Cow Calf Contact; The Future of the Dairy Industry?

I’ve spent much of the last four years thinking about cow calf contact. Whether it’s been visiting farms practicing this system, reading research papers, compiling my Nuffield reports, submitting coursework for my PGCert, or making the idea a reality (albeit on a very small scale) on the farm we manage, the idea of keeping cows and calves together hasn't been far from my mind.

Cow calf contact on a commercial dairy farm in Norway

Now that my Nuffield Scholarship is submitted (read my report here) I have been asked to speak to different groups about my study on several different occasions; with varying reactions from those listening. While some farmers are curious about the practicalities and open-minded about the possibility that it could one day be a system they implement, others are steadfast in their refusal to accept it. Arguments about anthropomorphism, about “they have to be separated at some point anyway”, or once- somewhat confusingly- that CCC dairy farming would shut down milk powder processing, abound.

In all my discussions of CCC I stress that the industry isn’t ready for an overnight change, and individual farms certainly aren’t. Nor do I necessarily think that all farms should or will practice it. However, the industry can’t bury its head in the sand on this issue. Cow calf separation is one of the biggest concerns people have about dairy farming. The more people learn about it the less they like it. While reasons such as calf health due to Johne’s will convince some consumers that separation needs to happen, the day will come when they will ask why the industry hasn’t overcome issues like Johne’s disease. The simple truth is; this isn’t going away.

So what needs to happen for CCC to be a feasible option for the average commercial dairy farmer?

I say average and I say commercial, because in the UK the majority of CCC farms are either micro-dairies or sell a premium product which makes up for some of the economic challenges. However, the more I look the more I see “normal” farms practicing this system, although usually as a foster cow system or with partial contact. These farms though are outliers, and the practice isn’t widespread.

The first thing we need is more knowledge. Some of this will come from research trials, although they are typically challenged by being completed on a small number of cows, and in the case of much of the European projects, on robot systems. There’s also the question of how many dairy farmers are actually reached by academic research. While some papers may be reported in the farming press or disseminated by knowledge transfer and exchange programmes, there is a definite gap between university research teams and commercial farmers.

This means that the knowledge needs to be developed on farm, in a “real world” setting, and passed between farmers. In order for this to happen progress is reliant on some farmers taking a risk and implementing the system. They then need the confidence to share their findings with other farmers. In Australia I met a farmer who had tried CCC on different scales and contexts for nearly a decade before making the leap to a full CCC system; that’s the timescale for learning and change we are probably looking at.

Crucially- and probably controversially- farmers need to see businesses like their own trying it. When it’s practiced on robot farms, on micro dairies, or in businesses perceived to have low cash needs the average farmer will dismiss it as not possible for them. They also need to see it happening under farmers they see as competent and practical. This is hugely different from hearing CCC recommended by a professional who has never worked on a dairy farm, an academic perceived as an “outsider”, or a farm business that is seen to have lots of free cash to invest- and to lose.

Farmer implementation will highlight practical challenges and opportunities, and give the industry information on what infrastructure is needed and how best to manage potential issues like moving cows and calves at scale in sheds, managing calves during milking, and how to incorporate calves into existing cattle housing.

There is one issue which is a significant barrier to CCC, and it’s one that will not be solved quickly. Many of the countries that practice CCC at a wider scale are either Johne’s free or have very low national prevalence. This isn’t the case in the UK, and must be resolved if CCC is to be rolled out at scale. Johne’s poses welfare and economic problems for the industry, and needs to be eradicated. Its presence may be a reason at the moment for some herds to avoid keeping cows and calves together, but it can’t be a long term excuse. We need to tackle Johne’s, and that makes implementing CCC much easier.

Economically, there are farms all over the world that practice CCC for no milk price premium and return a profit sufficient to meet their cash needs. When calves are weaned at a similar age to conventional systems the milk consumed is not excessively high, especially if the farm moves to half-day contact as the calves approach weaning. Research in Tasmania shows calves drinking around 9 litres of milk a day at ten weeks of age- and importantly the same trial showed that the milking cows that had been suckled showed higher milk production than the control group for the rest of their lactation. While this might not make up for the milk lost, it may balance it back to the amount of milk that would have been taken out to feed the calf by hand. On farms where spring seasonality mechanisms depress milk price, shifting some production to later in lactation may bring value, as a litre of milk is worth more in August than in April.

In Germany, the Netherlands, and Denmark there are milk processors that offer a premium to farmers for CCC milk. The milk is then branded and consumers have the choice to pay extra for a product from this system. The benefits to this are clear; farmers get rewarded for implementing this system, with a price premium that allows for greater milk losses and capital costs associated with infrastructure. However, because the processor does all the marketing and distributing, farmers don’t have to worry about buying a pasteuriser, building a client base, and selling a product. They can stay as farmers with the knowledge that their milk will all be collected and paid for, and the processor will handle the rest.

CCC milk contracts- which really are no different to milk contracts that are restricted to organic farms, or farms that graze, or farms that are prepared to comply with welfare and environmental standards over and above the general industry standard- would be a real opportunity for UK farmers to try CCC, with a lot of the risk mitigated. This would also bring an opportunity for farmers to be brought together to learn from each other, without the tension of competing against each other for the same customers.

In the next five to ten years I think there will be a rise in the number of farmers implementing CCC, and with it an increase in industry knowledge of how to implement it. Care needs to be taken that we don’t fall into the trap of pushing foster systems. From a management perspective these can be much easier, but consumers perceive them as negatively as cow calf separation, because the calf is still separated from their biological mother.

CCC has benefits for cows, calves, and farmers (every farmer I spoke to who did it said that it made them happy- and from my experience I completely agree, there is something very lovely about watching cows and calves interacting and living together). It’s not going to be the industry norm tomorrow, or even next year, but there are farmers all over the world showing that it can and does work.

I am always happy to speak to farmers and industry organisations about CCC feasibility and the outcomes of my Nuffield Scholarship. Farmers in England and Wales can receive funding towards business advice and this could be used in this instance!