Welfare of calves

Abstract

This Scientific Opinion addresses a European Commission request on the welfare of calves as part of the Farm to Fork strategy. EFSA was asked to provide a description of common husbandry systems and related welfare consequences, as well as measures to prevent or mitigate the hazards leading to them. In addition, recommendations on three specific issues were requested: welfare of calves reared for white veal (space, group housing, requirements of iron and fibre); risk of limited cow-calf contact; and animal-based measures (ABMs) to monitor on-farm welfare in slaughterhouses. The methodology developed by EFSA to address similar requests was followed. Fifteen highly relevant welfare consequences were identified, with respiratory disorders, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, gastroenteric disorders and group stress being the most frequent across husbandry systems. Recommendations to improve the welfare of calves include increasing space allowance, keeping calves in stable groups from an early age, ensuring good colostrum management and increasing the amounts of milk fed to dairy calves. In addition, calves should be provided with deformable lying surfaces, water via an open surface and long-cut roughage in racks. Regarding specific recommendations for veal systems, calves should be kept in small groups (2-7 animals) within the first week of life, provided with ~ 20 m²/calf and fed on average 1 kg neutral detergent fibre (NDF) per day, preferably using long-cut hay. Recommendations on cow-calf contact include keeping the calf with the dam for a minimum of 1 day post-partum. Longer contact should progressively be implemented, but research is needed to guide this implementation in practice. The ABMs body condition, carcass condemnations, abomasal lesions, lung lesions, carcass colour and bursa swelling may be collected in slaughterhouses to monitor on-farm welfare but should be complemented with behavioural ABMs collected on farm.

Keywords: calf welfare; cow–calf contact; husbandry systems; individual housing; iron; veal.

Figure 1

Schematic representation of most common husbandry systems used for rearing calves

1. *: In calves > 8 weeks only permitted in small farms with < 6 calves. 
Veal systems are showed in grey.

Figure 2

Schematic representation of an individual pen in a dairy farm

Figure 3

Individual calf pens in a dairy farm. © George Stilwell

Figure 4

Calf in an outdoor individual pen (‘igloo’). © JUNIA – France

Figure 5

Schematic representation of individual pens in a veal farm

Figure 6

Calves kept in an individual pen in a white veal farm. © Marta Brščić

Figure 7

Schematic representation of calves in small‐group pens in a veal farm

Figure 8

Calves housed in a small‐group pen (5–7 animals) with slatted floors and milk trough in a veal unit. © JUNIA – France

Figure 9

Calves housed in small groups in a veal unit. © JUNIA – France

Figure 10

Schematic representation of calves in large‐group pens in a veal farm

Figure 11

Veal calves kept in large groups. © Marta Brščić

Figure 12

Schematic representation of calves in an outdoor group pen with littered floor

Figure 13

Outdoor group pen with littered floor. © George Stilwell

Figure 14

Dairy cow–calf contact system for the whole milk feeding period under organic conditions, i.e. until 3 months of age. © Susanne Waiblinger

Figure 15

Calves kept from weaning to six months in fully slatted floor group pens without bedding. © George Stilwell

Figure 16

Calves kept in a group pen with littered floor. © BOKU

Figure 17

Calves in cubicle housing. © Susanne Waiblinger

Figure 18

Calves kept from weaning to 6 months in outdoor feedlots. © George Stilwell

Figure 19

EKE estimates on prevalence of respiratory disorder depending on group size category. Median value, interquartile ranges and 1st and 99th percentile are represented via boxplots to represent the uncertainty around each value

Figure 20

Schematic representation of theoretical model estimating space allowances and its relationship with time spent in locomotor play behaviour, showing order of elicited points (1st step, 2nd step, etc.) and elicited values for calves kept in individual enclosures (elicited values are shown in black). The green, vertical distribution represents the variability in play behaviour expected in a population of calves placed in a location with unrestricted space (e.g. large field, ‘no exposure’). A linear relationship between increasing space allowances (m ² per animal) and % of time spent in play behaviour was assumed (red line)

Figure 21

Schematic representation of F2F EKE model showing the results of an expert elicitation on the relationship between space allowances and time spent in locomotor play behaviour by calves

Figure 22

Elicited values on the relationship between rumination times shown by calves aged between 2 weeks and 6 months and amount of fibre provided in the diet during the same period (measured in kg NDF DM/day). The figures estimated via the EKE are shown in black

Figure 23

Daily amount of NDF (kg) to be provided to veal calves, at different ages, according to the expert elicitation outcomes. A linear increase in ingested solid feed over time was assumed based on voluntary intake research results (Webb et al., 2014a,b)

Figure 24

Representation of a pen incorporating the recommendations on space, group size, and fibre and iron provision from the assessment carried out under Specific Scenario 1

Figure 25

Flow chart of the process [Steps (i) and (ii)) leading to the selection of the ABMs that were considered to best reflect on‐farm animal welfare for veal calves

1. am: ABMs measured ante‐mortem; pm: ABMs measured post‐mortem; ls: literature search.

Figure 26

Omphalitis in a calf due to cross‐sucking. © George Stilwell

Figure 27

Results from an EKE on the estimated percentage of calves showing cross‐sucking behaviour depending on duration of contact between cow and calf and milk allowance

1. The box plots represent the median estimate, 25th and 75th percentile of the distribution. The whiskers represent 90% credibility intervals.

Figure B.1

Graphical representation of the risk assessment model used in F2F welfare mandates (F2F EKE model) to express the relationship between exposure and ABMs (EFSA, 2022a). This is an illustration of one case where a linear relationship was assumed

Figure C.1

Classification of relevance of welfare consequences (high, medium, low, no relevance) in calves kept in individual pens in dairy farms

Figure C.2

Classification of relevance of welfare consequences (high, medium, low, no relevance) in calves kept in individual pens in veal farms

Figure C.3

Classification of welfare consequences (high, medium, low, no relevance) in veal calves kept in group housing in small groups

Figure C.4

Classification of welfare consequences (high, medium, low, no relevance) in veal calves kept in group housing in large groups

Figure C.5

Classification of welfare consequences (high, medium, low, no relevance) in calves kept from birth to weaning with milk feeding via buckets troughs

Figure C.6

Classification of welfare consequences (high, medium, low, no relevance) in calves kept from weaning to 6 months in fully or partly littered group pens

Figure C.7

Classification of welfare consequences (high, medium, low, no relevance) of housing calves in large groups and with automatic milk feeding

Figure C.8

Classification of welfare consequences (high, medium, low, no relevance) in calves kept in systems with cow–calf contact

Figure C.9

Classification of welfare consequences (high, medium, low, no relevance) in calves kept from weaning to 6 months in fully or partially slatted floor group pens without bedding

Figure C.10

Classification of welfare consequences (high, medium, low, no relevance) in calves kept from weaning to 6 months in group pens with cubicles

Figure C.11

Classification of welfare consequences (high, medium, low, no relevance) in calves kept from weaning to 6 months in outdoor feedlots