Comparing cow–calf contact systems: A review of effects of prolonged contact on animal welfare and performance and stakeholder attitudes

Dairy farming systems adopting prolonged cow–calf contact (CCC; where calves can suckle a cow (their dam or a foster cow) for all, or a substantial part, of the milk-feeding period) are gaining attention due to growing concerns about animal welfare, ethical considerations, and better alignment with societal values. However, CCC systems can be managed in various ways, including continuous (whole-day) or scheduled part-time contact, full or partial physical contact, and dam or foster-cow rearing. The CCC management practices can impact cow and calf welfare, performance and societal perceptions differently. This systematic review synthesises findings from 60 studies across five continents, comparing the effects of CCC systems on animal welfare, performance, and economics, as well as examining how dairy stakeholders perceive CCC. Peer-reviewed, published articles, written in English, directly comparing the effects of CCC systems in which calf and dam, or foster cow, are kept together for at least two weeks post-partum on one or more of the aforementioned four fields on either dairy cattle or water buffalo were eligible for inclusion. No single CCC management emerged as consistently superior in terms of animal welfare, but for many aspects of CCC the research is scarse. Maternal motivation to access calves appeared unaffected by daily contact duration, but reduced contact reduced the quantity of maternal care in terms of nursing and grooming, which may pose a welfare challenge. Behavioural responses to weaning and separation appeared more influenced by separation management and calves’ nutritional dependence than by daily contact duration. Regarding performance, suckling compared to CCC without suckling commonly conferred an early growth advantage that typically diminished later in rearing, consistent with compensatory growth. For cows, CCC reduced machine-harvested milk because milk was redirected to calves; part-time management often increased milk available from machine milking after no-contact periods, but incomplete milk ejection remained a challenge. Economic comparisons between CCC regimens were not found. Evidence on stakeholders’ perceptions showed strong public preference for systems avoiding early separation and substantial willingness-to-pay for CCC products in some contexts, whereas farmers reported both intrinsic motivation and practical challenges, notably separation distress, housing and space limitations, and reduced saleable milk. Despite the growing body of literature on CCC, comparisons of dam vs. foster-cow rearing are scarse, few studies directly compared various CCC systems with dams, and methodological inconsistencies limit generalisability. Overall, CCC can support key aspects of natural maternal behaviour and calf development, but outcomes are context-dependent and affects milk harvest, and practical challenges for implementation exists. Future work should prioritise controlled, longitudinal and economically informed comparisons across various CCC systems, supported by standardised reporting to improve reproducibility and synthesis.