In the dairy industry it is common practice to separate cow and calf shortly after birth but this practice is disputed because of animal welfare concerns. Some producers, in many countries, milk cows that also nurse dairy calves. These cow–calf systems allow nursing as well as affiliative and other natural behaviours. In this review paper we describe cow–calf systems used in practice and/or in research, discuss the benefits and challenges documented by research, and identify areas where more research is needed. Four cow–calf systems are described: (1) free contact systems where cow and calf have unrestricted access to each other; (2) restricted suckling systems allowing short daily contact only to nurse; (3) half day contact where cow and calf are housed together during the day or night; and (4) foster cow systems where one cow nurses 2–4 calves usually without milking. In free and half day cow–calf contact systems the calf drinks large amounts of milk and has high daily weight gains. High pre-weaning calf weight gains have been shown to lead to higher milk yield during that animal's first lactation. One issue with cow–calf systems is the depressed weight gain of calves at weaning. The premature separation of cow and calf, compared to the natural situation, may cause stress especially in free contact systems. Weaning and separation should therefore occur in two steps. Half day contact seems particularly promising because animals get used to being separated, they experience positive human handling, and calves can learn to use a milk feeder which will prevent the growth check following weaning. Nursing cows yield less saleable milk during the suckling period, can have problems with milk ejection during machine milking and have a lower fat content of the milk, compared to non-nursing cows. Udder health of the cow may be positively affected by nursing. A rich social rearing environment has recently been shown to improve cognitive skills of calves. Still, studies on long term effects of dam rearing on behaviour, health, production and farm economics are few. There is also a need to address ways to control transmissible diseases when dairy cattle are kept in mixed age groups. Increased knowledge will help us design functional high tech dairy management systems that respect the natural behaviour of cows and calves during the calf rearing period

The EU ban on conventional barren cages for laying hens from 2012 has improved many aspects of laying hen welfare. The new housing systems allow for the expression of highly-motivated behaviors. However, the systems available for intensive large-scale egg production (e.g., aviaries, floor housing systems, furnished cages) may cause other welfare challenges. We have reviewed the literature regarding the health, behavior, production characteristics, and welfare of laying hens when exposed to ammonia in their housing environment. Concentrations of ammonia gas are commonly high in aviaries and floor housing systems in which manure is not regularly removed, whereas they are usually lower in furnished cages. High levels are found during the cold season when ventilation flow is often reduced. Ammonia is a pungent gas, and behavioral studies indicate chickens are averse to the gas. High concentrations of gaseous ammonia can have adverse health effects and, when very high, even influence production performance. The most profound effects seen are the occurrence of lesions in the respiratory tract and keratoconjunctivitis. There is also evidence that high ammonia concentrations predispose poultry to respiratory disease and secondary infections. We conclude that there are animal welfare challenges related to high ammonia levels, and that immediate actions are needed. Development of improved systems and management routines for manure removal and ventilation will be important for the reduction of ammonia levels and hence will contribute to safeguarding hen welfare.

Previous research has demonstrated that in households where the male partner is more dominant, there is convergence in male and female attitudes towards animals, whereas if the female partner is empowered they exhibit greater empathy towards animals than the male partner. We tested this theory of ‘female empowered empathy’ internationally in a survey of female and male students’ attitudes towards use of animals, conducted in 11 Eurasian countries: China, Czech Republic, Great Britain, Iran, Ireland, South Korea, Macedonia, Norway, Serbia, Spain and Sweden. Gender empowerment was estimated for each country using the Gender Empowerment Measure designed by the United Nations. The survey was administered via the internet in universities within countries, and 1,902 female and 1,530 male student responses from 102 universities were received. Respondents rated the acceptability of 43 major concerns about human use of animals, and the importance of 13 world social issues, including animal protection, environmental protection and sustainable development. Females had greater concern for animal welfare and rights than males. There was a positive correlation between the Gender Empowerment Measure and the ratio of female to male concern for animal welfare and rights, but not for other world issues. Thus in countries where females were more empowered, principally Sweden, Norway and Great Britain, females had much greater concern than males for animal issues, whereas in other countries the responses of males and females were more similar. Across countries female students were more likely to avoid meat and less likely to avoid eggs, milk and seafood than male students, and were more likely to have kept pets than males. Females rated cats as more sentient than males did. The results demonstrate that females have greater concern for animal welfare and rights than males, and that this is more likely to be expressed in countries where females are relatively empowered, suggesting that ‘emancipated female empathy’ operates across countries as well as at a local level.

Due to increasing public concern regarding separation of the dairy cow and calf within the first days after birth, alternative systems, where cows and calves stay in contact for an extended period, are receiving increasing interest from a broad array of researchers and other stakeholders. With more research in the area, there is a risk of inconsistencies emerging in the use of terminology. To create a better consensus in further discussions, the aim of this Research Reflection is to provide definitions and propose a common terminology for cow-calf contact in dairy production. We also suggest definitions for various systems allowing cow-calf contact and describe the distinct phases of cow-calf contact systems.

Dairy farming usually implies close and frequent contact between the stockperson and the animals. A good human–animal relationship (HAR) is therefore essential for good animal welfare. To fully understand the quality of the HAR both the stockperson behaviour and the animals’ reaction to the handler needs to be assessed, as they mutually affect each other. Qualitative behaviour assessment (QBA) has during the last decade become a method to assess animal welfare through scrutiny of animal body language. The application of this method to characterize stockperson behaviour, on the other hand, is novel. This study aimed to, through the use of QBA, to characterize stockperson behaviour and to portray the body language dairy calves of the animals in his/her care. Further, the study tested the relationships between stockperson behaviour and calf behaviour using structural equation modelling (SEM). The assessments were performed in 2006–2008 on 110 Norwegian dairy farms. The stockperson sample consisted of 79.6% males and 20.4% females, with a mean age of 46 years. The dairy calves (including young stock) were mostly Norwegian Red and were 3 to 298 days old at the day of observation. Ten items of the stockperson QBA were analysed through Principal component analysis. The handling styles that emerged were termed calm/patient, dominating/aggressive, positive interactions and insecure/nervous. The 31 items of the calf QBA were also analysed using principal component analysis and revealed two dimensions of calf behaviour labelled pos/neg mood and high/low arousal. Based on the expected relationships between stockperson behaviour and calf behaviour a structural model was developed and tested using SEM. The analysis revealed that stockpersons who handle their calves patiently and pet and calmly talk to them during handling have animals with higher levels of positive mood, as characterized by high scores on QBA items like friendly and content. Stockpersons with a nervous handling style, or who were dominating and aggressive, on the other hand, had calves with more negative mood. These findings are important as they show the direct link between human behaviour and calf behaviour and once again confirm the significance of good stockmanship. The results also highlight the importance of proper training and self-awareness for those working with livestock

Dairy calves are often separated from the cow soon after birth and prevented from nursing, but little is known about the effects of nursing on the development of the cow–calf bond. This study evaluated the effect of nursing on affiliative behaviours between the dam and her calf including allogrooming, proximity and latency to reunite after a period of separation. Holstein cow–calf pairs were randomly allocated to three treatments differing only in nutritional dependency on the dam: milk feeder (n=10 pairs), combined (n=10 pairs) or nursing (n=10 pairs). Milk feeder calves could feed ad libitum from an automated milk-feeder, combined calves could suckle from their dams at night and could feed ad libitum from an automated milk feeder and nursing calves could suckle from their dams at night. Cows and calves were kept together during the night (between 20:00h and 08:00h) and were housed adjacent to each other during the day (between 08:00h and 20:00h). Direct live observations were performed 2h following the opening of the gate that allowed calves to mix with cows at night. All pairs spent more time (% of observations) allogrooming each other (i.e. own cow/calf) than they did grooming other cows and calves within the same group (10±0.8% vs. 0.4±0.7%, t29=168.8, P<0.001). The time cow–calf pairs spent allogrooming did not vary with treatment; 10.0±0.8%, F2, 27=0.4, P=0.696). Similarly, time spent in close proximity without nursing did not differ among treatments; 31±2.6%, F2, 27=0.6, P=0.543). The percentage of occasions a pair did not reunite (i.e. not observed within 1m of each other within 3min) was 23% for the milk feeder pairs, 38% for the combined pairs and 32% for the nursing pairs (χ2=3.9, P=0.415). Nevertheless suckling from another cow than own dam was observed at least once by 19 of the 20 calves that were allowed to suckle. Latency to reunite (among pairs that did so within 180s) was highest for the combined pairs and tended to be lower for milk feeder and nursing calves; 52.5±16.0, 23.3±8.3 and 12.9±5.8; F2, 24=3.1, P=0.062). These results indicate that dam and calf form a bond independent of nursing