Invited review: A systematic review of the effects of early separation on dairy cow and calf health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concern from the public is growing regarding early cow-calf separation, yet proponents of this practice maintain that artificial rearing is critical for cow and calf health. Early separation is assumed to reduce the risk of transfer of pathogens from dam to neonatal calf, but a wide range of health benefits associated with extended cow-calf contact has also been documented. The aim of this systematic review was to report and synthesize conclusions from the literature on dairy cow and calf health in conventional rearing versus cow-calf contact systems. Peer-reviewed, published manuscripts, written in English, directly comparing dairy cow or calf health in artificial versus suckling systems, were eligible for inclusion. We conducted 7 targeted searches using Web of Science to identify key literature on important health conditions. The resulting manuscripts underwent a 4-step appraisal process, and further manuscripts were sourced from reference lists. This process resulted in a final sample of 70 articles that addressed cow and calf health. Sufficient literature was available to assess mastitis in cows, and scours, cryptosporidiosis, Johne's disease, pneumonia, immunity, and mortality in calves. The results for cryptosporidiosis, pneumonia, immunity, and mortality were mixed, with some differences between studies likely attributable to flawed comparisons between cohorts. Overall, the articles addressing calf scours and mastitis pointed to beneficial or no effects of suckling. The studies addressing Johne's disease did not find cow-calf contact to be a significant risk factor. In conclusion, the scientific peer-reviewed literature on cow and calf health provides no consistent evidence in support of early separation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".