min without moving, it was gently forced to move. If the cow stood at the end of the maze for more than 3 min without moving, it was led out. The cow was allowed to eat for only a few seconds, whereupon it was led out of the labyrinth to repeat the procedure. On the first observation day the cows completed five runs; the first run was for training.
Behavioural data were obtained by video observations and electronic measurements. The barn was equipped with video cameras for continuous filming of the cows' activities. There were computer techniques and software for evaluation (cameras: Samsung SCB-3000P, hard disk drive (HDD) recorder Versatile H.264 digital video recorder (DVR)) and the Observer XT Noldus (software for transmitting behavioural activities into numerical data).
The data were analysed using a general linear model ANOVA (Analysis of variance/Analysis of covariance, AOV/AOCV) by the statistical package STATISTIX, Version 10.0. The dependent variables were LBW, average daily gains (ADGs), milk performance, time taken to traverse the maze, and the number of vocalizations. The independent variables were treatment group and sire lineage.
The normality of data distribution was evaluated by the Wilk–Shapiro or Rankin plot procedure. The homogeneity of variance of the observed variables in groups was calculated by preliminary variance tests which determined whether the variabilities were equal. Bartlett's test for the equality of variance tests was used for an unequal size of samples. Differences between groups were tested by comparisons of mean ranks. Significant differences among means were tested by Bonferroni's test.
All values are reported as means ± standard error. The interactions between observed factors (treatment and sire lineage) were also computed.
The following model of general AOV/AOCV on observed factors (treatment and sire lineage) was used:
where Yij is a dependent variable, μ is the overall mean, Ti is the effect of factor treatment on the level i, Sj is the effect of factor sire lineage on the level j, αij is the interaction between factor T on the level i and factor S on the level j, and εij is the residual error.
At the 30th day, the LBW tended to be the highest in the SN group (SM 528.2 ± 11.4 kg, SN 571.7 ± 15.3 kg, H 533.2 ± 12.3 kg; P=0.0689). At the end of first lactation, at the 305 d, the highest LBW was in SN and the lowest in H (SM 612.6 ± 12.2 kg, SN 623.1 ± 16.4 kg, H 569.8 ± 13.2 kg; P=0.0165) (Fig. 2). The difference between SN and H groups was significant. No significant difference was found in the average daily gain from 30 to 305 d (SM 0.31 ± 0.06 kg, SN 0.18 ± 0.08 kg, H 0.13 ± 0.06 kg; P=0.1597) (Table 1).
a, b – means with different letters are significant (p<0.05); Group 1 (SM: suckling mother); Group 2 (SN: suckling nursing cow); Group 3 (H: individual hutch); N: number of animals; SE: standard error.
According to the fathers, the LBW growth was not significantly different, but the daughters of S4 showed the highest LBW, both at the beginning and at the end of lactation (S1 549.4 ± 21.4 kg, S2 535.9 ± 13.0 kg, S3 524.7 ± 11.5 kg, S4 567.5 ± 15.3 kg; P=0.1863; S1 595.9 ± 22.9 kg, S2 596.7 ± 13.9 kg, S3 587.5 ± 12.3 kg, S4 627.4 ± 16.1 kg; P=0.2793) (Table 1).
The ages at the first calving were not different among treatment groups (SM 732.9 ± 15.5 d, SN 726.8 ± 9.2 d, H 763.1 ± 19.8 d; P=0.1798). Similarly, this indicator was not statistically different in comparison with sire lineages (S1 737.2 ± 31.5 d, S2 738.4 ± 11.1 d, S3 733.6 ± 19.2 d, S4 764.9 ± 22.3 d; P=0.4763). The two most important management variables relating to reproductive performance were not significantly different among groups (P=0.3107; P=0.4263). The first service interval (days between calving and first breeding) and open days were 65.5 ± 8.4 and 100.6 ± 17.2 d (SM); 71.9 ± 11.1 and 115.3 ± 20.4 d (SN); 83.5 ± 8.2 and 107.7 ± 18.2 d (H).
The SN group tended to have the highest milk yield (SM 7143.9 ± 241.5 kg, SN 7345.1 ± 319.0 kg, H 7146.7 ± 187.9 kg; P=0.8459), and the H group had the highest 3.5 % fat-corrected milk (FCM) (SM 6290.3 ± 203.2 kg, SN 6307.6 ± 268.4 kg, H 6399.3 ± 197.1 kg; P=0.7382) for 305 d of lactation.
The incidence of health problems was very low in all treatment groups, and there were no differences in the occurrence of illnesses in the study. Immediately after calving, two cows from the SN group for surgical calving (caesarean section) and one cow from the H group with a retained placenta (for increased risk of endometritis) were culled. However, these cows were not included in our evaluation. No cows were culled during first lactation in the experiment. Only cured cases of short-term health disorders were recorded: mild diarrhea (SM once, SN once), injury of the teat (SM once, SN once), injury of the hock with clinical lameness (H once), and mild mastitis with udder inflammation without systemic clinical signs (SM once, SN once, H once). No metabolic disorders, bronchopneumonia, or other respiratory diseases have been identified.
SN dairy cows ran a maze the fastest; this was clear in all tests. However, in the time taken to traverse the maze, significant differences among groups were noted only in Test 5 (SM 229.3 ± 25.0 s, SN 146.2 ± 32.3 s, H 205.6 ± 23.3 s; P=0.0441). Also, in the total time for all tests, group SN crossed the maze the fastest (SM 1141.4 ± 120.5 s, SN 810.3 ± 160.5 s, H 1120.8 ± 118.6 s; P=0.1233). We did not find any significant differences in the comparison of sires (Table 2).
Interactions: group × sire (P=0.0498) Interactions: group × sire (P=0.0471). a, b – means with different letters are significant (p<0.05); A, B – means with different letters are significant (p<0.01); Group 1 (SM: suckling mother); Group 2 (SN: suckling nursing cow); Group 3 (H: individual hutch); N: number of animals; SE: standard error.
In all tests, SM cows vocalized the most and H cows the least. The total vocalization number for all tests differed significantly (SM 32.3 ± 5.7, SN 20.8 ± 4.4, H 9.9 ± 2.6; P=0.0019). Except for the sixth test (P=0.0611) and the total number of vocalizations for all tests (P=0.3198), there were significant differences in the number of moos when comparing the offspring of different sires. The daughters of Sire 2 had the most vocalizations. Interactions between group and sire factors were calculated in the fifth test, including for total vocalization number (P=0.0498; P=0.0471) (Table 2).
The trend of the highest LBW of the SN group was shown at the beginning of lactation. The most intense growth of this group was maintained until the end of the experiment.
We assume it was caused by the influence of rearing on weaning from the milk-fed period. According to our previous study (Broucek et al., 2020), from the 4th to the 84th day the calves of the SM group received 406.4 ± 48.23 kg (5.08 kg/d) milk, the SN group had 412.52 ± 42.93 kg (5.16 kg/d) milk, and the calves of the H group had 408.44 ± 32.65 kg (5.11 kg/d) of MR. We also had similar results in the current study. From the 4th to the 84th day, the heifers of the SM group had an intake of 407.15 ± 10.73 kg (5.09 kg/d) milk, the SN group received 414.02 ± 8.92 kg (5.17 kg/d) milk, and the calves of the H group had 408.12 ± 9.12 kg (5.10 kg/d) of MR.
Suckling time at the mother's udder (10 min) of SM calves was determined according to Passillé de and Rushen (2006). The calves were weighed immediately before and after each suckling to assess the milk intake. For three times 10 min, the calf should receive 6 kg of milk from the average herd cow. The number of SN calves per nursing cow was determined according to the milk yield of selected cows, so that 6 kg of milk per calf and day was available. According to older work (Broucek et al., 1995), it is possible that the SN heifer calves consumed a higher amount of milk than the estimated 6 kg/d. A cow which is stimulated by frequent suckling can produce more milk. However, all three treatment groups received a maximum of 6 kg of milk or MR daily.
Previous experiments have shown that calves that were suckled by their mothers or foster cows during the milk-feeding period achieved a higher ADG than calves separated from their dams at birth, probably due to the higher milk intake of these naturally reared calves (Krohn et al., 1999; Bar-Peled et al., 1997). Generally, feeding high levels of milk can improve heifer performance (Grøndahl et al., 2007; Moallem et al., 2010; Soberon et al., 2012; Asheim et al., 2016; Mala et al., 2019). These results support our findings that the increased LBW in SN cows was a result of greater milk intake to weaning. A lower LBW at the 30th day in the SM group can be explained as an effect of lower milk intake (Mejia et al., 1998; Fröberg et al., 2007; Asheim et al., 2016).
The significantly highest intake of starter concentrate mixture was recorded in group SN (39.2 kg) and the lowest in group SM (34.2 kg). No significant differences were found in alfalfa hay consumption (Broucek et al., 2020). In our opinion, the higher growth in SN heifers was caused by the suckling of more milk than was calculated, but also by faster habitude of calves to solid feed and higher solid feed intake by social facilitation. We can assume a higher amount of sucked milk in the SN group to weaning than measured by milk yield control. The calf is likely to suck out more milk from the nursing cow's udder than is obtained during milking and, on the other hand, a cow stimulated by suction produces more milk. Calves fed ad libitum by suckling are able to drink more than 10 kg per day (Davis and Drackley, 1998). During the second week of life, Appleby et al. (2001) recorded 8.4 kg/d milk and 9.76 kg/d milk in the fourth week. Kiezebrink et al. (2015) limited the amount of milk to 8 L per day and by weaning in the eighth week, the calves reached an intake of 399.1 kg.
Suckling of several calves empties the udder properly and can increase milk creation. Also, suckling of milk from the udder increases the level of growth hormone (Lupoli et al., 2000; Fröberg et al., 2008). Heifers fed whole milk were heavier than those fed milk replacer, probably because of better bioavailability of nutrients (Lee et al., 2009).
There was also a significantly higher body weight at 305 d in the SN group compared to group H. The reason was again the rearing manner and the large weight difference in favour of the SN group (571.69 kg versus 533.19 kg) at the beginning of lactation. The heifers of the SN group probably received more valuable liquid nutrition from udders (whole milk) than the animals from group H (milk replacer). SN cows were kept in loose group housing from the fourth day of life, the longest of all monitored groups (Broucek et al., 2020), and group housing may also stimulate appetite (Yanar et al., 2000; Wójcik et al., 2013).
The majority of studies have reported that the benefits for growth to weaning were maintained for months after separation (Khattak et al., 2018; Meagher et al., 2019). The heifers which were provided with milk for a longer time and weaned late showed higher LBW (Kisac et al., 2011; Miller-Cushon et al., 2013).
Some studies report reduced growth in suckled calves, particularly in the weeks immediately after weaning. These results were likely due to the challenge of weaning calves from high volumes of milk, while most artificially reared calves in these studies were fed restricted volumes (Uys, 2008; Fröberg et al., 2011; Novak et al., 2019). The separation and weaning can be concurrent. Johnsen et al. (2015b) showed that if calves can be separated and weaned in time, the decline in growth is lower. According to Conneely et al. (2014), reduced growth following weaning in calves fed higher quantities of milk before weaning occurs because the high milk intake depresses concentrate mixture consumption. The present work showed that the different intake of milk drink in weaning could be reflected in the LBW and milk production of monitored cows in adulthood.
Beaver et al. (2019) showed, in their systematic review, that literature on calf health does not indicate that early separation is advantageous. Authors Haley et al. (2005), Loberg et al. (2007), Loberg et al. (2008), and Johnsen et al. (2016) point out that the process of weaning poses more difficulties in dam rearing due to breaking the strong bond between mother and young. According to the review of Kälber and Barth (2014), it seems that each weaning strategy (at birth, gradually, weaning in two steps, auditory and visual contact between dam and young after separation) is always associated with stress in calves. Scoley et al. (2019) compared gradual and abrupt (with complete withdrawal of milk) methods of weaning and they did not find significant impact on calf live weight. Their study suggested that gradual weaning of calves may lead to a more prolonged sense of frustration than that experienced by abruptly weaned calves.
There was no difference among sires in LBW at 30 or 305 d of lactation, but the cows descended from S4 were heavier than the other sire lineage groups. De la Cruz-Cruz et al. (2019) found that artificial rearing of calves presents a combination of emotional and nutritional stress that reduces their immune response and can alter their genetic growth premise.
Group SN displayed a tendency for the highest production of milk, and the H group displayed this for FCM for 305 d lactation. Potential mechanisms for this increase in production have been suggested, such as improved mammary gland development (Brown et al., 2005; Daniels et al., 2009; Morrison et al., 2012; de la Cruz-Cruz et al., 2019); the keys to explaining the differences in milk production are the heifer feeding to weaning, growth during rearing, and LBW after calving. It is difficult to explain this phenomenon of non-significant increase in FCM production in group H. This could be due to the higher milk fat content in weaning, and therefore these cows had a higher FCM. Shamay et al. (2005), Moallem et al. (2010), and Chester-Jones et al. (2017) found that milk-fed calves had higher daily average of fat-corrected milk (P<0.01) during the first lactation. Kiezebrink et al. (2015) fed calves 8 L versus 4 L whole milk/d but found no differences in first-lactation performance. However, the H group was fed by MR and not milk.
More articles found positive effects between the level of liquid nutrition during the milk-fed period and following milk yield production (Bar-Peled et al., 1997; Shamay et al., 2005). Moallem et al. (2010) reported that heifers fed whole milk produced 10 % more milk than heifers fed milk replacer. There are also indications that early high milk intake or improved nutrition early in life in heifers increased a milk yield in primiparous cows (Shamay et al., 2005; Drackley et al., 2008). However, the results of Davis Rincker et al. (2011) and Kiezebrink et al. (2015) confirm that enhanced whole-milk feeding did not affect post-calving LBW, or 305 d milk yield in the first lactation.
A high weaning LBW may result in a higher LBW at calving. Authors Langhout and Wagenaar (2006), Terré et al. (2009), Khan et al. (2011), and Asheim et al. (2016) found that a high live body weight for heifers at calving had a positive effect on milk yield in the first lactation.
Genetic and environmental influences of the sire on milk production are known and have been well documented (Hayes et al., 2003). The sire lineage influences a large part of the population so its genetic qualities are effective as a stabilization factor. According to Coffey et al. (2006), growth in Holstein dairy heifers has been significantly altered in line with selection, primarily for yield. This alteration might have consequences in later life for important traits such as the fertility and milk yield. However, the effect of paternal origin has not been proven in the assessment of LBW growth nor milk performance.
The shortest time of running across the maze was recorded in the SN group. How can this be explained? In foster cow rearing systems (such as SN) calves have to compete with other calves, and this can have an effect on their behaviour after weaning or calving. Maternal care and social contact also played an important role. On the other hand, SM calves were separated from their dam after 3 weeks and then had to get used to bucket feeding. This could cause a relevant level of stress in the calves that also affects their behaviour during or after this change.
The results of rearing influence also suggest that providing enrichment in the form of a foster teat during the milk feeding period can change calf's behaviour responses in ethological tests. Calves of the SN group took less time to find the reward during the learning tests. Calves housed in unenriched environments (H) or enriched environment for 21 d only (SM) had lower flexibility in the maze.
Purcell and Arave (1991) found that pre-weaning isolation affected learning ability. Also, in the studies of Gaillard et al. (2014) and Meagher et al. (2016), the individually housed calves had learning deficits versus paired or grouped calves. We assume that cows reared in individual hutches cannot sufficiently express their social behaviour; they cannot quickly cope with the new situation, and therefore have impaired learning abilities. These results confirm the previous findings of Costa et al. (2016). Wagner et al. (2012) reported that dam-reared heifers transitioned better into the lactating herd, suggesting that social housing of heifers may enhance social skills that are useful later in life. Group housing of calves is associated with increased LBW gains during the milk feeding period and after weaning compared with individual housing, likely due to increased dry-matter intake (Warnick et al., 1977; Jensen et al., 2015).
Latham and Mason (2008) wrote that animals with maternal deprivation are less able to cope in a low-stress manner with normal social interactions with conspecifics. Flower and Weary (2001) reported that calves kept with their mother for 14 d exhibited more intense social behaviour towards unfamiliar calves. Heifers reared on a foster cow were socially more active and had clearer social structures relative to individually reared heifers (Le Neindre and Sourd, 1984).
Meagher et al. (2016) found that social rearing, and especially dam rearing, improved the calves' ability to learn as compared to calves from individual rearing. They wrote that whether these social skills and learning abilities are maintained in adult cows is not yet known. When tested in isolation, dam-reared cows in comparison to conventionally reared cows tended to show more locomotion and exploratory behaviour (Le Neindre, 1989; Kälber and Barth, 2014) and be more active (Wagner et al., 2015).
Costa et al. (2016) reviewed the articles which examined the relationship between the social environment and behaviour in calves. They found that socially reared calves are less fearful and more dominant when mixed in groups later in life compared with calves that have been reared in isolation. Socially reared calves had a higher preference toward an unknown food than calves reared individually (Costa et al., 2014). According to Jensen and Larsen (2014), calves housed individually or with only limited contact were more fearful than pair-housed calves. These reports suggest that social contact with peers is important for the calf. Dairy cows that had experienced 12 weeks of contact with the dam showed higher behavioural activity during the isolation test than cows that had been individually raised (Wagner et al., 2015).
Dairy cattle can probably be preconditioned to stressful situations. However, if such preconditioning to psychological stresses is to be achieved, farm animals must have the chances to learn and remember. Social behaviour and bonds with the mother are absent in artificial rearing systems (such as housing in hutches), leaving these systems different in terms of calf welfare. Social isolation early in life can impair cognition in animals (Costa et al., 2016). The calf also learns, as do other animals, the features of the species to which it will later direct its innate sexual responses (Kilgour et al., 1981; Arave et al., 1992; Veissier, 1993). However, extended cow–calf contact aggravates the acute distress responses, but it can have positive effects on behaviours relevant to welfare in the longer term. Prolonged periods with nursing cow contact may provide longer-term benefits for later cow behavioural development (Meagher et al., 2019).
The barn housing area may not suit all animals; their welfare deteriorates. Dairy cows in particular must be able to adapt quickly. When animals are introduced into new a housing system, they have to learn how the resources are distributed within it. At first sight, such a differentiation in the use of different areas of a housing system for different activities seems to be trivial. This is very similar to entering a maze. The size and nature of the object in which the animal has become interested determines the speed of approach (Fraser and Broom, 1997; Lauber et al., 2009). The speed of an animal in running through various types of labyrinths has been used as a measure of animal intelligence and learning ability for a long time (Kilgour, 1987; Arave, 1996).
In recent years, dairy cattle have been increasingly used in experiments on discrimination learning or spatial learning. These studies show that farm animals are able to learn difficult experimental tasks (Broucek et al., 2003; Wechsler and Lea, 2007; Büscher and Quinckhardt, 2009; Manteuffel et al., 2009).
Overall, the results of this experiment suggest that sire lineage has little or no effect on the responses of dairy cows in the various tests used. There are many reports of variation in fear- and anxiety-related behaviour in cattle, which may be partly genetically determined. Hohenboken (1987) suggests that we might use the knowledge of such genetic variation in behaviour to improve animal welfare (Wredle et al., 2004).
SM cows vocalized the most and H cows the least. It is obvious that SM cows were not only the slowest in solving tests, but they vocalized the most. This was certainly their manifestation of fear of an unknown environment. Mooing can be considered their fear-related responses (Boissy, 1995).
The vocalization was probably related to the time point when calves were separated from their mothers or nursing cows. Vocalization behaviour increases with longer contact with the mother from birth (Johnsen et al., 2015a; Stehulova et al., 2017; Steele, 2019). We must point out an important psychological factor that affects dairy cows: their independence. When we compare the groups SM and H, it is obvious that the separation time was very different. The heifers of the H group did not actually form a bond with the mother, but the heifers in the SM group had to be closely dependent on the mother. Also, it is likely that the vocal response emphasizes how cattle have a level of habituation to social isolation (Mueller and Schrader, 2005; Siebert et al., 2011; Juhas and Strapak, 2013; Green et al., 2018).
In the current study, significant differences in the number of moos among sire lineage groups were found. The daughters of Sire 2 showed the most vocalizations during all the tests. The significant interaction between treatment and sire lineage in the total number of mooings may indicate that groups according to sires have opposite reactions across treatment groups. We can state that sire lineage modified some of the responses to the maze tests.
The genetic impact on behaviour is not direct but results from a complex response network of neurophysiological and structural factors, like hormones and proteins, themselves products of indirect genetic effects (Johnston and Edwards, 2002). Breeding for cattle behaviour has been intensively discussed (reviewed in Friedrich et al., 2015). Increasing attention has been paid to cattle temperament for its benefit to working safety, adaptability to new housing conditions, animal welfare, and production. In some countries, the milking temperament of dairy cattle is already integrated into breeding programmes as a selection index.
Many of environmentally conscious people and experienced dairy farmers are not satisfied with the artificial feeding system during the rearing of heifers. In order to improve the welfare of their dairy cattle, a number of organic farms introduced suckling systems. These systems make better use of the growing potential of calves in the first months of their lives.
The purpose of the present study was to find whether dairy cow growth and milk performance and behaviour are affected by their rearing during the milk-fed period and by the sire lineage. Three treatments were used: SM, with mother to the 21st day, then group pen; SN, with nursing cow; H, in hutch to the 56th day, then group pen.
The most intense growth and milk yield of the SN group was maintained from the beginning until the end of the first lactation. Group SN crossed the maze the fastest. In the evaluation of all maze tests, group SN appears to be the most adaptable, and cows from group SM were the least adaptable.
The results indicated that the rearing method to weaning may have an impact on dairy cow performance and behaviour. The sire lineage influenced the responses to the maze tests only.
According to our results, it is possible to successfully use the method of heifer rearing with the help of nursing (foster) cows in dairy farming. These management systems can be a viable option for some producers even in our modern dairy systems.
No data sets were used in this article.
Each author participated sufficiently in the study. JB and MU conceived and designed the experiments; MU, PK, and AH performed the experiments; JB and MU analysed the data; JB wrote the paper.
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article was written based on data projects APVV-15-0060 of the SRDA, Slovakia, and Sustainable Smart Farming Systems Taking into Account the Future Challenges 313011W112, supported by the Operational Programme Integrated Infrastructure and the European Regional Development Fund.
This paper was edited by Manfred Mielenz and reviewed by Pavel Novak and one anonymous referee.
Albright, J. L. and Arave, C. W.: The Behaviour of Cattle, edn. 1, CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK, 306 pp., 1997.
Appleby, M. C., Weary, D. M., and Chua, B.: Performance and feeding behaviour of calves on ad libitum milk from artificial teats, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 74, 191–201, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(01)00171-X, 2001.
Arave, C. W.: Assessing sensory capacity of animals using operant technology, J. Anim. Sci., 74, 1996–2009, https://doi.org/10.2527/1996.7481996x, 1996.
Arave, C. W., Lamb, R. C., Arambel, M. J., Purcell, D., and Walters, J. L.: Behavior and maze learning ability of dairy calves as influenced by housing, sex and sire, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 33, 149–163, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(05)80004-8, 1992.
Asheim, L. J., Johnsen, J. F., Havrevoll, Ø., Mejdell, C. M., and Grøndahl, A. M.: The economic effects of suckling and milk feeding to calves in dual purpose dairy and beef farming, Rev. Agric. Food Environ. Stud., 97, 225–236, https://doi.org/10.1007/s41130-016-0023-4, 2016.
Ballard, C., Wolford, H., Sato, T., Uchida, K., Suekawa, M., Yabuuchi, Y., and Kobayashi, K.: The effect of feeding three milk replacer regimens preweaning on first lactation performance of Holstein dairy cattle, J. Dairy Sci., 88 (Suppl. 1), 22, 2005.
Bar-Peled, U., Robinzon, B., Maltz, E., Tagari, H., Folman, Y., Bruckental, I., Voet, H., Gacitua, H., and Lehrer, A. R.: Increased weight gain and effects on production parameters of Holstein heifer calves that were allowed to suckle from birth to six weeks of age, J. Dairy Sci., 80, 2523–2528, https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(97)76205-2, 1997.
Beaver, A., Meagher, R. K., von Keyserlingk, M. A. G., and Weary, D. M.: A systematic review of the effects of early separation on dairy cow and calf health, J. Dairy Sci., 102, 5784–5810, https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-15603, 2019.
Boissy, A.: Fear and fearfulness in animals, Q. Rev. Biol., 70, 165–191, https://doi.org/10.1086/418981, 1995.
Broom, D. M. and Fraser, A. F.: Domestic Animal Behaviour and Welfare, edn. 4, CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK, 438 pp., 2007.
Broucek, J., Mihina, S., Uhrincat, M., Tancin, V., and Harcek, L.: Effect of more calves sucking on performance and reproduction of dairy cows, Zivocisna Vyroba, 40, 59–64, 1995.
Broucek, J., Kisac, P., and Uhrincat, M.: The effect of sire line on learning and locomotor behaviour of heifers, Czech J. Anim. Sci., 48, 387–394, 2003.
Broucek, J., Uhrincat, M., Kisac, P., and Hanus, A.: Effect of Different Rearing during the Milk-Feeding Period on Growth of Dairy Calves, Agriculture, 10, 346, https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10080346, 2020.
Brown, E. G., van de Haar, M. J., Daniels, K. M., Liesman, J. S., Chapin, L.T., Forrest, J. W., Akers, R. M., Pearson, R. E., and Weber Nielsen, M. S.: Effect of increasing energy and protein intake on mammary development in heifer calves, J. Dairy Sci., 88, 595–603, https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)72723-5, 2005.
Büscher, W. and Quinckhardt, D.: Training behaviour of Jersey and Holstein calves on automatic feeders, Landtechnik, 64, 209–211, 2009.
Chester-Jones, H., Heins, B. J., Ziegler, D., Schimek, D., Schuling, S., Ziegler, B., de Ondarza, M. B., Sniffen, C. J., and Broadwater, N.: Relationships between early-life growth, intake, and birth season with first-lactation performance of Holstein dairy cows, J. Dairy Sci., 100, 3697–3704, https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-12229, 2017.
Coffey, M. P., Hickey, J., and Brotherstone, S.: Genetic aspects of growth of Holstein-Friesian dairy cows from birth to maturity, J. Dairy Sci., 89, 322–329, https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72097-5, 2006.
Conneely, M., Berry, D. P., Murphy, J. P., Lorenz, I., Doherty, M. L., and Kennedy, E.: Effects of milk feeding volume and frequency on body weight and health of dairy heifer calves, Livest. Sci., 161, 90–94, https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-7494, 2014.
Costa, J. H. C., Daros, R. R., von Keyserlingk, M. A. G., and Weary, D. M.: Complex social housing reduces food neophobia in dairy calves, J. Dairy Sci., 97, 7804–7810, https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-8392, 2014.
Costa, J. H. C., Meagher, R. K., von Keyserlingk, M. A. G., and Weary, D. M.: Early pair housing increases solid feed intake and weight gains in dairy calves, J. Dairy Sci., 98, 6381–6386, https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-9395, 2015.
Costa, J. H. C., von Keyserlingk, M. A. G., and Weary, D. M.: Effects of group housing of dairy calves on behavior, cognition, performance, and health, J. Dairy Sci., 99, 2453–2467, https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-10144, 2016.
Daniels, K. M., McGilliard, M. L., Meyer, M. J., Van Amburgh, M. E., Capuco, A. V., and Akers, R. M.: Effects of body weight and nutrition on histological mammary development in Holstein heifers, J. Dairy Sci., 92, 499–505, https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2008-1007, 2009.
Davis, C. L. and Drackley, J. K.: The development, nutrition, and management of the young calf, Iowa University Press, Ames, Iowa, USA, 339 pp., 1998.
Davis Rincker, L. E., van de Haar, M. J., Wolf, C. A., Liesman, J. S., Chapin, L. T., and Weber Nielsen, M. S.: Effect of intensified feeding of heifer calves on growth, pubertal age, calving age, milk yield, and economics, J. Dairy Sci., 94, 3554–3567, https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2010-3923, 2011.
de la Cruz-Cruz, L. A., Bonilla-Jaime, H., Orozco-Gregorio, H., Tarazona-Morales, A. M., Ballesteros-Rodea, G., Roldán-Santiago, P., Waytula, M., and Vargas-Romero, J.: Effects of weaning on the stress responses and productivity of water buffalo in different breeding systems: a review, Livest. Sci., 226, 73–81, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2019.05.020, 2019.
de Passillé, A. M. B. and Rushen, J.: Calves' behaviour during nursing is affected by feeding motivation and milk availability, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 101, 264–275, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.02.007, 2006.
de Paula Vieira, A., de Passillé, A. M., and Weary, D. M.: Effects of the early social environment on behavioral responses of dairy calves to novel events, J. Dairy Sci., 95, 5149–5155, https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2011-5073, 2012.
Drackley, J. K., Pollard, B. C., Dann, H. M., and Stamey, J. A.: First-lactation milk production for cows fed control or intensified milk replacer programs as calves, Dairy Cattle Illinois Livestock Trail, University of Illinois Extension, Illinois, USA, 25 July 2008, 32–34, 2008.
Flower, F. C. and Weary, D. M.: Effects of early separation on the dairy cow and calf: 2. separation at 1 day and 2 weeks after birth, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 70, 275–284, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-1591(00)00164-7, 2001.
Flower, F. C. and Weary, D. M.: The effects of early separation on the dairy cow and calf, Anim. Welfare, 12, 339–348, 2003.
Fraser, A. F. and Broom, D. M.: Farm animal behaviour and welfare, edn. 3, CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK, 437 pp., 1997.
Friedrich, J., Brand, B., and Schwerin, M.: Genetics of cattle temperament and its impact on livestock production and breeding – a review, Arch. Anim. Breed., 58, 13–21, https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-58-13-2015, 2015.
Fröberg, S., Aspergen-Guldorff, A., Olsson, I., Marin, B., Berg, C., Hernandez, C., Galina, C. S., Lidfors, L., and Svennersten-Sjaunja, K.: Effect of restricted suckling on milk yield, milk composition and udder health in cows and behaviour and weight gain in calves, in dual-purpose cattle in the tropics, Trop. Anim. Health Pro., 39, 71–81, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-006-4418-0, 2007.
Fröberg, S., Gratte, E., Svennersten-Sjaunja, K., Olsson, I., Berg, C., Orihuela, A., Galina, C. S., Garcia, B., and Lidfors, L.: Effect of suckling (“restricted suckling”) on dairy cows' udder health and milk let-down and their calves' weight gain, feed intake and behaviour, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 113, 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2007.12.001, 2008.
Fröberg, S., Lidfors, L., Svennersten-Sjaunja, K., and Olsson, I.: Performance of free suckling dairy calves in an automatic milking system and their behaviour at weaning, Acta Agr. Scand. A-An., 61, 145–156, https://doi.org/10.1080/09064702.2011.632433, 2011.
Gaillard, C., Meagher, R. K., von Keyserlingk, M. A. G., and Weary, D. M.: Social housing improves dairy calves' performance in two cognitive tests, Plos One, 9, e90205, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0090205, 2014.
Green, A. C., Johnston, I. N., and Clark, C. E. F.: Invited review: The evolution of cattle bioacoustics and application for advanced dairy systems, Animal, 12, 1250–1259, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731117002646, 2018.
Grøndahl, A. M., Skancke, E. M., Mejdell, C. M., and Jansen, J. H.: Growth rate, health and welfare in a dairy herd with natural suckling until 6–8 weeks of age: a case report, Acta Vet. Scand., 49, 16, https://doi.org/10.1186/1751-0147-49-16, 2007.
Guler, O., Yanr, M., and Bayram, B.: Effect of different milk feeding schedules on the growth and feed conversion efficiencies in Holstein Friesian and Brown Swiss calves, Indian J. Anim. Sci., 73, 1278–1280, 2003.
Haley, D. B., Bailey, D. W., and Stookey, J. M.: The effects of weaning beef calves in two stages on their behavior and growth rate, J. Anim. Sci., 83, 2205–2214, https://doi.org/10.2527/2005.8392205x, 2005.
Hayes, B. J., Carrick, M., Bowman, P., and Goddard, M. E.: Genotype x environment interaction for milk production of daughters of australian dairy sires from test day records, J. Dairy Sci., 86, 3736–3744, https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73980-0, 2003.
Hepola, H., Hänninen, L., Pursiainen, P., Tuure, V. M., Syrjälä-Qvist, L., Pyykkönen, M., and Saloniemi, H.: Feed intake and oral behaviour of dairy calves housed individually or in groups in warm or cold buildings, Livest Sci., 105, 94–104, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2006.04.033, 2006.
Hirata, M., Chihiro, T., and Yamada, K.: Use of a maze test to assess spatial learning and memory in cattle: Can cattle traverse a complex maze? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 180, 18–25, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2016.04.004, 2016.
Hohenboken, W. D.: Behavioral genetics, Vet. Clin. N. Am.-Food A., 3, 217–229, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0749-0720(15)31149-x, 1987.
Jensen, M. B. and Larsen, L. E.: Effects of level of social contact on dairy calf behavior and health, J. Dairy Sci., 97, 5035–5044, https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-7311, 2014.
Jensen, M. B., Duve, L. R., and Weary, D. M.: Pair housing and enhanced milk allowance increase play behavior and improve performance in dairy calves, J. Dairy Sci., 98, 2568–2575, https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-8272, 2015.
Johnsen, J. F., de Passillé, A. M., Mejdell, C. M., Boe, K. E., Grondahl, A. M., Beaver, A., Rushen, J., and Weary, D. M.: The effect of nursing on the cow-calf bond, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 163, 50–57, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2014.12.003, 2015a.
Johnsen, J. F., Beaver, A., Mejdell, C. M., Rushen, J., de Passillé, A. M., and Weary, D. M.: Providing supplementary milk to suckling dairy calves improves performance at separation and weaning, J. Dairy Sci., 98, 4800–4810, https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-9128, 2015b.
Johnsen, J. F, Zipp, K. A., Kalber, T., de Passillé, A. M., Knierim, U., Barth, K., and Mejdell, C. M.: Is rearing calves with the dam a feasible option for dairy farms? – Current and future research, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 181, 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2015.11.011, 2016.
Johnston, T. D. and Edwards, L.: Genes, interactions, and the development of behavior, Psychol. Rev., 109, 26–34, https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.1.26, 2002.
Juhas, P. and Strapak, P.: The temperament estimation in the dairy cattle, in: Book of abstracts of the 64th Annual Meeting of the European Federation of Animal Science, Wageningen Academic Publishers, Nantes, France, 26–30 August 2013, 341, 2013.
Kälber, T. and Barth, K.: Practical implications of suckling systems for dairy calves in organic production systems – a review, Landbauforsch-Appl. Agric. Forestry Res., 64, 45–58, https://doi.org/10.3220/LBF_2014_45-58, 2014.
Khan, M. A., Weary, D. M., and von Keyserlingk, M. A. G.: Effects of milk ration on solid feed intake, weaning, and performance in dairy heifers, J. Dairy Sci., 94, 1071–1081, https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2010-3733, 2011.
Khattak, A. H. K., Wasay, A., Ali, T., Iqbal, M., Kalim, K., Hassan, M. F., Mobashar, M., Ahmad, N., Iqbal, A., and Islamul, M. N.: Influence of Different Weaning Ages on Growth Performance of Achai Crossed Jersey Calves, Pak. J. Zool., 50, 2159–2163, https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.pjz/2018.50.6.2159.2163, 2018.
Kiezebrink, D. J., Edwards, A. M., Wright, T. C., Cant, J. P., and Osborne, V. R.: Effect of enhanced whole-milk feeding in calves on subsequent first-lactation performance, J. Dairy Sci., 98, 349–356, https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-7959, 2015.
Kilgour, R.: Use of the Hebb-Williams closed-field test to study the learning ability of Jersey cows, Anim. Behav., 29, 850–860, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(81)80020-6, 1981.
Kilgour, R.: Learning and the Training of Farm Animals, Vet. Clin. N. Am.-Food A., 3, 269–284, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-0720(15)31152-X, 1987.
Kisac, P., Broucek, J., Uhrincat, M., and Hanus, A.: Effect of weaning calves from mother at different ages on their growth and milk yield of mothers, Czech J. Anim. Sci., 56, 261–268, https://doi.org/10.17221/1287-CJAS, 2011.
Krohn, C. C.: Effects of different suckling systems on milk production, udder health, reproduction, calf growth and some behavioural aspects in high producing dairy cows – a review, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 72, 271–280, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(01)00117-4, 2001.
Krohn, C. C., Foldager, J., and Mogensen, L.: Long-term effect of colostrum feeding methods on behaviour in female dairy calves, Acta Agr. Scand. A-An., 49, 57–64, https://doi.org/10.1080/090647099421540, 1999.
Langhout, J. and Wagenaar, J. P. T. M.: Suckling, a natural calf rearing system in organic dairy farms, in: Joint Organic Congress, Theme 7, Development of livestock production system, Denmark, 30–31 May 2006, retrieved on 17 April 2020, 1–2, available at: http://www.louisbolk.org/downloads/1767.pdf (last access: 17 April 2020), 2006.
Latham, N. R. and Mason, G. J.: Maternal deprivation and the development of stereotypic behavior, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 110, 84–108, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APPLANIM.2007.03.026, 2008.
Lauber, M. C., Hemsworth, P. H., and Barnett, J. L.: The effect of breed, time spent with dam and late pregnancy induction of parturition on behavioural development in dairy calves, Behav. Process., 82, 301–311, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2009.07.010, 2009.
Lee, H. J., Khan, M. A., Lee, W. S., Yang, S. H., Kim, S. B., Kee, K. S., Ha, J. K., and Choi, J. K.: Influence of equalizing the gross composition of milk replacer to that of whole milk on the performance of Holstein calves, J. Anim. Sci., 87, 1129–1137, https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2008-1110, 2009.
Le Neindre, P.: Influence of cattle rearing conditions and breed on social relationships of mother and young, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 23, 117–127, https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(89)90012-9, 1989.
Le Neindre, P. and Sourd, C. H.: Influence of rearing conditions on subsequent social behaviour of Friesian and Salers heifers from birth to six months of age, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 12, 43–52, https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(84)90095-9, 1984.
Loberg, J. M. and Lidfors, L.: Effect of stage of lactation and breed on dairy cows acceptance of foster calves, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 74, 97–108, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(01)00157-5, 2001.
Loberg, J. M., Hernandez, C. E., Thierfelder, T., Jensen, M. B., Berg, C., and Lidfors, L.: Reaction of foster cows to prevention of suckling from and separation from four calves simultaneously or in two steps, J. Anim. Sci., 85, 1522–1529, https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2006-813, 2007.
Loberg, J. M., Hernandez, C. E., Thierfelder, T., Jensen, M. B., Berg, C., and Lidfors, L.: Weaning and separation in two steps – A way to decrease stress in dairy calves suckled by foster cows, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 111, 222–234, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2007.06.011, 2008.
Lupoli, B., Johansson, B., Uvnäs-Moberg, K., and Svennersten-Sjaunja, K.: Effect of suckling on the release of oxytocin, prolactin, cortisol, gastrin, cholecystokinin, somatostatin and insulin in dairy cows and their calves, J. Dairy Res., 68, 175–187, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022029901004721, 2000.
Mala, G., Novak, P., Jiroutova, P., Knizek, J., Prochazka, D., and Slavikova, M.: The effect of housing system on behaviour of dairy calves, in: Proceedings of the 19th Congress International Society of Animal Hygiene, Wroclaw, Poland, 9–12 September 2019, 46–48, 2019.
Manteuffel, G., Langbein, J., and Puppe, B.: Increasing farm animal welfare by positively motivated instrumental behaviour, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 118, 191–198, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.02.014, 2009.
Meagher, R. K., von Keyserlingk, M. A. G., Atkinson, D., and Weary, D. M.: Inconsistency in dairy calves' responses to tests of fearfulness, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 185, 15–22, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2016.10.007, 2016.
Meagher, R. K., Beaver, A., Weary, D. M., and von Keyserlingk, M. A. G.: A systematic review of the effects of prolonged cow–calf contact on behavior, welfare, and productivity, J. Dairy Sci., 102, 5765–5783, https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-16021, 2019.
Mejia, C. E., Preston, T. R., and Fajersson, P.: Effects of restricted suckling versus artificial rearing on milk production, calf performance and reproductive efficiency of dual purpose Mpwapwa cattle in a semi-arid climate, Livest. Res. Rural Dev., 10, 1–8, 1998.
Miller-Cushon, E. K., Bergeron, R., Leslie, K. E., and de Vries, T. J.: Effect of milk feeding level on development of feeding behavior in dairy calves, J. Dairy Sci., 96, 551–564, https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-5937, 2013.
Moallem, U., Werner, D., Lehrer, H., Zachut, M., Livshitz, L., Yakoby, S., and Shamay, A.: Long-term effects of ad libitum whole milk prior to weaning and prepubertal protein supplementation on skeletal growth rate and first-lactation milk production, J. Dairy Sci., 93, 2639–2650, https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-3007, 2010.
Morrison, S. J., Wicks, H. C. F., Carson, A. F., Fallon, R. J., Twigge, H., Kilpatrick, D. J., and Watson, S.: The effect of calf nutrition on the performance dairy herd replacements, Animal, 6, 909–919, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731111002163, 2012.
Müller, R. and Schrader, L.: Individual Consistency of Dairy Cows' Activity in Their Home Pen, J. Dairy Sci., 88, 171–175, https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)72675-8, 2005.
Novak, P., Vokralova, J., Tittl, K., Mala, G., and Illek, J.: Selected aspects of welfare and prevention of disease in ruminants, Veterinarstvi, 60, 25–27, 2010.
Novak, P., Mala, G., and Jarolimkova, A.: Animal, housing and nutrition as prerequisite for health, reproduction and production in dairy cattle, in: Proceedings of the 19th Congress International Society of Animal Hygiene, Wroclaw, Poland, 9–12 September 2019, 49–51, 2019.
Purcell, D. and Arave, C. W.: Isolation vs. group rearing in monozygous twin heifer calves, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 31, 147–156, https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(91)90001-E, 1991.
Rushen, J. and de Passillé, A. M.: Behaviour, welfare and productivity of dairy cattle, Can. J. Anim. Sci., 78, 3–21, 1998.
Scoley, G., Gordon, A., and Morrison, S.: Performance and Behavioural Responses of Group Housed Dairy Calves to Two Different Weaning Methods, Animals, 9, 895, https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9110895, 2019.
Shamay, A., Werner, D., Moallem, U., Barash, H., and Bruckental, I.: Effect of Nursing Management and Skeletal Size at Weaning on Puberty, Skeletal Growth Rate, and Milk Production During First Lactation of Dairy Heifers, J. Dairy Sci., 88, 1460–1469, https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)72814-9, 2005.
Siebert, K., Langbein, J., Schön, P. C., Tuchscherer, A., and Puppe, B.: Degree of social isolation affects behavioural and vocal response patterns in dwarf goats (Capra hircus), Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 131, 53–62, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2011.01.003, 2011.
Slavik, P., Illek, J., Brix, M., Musilova, L., Rajmon, R., Klabanova, P., and Jilek, F.: Health Status of Beef Cows and their Calves in the Czech Republic, Acta Vet. Brno, 78, 47–56, https://doi.org/10.2754/avb200978010047, 2009.
Soberon, F., Raffrenato, E., Everett, R. W., and Van Amburgh, M. E.: Preweaning milk replacer intake and effects on long-term productivity of dairy calves, J. Dairy Sci., 95, 783–793, https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2011-4391, 2012.
Steele, M.: Performance and Behavioural Effects of Separating Dairy Cows and Their Calves at Birth, Veter. Evidence, 4, 1–24, https://doi.org/10.18849/ve.v4i3.241, 2019.
Stehulova, I., Valnickova, B., Sarova, R., and Spinka, M.: Weaning reactions in beef cattle are adaptively adjusted to the state of the cow and the calf, J. Anim. Sci., 95, 1023–1029, https://doi.org/10.2527/jas2016.1207, 2017.
Stewart, P. H., Arave, C. W., and Dias, B.: The effect of observation on Holstein heifer's learning ability in a closed field maze, J. Anim. Sci., 70 (Suppl. 1), 155, 1992.
Terré, M., Tejero, C., and Bach, A.: Long-term effects on heifer performance of an enhanced-growth feeding programme applied during the preweaning period, J. Dairy Res., 76, 331–339, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022029909004142, 2009.
Uys, J. L.: The effect of milk volume and group size on the growth and health of dairy calves, Master's thesis, Private bag (South Africa), University of Pretoria, Private Bag (South Africa), 113 pp., 2008.
Valnickova, B., Stehulova, I., Sarova, R., and Spinka, M.: The effect of age at separation from the dam and presence of social companions on play behaviour and weight gain in dairy calves, J. Dairy Sci., 98, 5545–5556, https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-9109, 2015.
Vasseur, E., Borderas, F., Cue, R. I., Lefebvre, D., Pellerin, D., Rushen, J., Wade, K. M., and de Passillé, A. M.: A survey of dairy calf management practices in Canada that affect animal welfare, J. Dairy Sci., 93, 1307–1315, https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2429, 2010.
Veissier, I.: Observational learning in cattle, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 35, 235–243, https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(93)90139-G , 1993.
Wagenaar, J. P. T. M. and Langhout, J.: Practical implications of increasing “natural living” through suckling systems in organic dairy calf rearing, NJAS-Wagen. J. Life Sc., 54, 375–386, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1573-5214(07)80010-8, 2007.
Wagner, K., Seitner, D., Barth, K., Palme, R., Futschik, A., and Waiblinger, S.: Integration into the dairy cow herd: Long-term effects of mother contact during the first twelve weeks of life, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 141, 117–129, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2012.08.011, 2012.
Wagner, K., Seitner, D., Barth, K., Palme, R., Futschik, A., and Waiblinger, S.: Effects of mother versus artificial rearing during the first 12 weeks of life on challenge responses of dairy cows, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 164, 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2014.12.010, 2015.
Warnick, V. D., Arave, C. W., and Mickelsen, C. H.: Effects of group, individual and isolated rearing of calves on weight gain and behavior, J. Dairy Sci., 60, 947–953, https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(77)83968-4, 1977.
Wechsler, B. and Lea, S. E. G.: Adaptation by learning: Its significance for farm animal husbandry, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 108, 197–214, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2007.03.012, 2007.
Wójcik, J., Pilarczyk, R., Bilska, A., Weiher, O., and Sanftleben, P.: Performance and health of group-housed calves kept in Igloo calf hutches and calf barn, Pak. Vet. J., 33, 175–178, 2013.
Wredle, E., Rushen, J., de Passillé, A. M., and Munksgaard, L.: Training cattle to approach a feed source in response to auditory signals, Can. J. Anim. Sci., 84, 567–572, https://doi.org/10.4141/A03-081, 2004.
Yanar, M., Tüzemen, N., Yüksel, S., and Turgut, L.: The effect of individual and group housing systems on the growth rate and feed efficiency of Brown Swiss calves, Indian J. Anim. Sci., 70, 322–324, https://doi.org/10.3923/pjbs.2000.372.373, 2000.