Weaning of beef calves is usually done abruptly and early compared to the natural weaning of the species, and is associated with simultaneous exposure of calves to a range of social and environmental stressors. Behavioural and physiological responses to weaning indicate detrimental effects on the welfare of these animals. The development and assessment of weaning methods aiming at reducing or avoiding this problem must be supported by scientific knowledge of the morphological, physiological and psychological mechanisms involved in the establishment, maintenance and braking of the cow-calf bond. Solutions also depend on the understanding of the various stressors associated with weaning, among which are the change in diet, cessation of nursing, separation from the dam, the change to a new spatial environment and the need for social reorganization following removal of the adults from the group. This review discusses these issues and assesses the effectiveness of the methods so far proposed for improving the welfare of beef calves during the weaning period.

The superior milk production efficiency of Jersey (JE) and Jersey × Holstein-Friesian (JE × HF) cows compared with Holstein-Friesian (HF) has been widely published. The biological differences among dairy cow genotypes, which could contribute to the milk production efficiency differences, have not been as widely studied however. A series of component studies were conducted using cows sourced from a longer-term genotype comparison study (JE, JE × HF, and HF). The objectives were to (1) determine if differences exist among genotypes regarding gastrointestinal tract (GIT) weight, (2) assess and quantify whether the genotypes tested differ in their ability to digest perennial ryegrass, and (3) examine the relative abundance of specific rumen microbial populations potentially relating to feed digestibility. Over 3 yr, the GIT weight was obtained from 33 HF, 35 JE, and 27 JE × HF nonlactating cows postslaughter. During the dry period the cows were offered a perennial ryegrass silage diet at maintenance level. The unadjusted GIT weight was heavier for the HF than for JE and JE × HF. When expressed as a proportion of body weight (BW), JE and JE × HF had a heavier GIT weight than HF. In vivo digestibility was evaluated on 16 each of JE, JE × HF, and HF lactating dairy cows. Cows were individually stalled, allowing for the total collection of feces and were offered freshly cut grass twice daily. During this time, daily milk yield, BW, and dry matter intake (DMI) were greater for HF and JE × HF than for JE; milk fat and protein concentration ranked oppositely. Daily milk solids yield did not differ among the 3 genotypes. Intake capacity, expressed as DMI per BW, tended to be different among treatments, with JE having the greatest DMI per BW, HF the lowest, and JE × HF being intermediate. Production efficiency, expressed as milk solids per DMI, was higher for JE than HF and JE × HF. Digestive efficiency, expressed as digestibility of dry matter, organic matter, N, neutral detergent fiber, and acid detergent fiber, was higher for JE than HF. In grazing cows (n=15 per genotype) samples of rumen fluid, collected using a transesophageal sampling device, were analyzed to determine the relative abundance of rumen microbial populations of cellulolytic bacteria, protozoa, and fungi. These are critically important for fermentation of feed into short-chain fatty acids. A decrease was observed in the relative abundance of Ruminococcus flavefaciens in the JE rumen compared with HF and JE × HF. We can deduce from this study that the JE genotype has greater digestibility and a different rumen microbial population than HF. Jersey and JE × HF cows had a proportionally greater GIT weight than HF. These differences are likely to contribute to the production efficiency differences among genotypes previously reported.

An experiment was undertaken to investigate the effect of white clover inclusion in grass swards (GWc) compared with grass-only (GO) swards receiving high nitrogen fertilization and subjected to frequent and tight grazing on herbage and dairy cow productivity and enteric methane (CH4) emissions. Thirty cows were allocated to graze either a GO or GWc sward (n=15) from April 17 to October 31, 2011. Fresh herbage [16 kg of dry matter (DM)/cow] and 1 kg of concentrate/cow were offered daily. Herbage DM intake (DMI) was estimated on 3 occasions (May, July, and September) during which 17 kg of DM/cow per day was offered (and concentrate supplementation was withdrawn). In September, an additional 5 cows were added to each sward treatment (n=20) and individual CH4 emissions were estimated using the sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) technique. Annual clover proportion (± SE) in the GWc swards was 0.20 ± 0.011. Swards had similar pregrazing herbage mass (1,800 ± 96 kg of DM/ha) and herbage production (13,110 ± 80 kg of DM/ha). The GWc swards tended to have lower DM and NDF contents but greater CP content than GO swards, but only significant differences were observed in the last part of the grazing season. Cows had similar milk and milk solids yields (19.4 ± 0.59 and 1.49 ± 0.049 kg/d, respectively) and similar milk composition. Cows also had similar DMI in the 3 measurement periods (16.0 ± 0.70 kg DM/cow per d). Similar sward and animal performance was observed during the CH4 estimation period, but GWc swards had 7.4% less NDF than GO swards. Cows had similar daily and per-unit-of-output CH4 emissions (357.1 ± 13.6g of CH4/cow per day, 26.3 ± 1.14 g of CH4/kg of milk, and 312.3 ± 11.5 g of CH4/kg of milk solids) but cows grazing GWc swards had 11.9% lower CH4 emissions per unit of feed intake than cows grazing GO swards due to the numerically lower CH4 per cow per day and a tendency for the GWc cows to have greater DMI compared with the GO cows. As a conclusion, under the conditions of this study, sward clover content in the GWc swards was not sufficient to improve overall sward herbage production and quality, or dairy cow productivity. Although GWc cows had a tendency to consume more and emitted less CH4 per unit of feed intake than GO cows, no difference was observed in daily or per-unit-of-output CH4 emissions.

Current livestock practices do not meet current real-world social and environmental requirements, pushing farmers away from rural areas and only sustaining high productivity through the overuse of fossil fuels, causing numerous environmental side effects. In this narrative review, we explore how the Voisin Rational Grazing (VRG) system responds to this problem. VRG is an agroecological system based on four principles that maximise pasture growth and ruminant intake, while, at the same time, maintaining system sustainability. It applies a wide range of regenerative agricultural practices, such as the use of multispecies swards combined with agroforestry. Planning allows grazing to take place when pastures reach their optimal resting period, thus promoting vigorous pasture regrowth. Moreover, paddocks are designed in a way that allow animals to have free access to water and shade, improving overall animal welfare. In combination, these practices result in increased soil C uptake and soil health, boost water retention, and protect water quality. VRG may be used to provide ecosystem services that mitigate some of the current global challenges and create opportunities for farmers to apply greener practices and become more resilient. It can be said that VRG practitioners are part of the initiatives that are rethinking modern livestock agriculture. Its main challenges, however, arise from social constraints. More specifically, local incentives and initiatives that encourage farmers to take an interest in the ecological processes involved in livestock farming are still lacking. Little research has been conducted to validate the empirical evidence of VRG benefits on animal performance or to overcome VRG limitations.