ABSTRACT
It is unknown whether calf rearing facilities in the Republic of Ireland are fit for purpose, or if facilities sufficiently consider calf and farmer welfare. The aim of this study was to review current calf housing facilities and management practices on Irish farms to determine if calves are reared in structurally appropriate facilities with management decisions that safeguard calf and farmer welfare. Fifty-one farms located in the Munster region in the Republic of Ireland were visited twice: (1) Pre-calving (December-January) and (2) During peak calving (January-March). During visit one, herd owners completed a questionnaire regarding calf housing and management practices on-farm and each facility used to rear calves was measured (measurement of cubic air capacity, ventilation, pen area, drainage etc.) without calves being present. Visit two consisted of a short interview with the principal calf manager to validate previously asked questions and environmental based measurements of each calf house that had been recorded, with any deviation from the first visit noted (measurements of temperature, wind speed, light intensity, facility provisions in-house and in-pen; calves present). Average herd size was 254, operating a spring calving system with a median calving season length of 11.6 weeks. While most farms expanded (88%; N = 51), this did not appear to have negatively affected calf space allowances (9.9% houses overcrowded at a space allowance of 1.5 m2/calf; N = 121). Calves were most commonly housed in group sizes of <12 (71.6% of all groupings; N = 394), with farmers moving away from individual housing for a period immediately post-birth, to grouping them immediately instead (58.8%; N = 51). The number of farmers testing colostrum was 31.4% (N = 51). Although the calving season was compact, most farmers were unconcerned about the upcoming spring workload (58.8%; N = 51). Farms appeared sufficiently prepared for spring, with most using the same number or less sheds during visit two than declared in visit one (76.5%; N = 51). To conclude, farmers made sufficient provision for calf housing and space allowances for calves that facilitated group housing post-birth. While structural and management components of rearing systems appear in line with sectoral recommendations, certain areas require attention on many farms (e.g., colostrum testing) to safeguard calf welfare and reduce the workload associated with calf rearing for farmers.
ABSTRACT
Housing and feeding are integral to calf rearing, and must meet calf needs while remaining functional for the farmer. This study compared health, behavior, growth, and labor requirements of calves housed in groups indoors and fed via an automatic or manual milk feeding system compared to calves manually fed in individual or group hutches outdoors. Seventy-six (49 Holstein Friesian [HF] and 27 HF × Jersey) dairy heifer calves were balanced for birth weight (35.2 ± 4.95 kg), birth date (1 February ± 7.2 d) and breed. The experiment was a randomized block design with four treatments; 1) indoor group housing with automated feeding (IN_AUTO; 12 calves per pen), 2) indoor group housing with manual feeding (IN_MAN; 12 calves per pen), 3) outdoor group hutch with manual feeding (OUT_G_MAN; 8 calves per pen), and 4) outdoor individual hutch with manual feeding (OUT_I_MAN; 6 calves: 1 per pen). Calves in OUT_treatments moved outdoors at 18 d (± 5.9 d). Each treatment was replicated once. Milk allowance increased gradually from 6 to 8 L/day (15% reconstitution rate) with ad libitum fresh water, concentrates, and hay offered from 3 d old. Gradual weaning occurred at 8 wk old. Measurements were divided into period 1; before movement outdoors, and period 2; after movement outdoors. Health was similar among treatments, regardless of period, with the most frequent score being zero (i.e., healthy). Summarized, standing and lying were observed 24.3% and 29.8%, respectively, in OUT_I_MAN calves, compared to 8.0% and 49.1%, for the other systems, which were similar. No difference in bodyweight (BW) existed between treatments, except at weaning where BW was lower for OUT_I_MAN (67.4 ± 2.84 kg) compared to IN_MAN (74.2 ± 2.01 kg), and day 102 where OUT_I_MAN (94.1 ± 2.85 kg) were lighter than IN_AUTO (101.1 ± 2.10 kg) (P = 0.047). Total labor input was greatest for OUT_I_MAN (00:02:02 per calf per day; hh:mm:ss) and least for IN_AUTO (00:00:21 per calf per day) (P < 0.001). The labor for feeding (00:00:29 per calf per day), feeding inspection (00:00:10 per calf per day), and cleaning equipment (00:00:30 per calf per day) was greatest for OUT_I_MAN. All calves showed good health and growth patterns. Differences in behavior expressed by calves in the OUT_I_MAN, compared to other treatments may indicate compromised welfare. Thus, although outdoor group hutches do not negatively impact calves, indoor housing, particularly using automated feeders, can improve labor efficiency.
In seasonal calving dairy systems, cows calve in a period of approximately 12 wk. Demand for calf accommodation and labor is high during this time. Outdoor housing structures, such as robust plastic calf hutches, may offer an alternative to permanent indoor facilities. In this study, we compared indoor housing systems using automated and manual feeding methods and outdoor calf housing systems using manual feeding methods, to examine their effect on calf health, behavior, growth, and labor. Moving calves to their respective outdoor system commenced at approximately 18 d. This reflected a housing system with limited indoor availability, where older calves would be moved outdoors (allowing young calves to remain indoors). The most labor-efficient method of rearing was group housing calves indoors feeding via automatic feeder, followed by group housing indoors feeding via manual feeders, outdoor in group hutches, and outdoor in individual hutches with manual feeding. Calves in all systems showed health and growth patterns consistent with positive development. Calf behavior in the individual hutches outdoor may indicate compromised well-being, compared to all other systems. Thus, although outdoor group hutches do not negatively impact the calf, indoor housing, particularly when using automatic feeders, can provide improved labor efficiency.
