
==== Front
JDS Commun
JDS Commun
JDS Communications
2666-9102
Elsevier

S2666-9102(24)00065-6
10.3168/jdsc.2023-0480
Health, Welfare, and Behavior
Short Communication
Short Communication
Exploring factors influencing machine milk yield of dairy cows in cow-calf contact systems: Cow behavior, animal characteristics, and milking management
Neave Heather W. hwneave@gmail.com
*†
Hvidtfeldt Jensen Emma
Solarino Amelie
Bak Jensen Margit
Department of Animal and Veterinary Science, Aarhus University, Tjele 8830, Denmark
* Corresponding author hwneave@gmail.com
† Current address: Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907.

20 4 2024
9 2024
20 4 2024
5 5 495499
14 9 2023
15 3 2024
© 2024.
2024

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Graphical Abstract

Summary We explored factors affecting milk yield of cows with full- and part-time cow-calf contact, compared with cows with no calf contact. Full-time cows had the lowest milk yields, which were similar to part-time cows' yield at afternoon milking after their 10-hour cow-calf contact period. These low yields could not be fully attributed to milk consumption by the calf. Parity, calf sex, milking procedures, and cow restlessness could not explain these lower-than-expected yields. The milk yield of part-time cows did not differ from that of no-contact cows after overnight separation from their calves. Restlessness was greater in all cows at afternoon versus morning milking but was unrelated to stimulation frequency in full- and part-time cows, indicating that restlessness may be due to other discomforts at milking, or stress. The reasons for low milk yield in cow-calf contact systems, apart from milk consumption by the calf, remain to be understood.

Highlights

• Cows with full-time calf contact had lower-than-expected machine milk yields.

• Parity, calf sex, milking procedures, and cow restlessness did not explain full-time cows' low yields.

• Part-time calf contact improved milk yield at morning milking.

• Restlessness was unrelated to stimulation frequency.

• A further understanding of factors affecting machine milk yield in cow-calf systems is needed.

The objective of this study was to explore factors contributing to low machine milk yield of cows with cow-calf contact. Danish Holstein dairy cows were assigned to 1 of 3 cow-calf contact treatments: full-time with the calf (n = 24), part-time with the calf between morning (a.m.) and afternoon (p.m.) milking and separated overnight (n = 23), or separated from the calf at birth (n = 23). Behavior of cows (stepping and kicking in the parlor) and milking procedures (teat or udder stimulation frequency, preparation duration) were recorded at a.m. and p.m. milking on 2 d during wk 4 and 6 of the treatment period (8 milkings per cow). Full-time cows had the lowest machine milk yields (mean ± SE; 6.1 and 6.0 ± 0.7 L at a.m. and p.m. milking, respectively), whereas part-time cows had similar yield to no-contact cows at a.m. milking (19.6 ± 0.7 L) and similar yield to full-time cows at p.m. milking (6.4 ± 0.7 L). Lower machine milk yields in cows with calf contact could not be fully attributed to milk consumption by the calf; however, they also could not be explained by differences in cow parity, calf sex, milking procedures (stimulation frequency; preparation duration), or stepping and kicking (restless) behavior at milking. All cows showed more restless behavior at p.m. milking, which weakly negatively affected machine milk yield, but this was unrelated to stimulation frequency in cow-calf contact cows, indicating that there may be other sources of discomfort or stress at the time of milking for these cows. Part-time versus full-time calf contact improved daily machine milk yields, but low machine milk yield issues merit further research so that cow-calf contact systems can be sustainable for producers.
==== Body
pmcThere is growing interest by farmers and other stakeholders to implement alternative housing systems for dairy cattle, where contact between cow and calf is prolonged (Eriksson et al., 2022; Neave et al., 2022a). However, a major concern from the dairy producer's perspective is the loss of salable milk and milk ejection issues (Johnsen et al., 2016; Vaarst et al., 2020; Neave et al., 2022a) in dam-rearing systems. Reduced milk yields are expected in cows that nurse (Zipp et al., 2018; Barth, 2020), but if yields fall below what is expected to be consumed during nursing by the calf, it can be considered an economic loss.

Understanding factors influencing lower-than-expected milk yields is crucial for improving the sustainability of cow-calf contact systems. Calf sex and lactation number were sources of variability in milk yield of cows with full-time cow-calf contact (Mutua and Haskell, 2021). There can also be issues with milk let-down in cows that nurse their calves, resulting in greater residual milk remaining in the udder after machine milking (de Passillé et al., 2008). Milk ejection requires the release of oxytocin locally in the mammary gland or peripherally, which may be impaired if the sympathetic nervous system is activated due to stress around the time of milking (Bruckmaier and Blum, 1998). Stress may arise from a poor human-animal relationship (Hemsworth et al., 2000), resulting in restlessness at milking (stepping and kicking by the cow) that may negatively affect milk yield (Sutherland and Dowling, 2014; Neave et al., 2022b). Milking procedures can also affect milk yield of cows, such as teat preparation to stimulate milk let-down (Sandrucci et al., 2007). However, these possible explanations for low machine milk yields have yet to be explored in cows in dam-rearing systems. Thus, the objective of this study was to investigate whether cow behavior (stepping and kicking in the parlor), milking procedures (a.m. or p.m. milking period, duration of teat and udder preparation, frequency of teat and udder stimulation), and animal characteristics (parity, calf sex) could explain low machine milk yields in cows with full-time or part-time cow-calf contact in dam-reared systems. Herein, the term milk yield will refer to machine milk yield.

Seventy-two Danish Holstein dairy cows (30 primiparous, 42 multiparous) were enrolled in 6 blocks (12 cows per block, with a new block enrolled every 5 wk) from September 2021 to July 2022 and managed in accordance with the Danish Ministry of Environment and Food Act No. 474 (May 15, 2014) and approved by the Danish Animal Experiments Inspectorate (permit no. 2021–15–0201–00989). At 48 h after calving, cows were pseudo-alternately assigned in pairs to 1 of 3 treatments (n = 24/treatment; 4 cows/treatment per block): (1) full-time cow-calf contact (23 h/d): dams and calves were separated only during milking times; (2) part-time cow-calf contact (10 h/d): dams and calves were housed together between a.m. milking and p.m. milking; (3) no-contact: cows were separated from their calves 48 h after birth. Within treatment and block, treatments were balanced for parity (10 primiparous and 14 multiparous cows per treatment), but not for calf sex (13, 14, and 11 female calves, and 11, 10, and 13 male calves for full-time, part-time, and no-contact treatments, respectively; each pen always had at least 1 of each calf sex, except on 2 occasions when the full-time treatment pen in block 5 had 4 bull calves, and in block 6 had 4 female calves). Cows and their calves had to be healthy at the time of treatment assignment, the calf needed to suckle without assistance, and no twins or complications during calving were permitted. Sample size was selected to ensure sufficient power for a concurrent study assessing behavioral responses to weaning depending on treatment (Neave et al., 2024).

Full- and part-time cows and their calves were housed in groups of 4 in straw-bedded pens (7.5 × 9 m), provided a TMR twice daily, as well as water, for ad libitum intake, and milked twice daily at 0500 and 1530 h in a double 12 parallel milking parlor (SAC, A/S S.A. Christensen & Co); milking vacuum was set to 39:39.5 pulsation ratio and 60 pulses/min, and clusters automatically detached when milk flow was below 0.40 kg/min. After the p.m. milking, part-time cows were housed in another barn where they had no contact with their calves. Part-time cows were reunited with their calves after the a.m. milking. Full-time cows were reunited with their calves directly after each milking.

No-contact cows were housed in a separate barn with no visual or auditory contact with their calves. They were housed in a pen of 8 other cows (4 of which were nonexperimental) with 12 lying stalls equipped with mattresses, fed the same TMR as full- and part-time cows twice daily in computerized feed bins, and milked twice daily at 0530 and 1600 h in the same parlor as full-time and part-time cows.

Full- and part-time cows were milked first on the right and left sides of the parlor, respectively; no-contact cows were milked second on the right side of the parlor. The remaining 8 milking stalls on each side of the parlor were filled with cows from other pens. Treatments experienced the same milkers within a given milking, but milkers differed between a.m. and p.m. shifts. Milkers were instructed never to administer oxytocin. Standard milking procedure guidelines were to prepare and begin milking cows in sets of 4, where cows first had their teats disinfected with a pre-milking iodine solution, then had their teats wiped, and finally had the milking cluster attached; however, adherence to these procedures was not mandated and varied as observed from recorded video (resulting in some very short and very long preparation times). Manual teat and udder stimulation was at the discretion of the milker, and milkers could make their own individual decisions regarding teat cup application and removal; in most cases, all teat cups were applied and were left to automatically detach. Cows and milkers were observed using 2 cameras (GoPro Hero7, GoPro Inc.) on 2 d (a.m. and p.m. milking each day) during wk 4 and 6 of the treatment period, for a total of 8 milkings per cow (mean ± SD DIM; wk 4: 33.9 ± 7.3 and 36.1 ± 6.9; wk 6: 45.8 ± 5.7 and 48.4 ± 5.6, for each day within week, respectively).

Behavior of cows and milkers (milking procedures) were measured from video recordings over the entire milking process, divided into 5 segments: preparation, attachment, milking, cluster detaching, and reattachment (if performed). For each segment, frequency of cow behaviors (steps and kicks, including kicks resulting in the cluster detaching), frequency of teat or udder stimulation, and duration of the segment were recorded (described in Table 1) using BORIS software (Friard and Gamba, 2016). Two observers achieved interobserver reliability (8 cows for full milking process; Cohen's kappa >0.9, calculated in BORIS with 1 s threshold). Milk yields at each milking were recorded from the in-parlor monitor (SAC, A/S S.A. Christensen & Co.); any missed or zero yields were verified in the online database. Blinding was not possible because cows from a particular treatment were always in the same milking stalls.Table 1 Ethogram of cow behavior and milking procedures scored during each milking (n = 70 cows)

Variable	Description	
Milking segment		
 Preparation (min)	From moment milker initially touches any part of the cow until milker touches the cluster to begin attachment. Includes waiting time in between teat or udder stimulation, teat disinfecting, and teat wiping.	
 Attachment (min)	From moment milker touches the cluster until the cluster is attached to all 4 teats and the milker's hand is no longer touching the cluster, cow, udder, or hose.	
 Milking (min)	From end of attachment until the cluster vacuum stops (cluster no longer hangs vertically from the teats, but may remain on the teats).	
 Cluster detaching (min)	From moment milking ends until the cluster completely detaches from all 4 teats (may be removed by milker).	
 Reattachment (min)	Only if milking has stopped. From moment milker touches the cluster and re-attaches (or repositions cluster under the udder) resulting in the cluster hanging vertically from the teats and milking resumes. Reattachment was performed at discretion of milker after assessing udder fill.	
Cow behavior		
 Step (no.)	Any movement of either hind hoof, of any height, excluding a kick.	
 Kick (no.)	Forceful and rapid movement of either hind leg backward or forward, or toward the milking cluster.	
 Kick off cluster (no.)	Kick resulting in the milking cluster detaching from all 4 teats.	
Milking procedure		
 Teat or udder stimulation (no.)	Milker places a hand on any of the teats or udder. Milker may rub the udder or strip the teat. Includes both touching and manual stimulation of teat or udder.	
 Cluster re-attached (no.)	Only if milking has stopped. Milker touches the cluster and re-attaches (or repositions cluster under the udder) resulting in the cluster hanging vertically from the teats and milking resumes.	
 Cluster removed (no.)	Milker removes the cluster from all 4 teats.	

Data were summarized as the sum number of steps and kicks during the milking process (preparation + milking segments, excluding during cluster detachment because this was not contributing to milk yield), as well as the duration of each milking segment, frequency of stimulation by the milker, and frequency of cluster detaching and re-attachments. The number of steps and kicks within each milking segment was summarized separately. Because the duration of each milking segment differs for each cow, the number of steps and kicks for each cow was calculated as total movements per minute over the entire milking process (excluding steps and kicks during cluster detachment, and excluding duration of cluster detachment). One no-contact and one part-time cow were removed from the experiment for health issues. Some observations were missing due to lost video files (19 observations), cow not being visible in the video (6 observations), or camera failure part-way through milking (20 observations). One extreme outlier for preparation duration (9.3 min) was removed. The final sample size was 70 cows (n = 24 full-time, 23 part-time, 23 no-contact), with at least 3 of 4 complete a.m. and p.m. milking observations for each cow.

All statistical analyses were performed in SAS Studio (OnDemand for Academics, SAS Institute Inc.), with cow (n = 70) as the experimental unit. Significance level was declared at P ≤ 0.05, and tendencies at P ≤ 0.10. The response variables of milk yield and total movements per min over the entire milking process approximated a normal distribution (Shapiro-Wilk test, W ≥0.85), verified with visual examination of histograms and model residuals. Model fit was assessed using Akaike information criterion and compared with null model with likelihood ratio test. Pair-wise comparisons among treatments were assessed and adjusted using Tukey-Kramer tests. To examine our primary study hypothesis, a mixed linear regression model (PROC MIXED) tested whether milk yield was affected by treatment (full-time, part-time, or no-contact), milking period (a.m. or p.m.), parity (primiparous or multiparous), total movements per minute over the entire milking, preparation duration, stimulation frequency, and their 2-way interactions with treatment. Additional fixed effects tested were DIM and calf sex (male or female). After backward elimination of nonsignificant factors, the final model included treatment, milking period, parity, total movements per minute over the entire milking, stimulation frequency, treatment × milking period, and treatment × parity. Cow within pen within block were random effects, accounting for repeated milking observations with compound symmetry covariance structure.

Next, we performed a further exploratory analysis of factors that might affect restlessness of cows at milking, building an identical model to that described above except that total movements per minute over the entire milking process was the response variable, and milk yield was included as an additional fixed effect. After backward elimination of nonsignificant factors, the final model included treatment, milking period, stimulation frequency, and treatment × stimulation frequency.

Similar to previous studies (Barth, 2020; Mutua and Haskell, 2021), there was large variability in daily milk yields in cows with full-time (mean ± SD: 11.6 ± 5.5 L/d, range: 3.0–23.4 L/d), part-time (26.1 ± 8.2 L/d, range: 5.5–41.0 L/d), and no calf contact (37.3 ± 9.7 L/d, range: 19.5–57.0 L/d). Cow-calf contact treatment affected machine milk yield, depending on milking period (F2,67 = 156.7, P < 0.001; Figure 1a). No-contact cows had the highest milk yields, delivering less milk during p.m. than a.m. milking (17.3 and 19.9 ± 0.7 L, respectively; t1,67 = 4.7; P < 0.001). Full-time cows had the lowest milk yields, which were similar at a.m. and p.m. milking (6.1 and 6.0 ± 0.7 L, respectively; t1,67 = 0.1; P = 1.0). Part-time cows had lower milk yield at p.m. than a.m. milking (t1,67 = 23.4; P < 0.001); p.m. milk yield was comparable to full-time cows (6.4 ± 0.7 L), and a.m. milk yield was comparable to no-contact cows (19.6 ± 0.7 L). This result is likely due to a lack of milk removal by the calves overnight (in the no-suckling period), a longer time period between p.m. and a.m. milking, or cows may have been anticipating reunion with their calves after a.m. milking, leading to increased oxytocin release. Similarly, Barth (2020) reported about 13 L/d less milk yield from part-time cows permitted to suckle only during the nighttime, compared with cows with no calf contact.Figure 1 Boxplots of the machine milk yield (L per milking) for each cow-calf contact treatment (full-time, 23 h/d; part-time, 10 h/d in daytime only; or no cow-calf contact) depending on (A) milking period (a.m. or p.m.), and (B) parity (primiparous or multiparous). Cows (n = 24, 23, and 23 for full-time, part-time, and no-contact, respectively) were observed at 8 milkings over wk 4 and 6 of the treatment period. Each boxplot contains the following elements: first and third quartiles (box), median (horizontal black line inside box), mean (black × inside box), minimum and maximum (whiskers, vertical lines), and outliers (open circles, if applicable).

Full-time cows had lower daily milk yield than expected (about 12 L/d). Other studies providing 24 h/d cow-calf contact reported 13 L/d (Barth, 2020) and 17 L/d (Wenker et al., 2022), but their reference group of no-contact cows produced less (29 L/d) than in our study (about 37 L/d). The difference in daily milk yield between our full-time and no-contact cows (25 L/d) is likely not fully explained by milk consumption by the calf. It is difficult to determine how much milk suckling calves consume in a 24-h period, but estimates of milk intake by calves in restricted suckling systems indicate 9 to 12 L/d (de Passillé et al., 2008; Fröberg et al., 2008), and between 10 and 14 L/d by calves fed ad libitum from an artificial teat (Jasper and Weary, 2002; Frieten et al., 2017). However, not all studies report lower milk yields in cows that nurse their calves (Meagher et al., 2019). Other factors (some of which we explored herein) are likely leading to these lower-than-expected milk yields in cows after a period of calf contact.

Cow parity is known to affect machine milk yield early in lactation (Masía et al., 2020); this was also the case in our cow-calf contact system, but depended on treatment (F2,64 = 6.5; P < 0.01; Figure 1b). Multiparous cows yielded (or tended to yield) more milk than primiparous cows in both no-contact (22.5 ± 0.9 and 14.7 ± 1.1 L/milking, respectively; t1,64 = 5.7; P < 0.001) and part-time treatments (15.0 ± 0.9 and 11.1 ± 1.0 L/milking, respectively; t1,64 = 2.8; P = 0.06). However, no difference in machine milk yield was detected between full-time primiparous and multiparous cows (5.6 ± 1.0 and 6.5 ± 0.9 L/milking, respectively; t1,64 = 0.7; P = 0.98); this contrasts 2 previous studies (Barth, 2020; Mutua and Haskell, 2021) that reported greater daily milk yield in multiparous versus primiparous cows with full-time calf contact. A possible explanation may be that cows in our study experienced cow-calf contact (and temporary separations for milking) for the first time, which may have affected milk yield, while the multiparous cows in previous studies had prior experience. Alternatively, calves (including alien calves) in the full-time treatment may have consumed more milk from multiparous versus primiparous cows. These hypotheses remain to be tested to understand parity differences (or lack thereof) in machine milk yield of cows with calf contact.

Calf sex did not affect machine milk yield (12.6 and 12.5 ± 0.6 L/milking, for cows rearing male and female calves, respectively; F1,63 = 0.04; P = 0.8). A previous study reported that cows with full-time access to their male calves had lower milk yield than cows with female calves (Mutua and Haskell, 2021). Higher birthweight and growth demands by male offspring are reported in other species (sheep: Festa-Bianchet et al., 1996; deer: Landete-Castillejos et al., 2005); indeed, ADG of our male calves from full-time cows was numerically greater than female calves at wk 7 of the treatment period (1.2 vs. 0.9 ± 0.4 kg/d, respectively). Presumably greater milk consumption by male calves supported this higher growth rate, but similar milk yields between cows with male versus female calves suggests that calf sex was not a main driver of variability in milk yield in this study.

Machine milk yield was negatively influenced by the frequency of teat or udder stimulation (estimate: −0.72 ± 0.3 L/milking; F1,419 = 4.9; P = 0.03) but did not depend on treatment (F2,417 = 1.4, P = 0.3), likely because stimulation frequency was very similar across treatments (mean ± SD; 2.2 ± 0.6, range 0 to 5 stimulations/milking). We did not distinguish the type of stimulation (touching versus manual stimulation of teats), which may have different effects on the animal and milk yield. Neither preparation duration (F1,416 = 0.1, P = 0.85), nor its interaction with treatment (F2,416 = 0.10, P = 0.90), affected milk yield, likely because mean preparation durations were similar across treatments (mean ± SD; 1.3 ± 1.0, range 0.3 to 4.3 min/milking). Similarly, preparation time did not affect milk yield of Danish Holstein cows (Rasmussen et al., 1992), or other breeds (Weiss and Bruckmaier, 2005), although the cows in these studies had no calf contact. A longer preparation time of 1.5 min was recommended for cows with low udder fill (Weiss and Bruckmaier, 2005), which could be beneficial for cow-calf contact systems.

Total movements over the entire milking process (i.e., stepping and kicking behavior) negatively influenced milk yield, but this effect was minor (estimate: −0.16 ± 0.07 L/milking; F1,419 = 4.7; P = 0.03), and did not depend on treatment (F2,417 = 0.9, P = 0.42). This suggests that restlessness behavior in the milking parlor may contribute to lower milk yield, but could not explain the lower milk yields of cows with calf contact. Previous studies have also found that a greater frequency of stepping and kicking in the milking parlor was associated with lower milk yields (Hedlund and Løvlie, 2015; Marçal-Pedroza et al., 2020; Neave et al., 2022b).

Restlessness behavior in the parlor is undesirable, so we also explored factors that may influence this behavior. Total number of steps and kicks over the entire milking process were highly variable among individual cows (range; full-time: 6 to 251; part-time: 6 to 136; no-contact: 6 to 145 steps and kicks). Total movements per minute over the entire milking process were more frequent at p.m. than a.m. milking regardless of treatment (5.3 and 6.1 ± 0.3 movements/milking; F1,69 = 19.8, P < 0.001). Total movements per minute were also affected by treatment, depending on stimulation frequency (F2,420 = 4.8, P < 0.01). No-contact cows moved more frequently with greater stimulation frequency compared with full- and part-time cows (slope = 1.4 ± 0.5 movements/stimulation; t1,420 = 2.8, P < 0.01), while full- and part-time cows showed no relationship between movements and stimulation frequency (slope = −0.04 ± 0.5 movements/stimulation; t1,420 = 0.08, P = 0.94). Stepping and kicking in the parlor can be a sign of a negative emotional response to the milking process, discomfort, or other stressors in the environment (Rushen et al., 2001). The no-contact cows may have experienced discomfort due to fuller udders, leading to stepping and kicking in response to more frequent stimulation of the udder or teats. Full- and part-time cows stepped and kicked as frequently as no-contact cows (as noted above), but the lack of relationship with stimulation frequency suggests they showed restless behaviors for different reasons. For example, Roadknight et al. (2022) reported more stepping and kicking at p.m. milking by pastured cows with access to their calves only during the nighttime. These authors speculated that restlessness was a negative response to prolonged separation from their calves, or in the case of our study, may be due to frustration or anticipation related to the temporary separation from their calves during milking (both full- and part-time cows) or upcoming overnight separation from their calves (part-time cows only). Alternatively, both full- and part-time cows could be experiencing udder or teat discomfort due to overmilking of one or several udder quarters, leading to increased stepping and kicking at p.m. milking. Moreover, different milkers at a.m. and p.m. milkings could elicit more or less restless behaviors in cows (through stimulation or preparation techniques) depending on their attitudes and actions toward cows (Waiblinger et al., 2002).

In conclusion, cows with prolonged calf contact, especially full-time, showed lower machine milk yields than can be expected due to milk consumption by the calf. Cows with part-time calf contact (separated overnight) had improved milk yield at a.m. milking, likely owing to the no-suckling period. Lower machine milk yields in cows with calf contact could not be explained by differences in cow parity, calf sex, milking procedures (stimulation frequency; preparation duration), or stepping and kicking (restlessness) behavior at milking. All cows showed more restless behavior at p.m. milking, but this was unrelated to stimulation frequency in full- and part-time cows. Future research should investigate possible reasons and solutions for low yield or milk ejection issues in cows with calf contact, such as longer preparation times, or presence of the calf at milking as in automated milking systems.

Notes

We thank all barn staff, technicians, and students who assisted with management and data collection. This study is part of a larger research project investigating the potential welfare benefits of cow-calf contact for dairy cows (Can dairy cows have the best of both worlds?; 2020–2024), with funding provided by Independent Research Fund Denmark (Odense, Denmark), grant number 0136-00253B.

Animals were managed in accordance with the Danish Ministry of Environment and Food Act No. 474 (May 15, 2014) and approved by the Danish Animal Experiments Inspectorate (permit no. 2021–15–0201–00989).

The authors have not stated any conflicts of interest.
==== Refs
References

Barth K. Effects of suckling on milk yield and milk composition of dairy cows in cow-calf contact systems J. Dairy Res. 87 S1 2020 133 137 10.1017/S0022029920000515 33213585 33213585
Bruckmaier R.M. Blum J.W. Oxytocin release and milk removal in ruminants J. Dairy Sci. 81 1998 939 949 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(98)75654-1 9594382 9594382
de Passillé A.M. Marnet P.-G. Lapierre H. Rushen J. Effects of twice-daily nursing on milk ejection and milk yield during nursing and milking in dairy cows J. Dairy Sci. 91 2008 1416 1422 10.3168/jds.2007-0504 18349233 18349233
Eriksson H. Fall N. Ivemeyer S. Knierim U. Simantke C. Fuerst-Waltl B. Winckler C. Weissensteiner R. Pomiès D. Martin B. Michaud A. Priolo A. Caccamo M. Sakowski T. Stachelek M. Spengler Neff A. Bieber A. Schneider C. Alvåsen K. Strategies for keeping dairy cows and calves together – A cross-sectional survey study Animal 16 2022 100624
Festa-Bianchet M. King W.J. Jorgenson J.T. Smith K.G. Wishart W.D. The development of sexual dimorphism: Seasonal and lifetime mass changes in bighorn sheep Can. J. Zool. 74 1996 330 342 10.1139/z96-041
Friard O. Gamba M. BORIS: A free, versatile open-source event-logging software for video/audio coding and live observations Methods Ecol. Evol. 7 2016 1325 1330 10.1111/2041-210X.12584
Frieten D. Gerbert C. Koch C. Dusel G. Eder K. Kanitz E. Weitzel J.M. Hammon H.M. Ad libitum milk replacer feeding, but not butyrate supplementation, affects growth performance as well as metabolic and endocrine traits in Holstein calves J. Dairy Sci. 100 2017 6648 6661 10.3168/jds.2017-12722 28601458 28601458
Fröberg S. Gratte E. Svennersten-Sjaunja K. Olsson I. Berg C. Orihuela A. Galina C.S. García B. 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 2008 1 14 10.1016/j.applanim.2007.12.001
Hedlund L. Løvlie H. Personality and production: Nervous cows produce less milk J. Dairy Sci. 98 2015 5819 5828 10.3168/jds.2014-8667 26142867 26142867
Hemsworth P.H. Coleman G.J. Barnett J.L. Borg S. Relationships between human-animal interactions and productivity of commercial dairy cows J. Anim. Sci. 78 2000 2821 10.2527/2000.78112821x 11063304
Jasper J. Weary D.M. Effects of ad libitum milk intake on dairy calves J. Dairy Sci. 85 2002 3054 3058 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(02)74391-9 12487471 12487471
Johnsen J.F. Zipp K.A. Kälber T. de Passillé A.M. Knierim U. Barth K. Mejdell C.M. Is rearing calves with the dam a feasible option for dairy farms?—Current and future research Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 181 2016 1 11 10.1016/j.applanim.2015.11.011
Landete-Castillejos T. García A. López-Serrano F.R. Gallego L. Maternal quality and differences in milk production and composition for male and female Iberian red deer calves (Cervus elaphus hispanicus) Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 57 2005 267 274 10.1007/s00265-004-0848-8
Marçal-Pedroza M.G. Campos M.M. Pereira L.G.R. Machado F.S. Tomich T.R. Paranhos da Costa M.J.R. SanťAnna A.C. Consistency of temperament traits and their relationships with milk yield in lactating primiparous F1 Holstein - Gyr cows Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 222 2020 104881 10.1016/j.applanim.2019.104881
Masía F.M. Lyons N.A. Piccardi M. Balzarini M. Hovey R.C. Garcia S.C. Modeling variability of the lactation curves of cows in automated milking systems J. Dairy Sci. 103 2020 8189 8196 10.3168/jds.2019-17962 32564948 32564948
Meagher R.K. Beaver A. Weary D.M. von Keyserlingk M.A.G. Invited review: A systematic review of the effects of prolonged cow–calf contact on behavior, welfare, and productivity J. Dairy Sci. 102 2019 5765 5783 10.3168/jds.2018-16021 31103300
Mutua E.K. Haskell M.J. Factors contributing to milk yield variation among cows in a cow–calf contact system in early lactation JDS Commun. 3 2021 55 58 10.3168/jdsc.2021-0143 36340674 36340674
Neave H.W. Jensen E.H. Durrenwachter M. Jensen M.B. Behavioral responses of dairy cows and their calves to gradual or abrupt weaning and separation when managed in full-or part-time cow-calf contact systems J. Dairy Sci. 107 2024 2297 2320 10.3168/jds.2023-24085 37944800
Neave H.W. Sumner C.L. Henwood R.J.T. Zobel G. Saunders K. Thoday H. Watson T. Webster J.R. Dairy farmers’ perspectives on providing cow-calf contact in the pasture-based systems of New Zealand J. Dairy Sci. 105 2022 453 467 10.3168/jds.2021-21047 34696913 34696913
Neave H.W. Zobel G. Thoday H. Saunders K. Edwards J.P. Webster J. Toward on-farm measurement of personality traits and their relationships to behavior and productivity of grazing dairy cattle J. Dairy Sci. 105 2022 6055 6069 10.3168/jds.2021-21249 35637000 35637000
Rasmussen M.D. Frimer E.S. Galton D.M. Petersson L.G. The influence of premilking teat preparation and attachment delay on milk yield and milking performance J. Dairy Sci. 75 1992 2131 2141 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(92)77973-9
Roadknight N. Wales W. Jongman E. Mansell P. Hepworth G. Fisher A. Does the duration of repeated temporary separation affect welfare in dairy cow-calf contact systems? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 249 2022 105592 10.1016/j.applanim.2022.105592
Rushen J. Munksgaard L. Marnet P.G. DePassillé A.M. Human contact and the effects of acute stress on cows at milking Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 73 2001 1 14 10.1016/S0168-1591(01)00105-8 11356286 11356286
Sandrucci A. Tamburini A. Bava L. Zucali M. Factors affecting milk flow traits in dairy cows: Results of a field study J. Dairy Sci. 90 2007 1159 1167 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(07)71602-8 17297090 17297090
Sutherland M.A. Dowling S.K. The relationship between responsiveness of first-lactation heifers to humans and the behavioral response to milking and milk production measures J. Vet. Behav. 9 2014 30 33 10.1016/j.jveb.2013.09.001
Vaarst M. Hellec F. Verwer C. Johanssen J.R.E. Sørheim K. Cow calf contact in dairy herds viewed from the perspectives of calves, cows, humans and the farming system. Farmers’ perceptions and experiences related to dam-rearing systems J. Sustain. Org. Agric. Syst. 70 2020 49 57
Waiblinger S. Menke C. Coleman G. The relationship between attitudes, personal characteristics and behaviour of stockpeople and subsequent behaviour and production of dairy cows Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 79 2002 195 219 10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00155-7
Weiss D. Bruckmaier R.M. Optimization of individual prestimulation in dairy cows J. Dairy Sci. 88 2005 137 147 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)72671-0 15591376 15591376
Wenker M.L. van Reenen C.G. Bokkers E.A.M. McCrea K. de Oliveira D. Sørheim K. Cao Y. Bruckmaier R.M. Gross J.J. Gort G. Verwer C.M. Comparing gradual debonding strategies after prolonged cow-calf contact: Stress responses, performance, and health of dairy cow and calf Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 253 2022 105694 10.1016/j.applanim.2022.105694
Zipp K.A. Barth K. Rommelfanger E. Knierim U. Responses of dams versus non-nursing cows to machine milking in terms of milk performance, behaviour and heart rate with and without additional acoustic, olfactory or manual stimulation Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 204 2018 10 17 10.1016/j.applanim.2018.05.002
