Research Summary - 1
US dairy producer perspectives on individual and social housing of pre-weaned dairy calves.
| Date/Time: |
8/27/2026
16:45
|
| Author: |
Whitney Knauer |
| Clinic: |
University of Minnesota CVM |
| City, State, ZIP: |
St. Paul, MN 55102 |
B.A. Ventura, MSc, PhD
2
;
S. Khoddami, MSc
3
;
W.A. Knauer, VMD, PhD
1
;
1Department of Veterinary Population Medicine, University of Minnesota CVM, St. Paul, MN 55108
2Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, Michigan State University CVM, East Lansing, MI 48824
3BC Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver BC, V5Z 4R4
Introduction:
Finding ways to support producers in transitioning to social housing of pre-weaned dairy calves is of increasing interest, but relatively little work has explored the direct experiences of dairy producers and their decisions to house pre-weaned calves in individual or group settings in the United States. To address this gap, we sought to qualitatively explore the motivators and barriers to adoption of social housing from the perspective of dairy producers, with an aim to describe how they adopt and evaluate the impacts of their chosen pre-weaned calf housing system.
Materials and methods:
We opportunistically recruited dairy producers who use individual housing, some form of group or social housing (e.g. pairs, small or large groups), or who had previously tried some form of social housing but had since reverted back to primarily individual housing. We conducted three focus groups (n=5-7 participants per group, with one group predominantly composed of individual housers, one of social housers, and one of ‘reverter’ producers) and 14 individual semi-structured interviews (n=31 total participants). Interviews and focus groups were conducted online over Zoom and audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using inductive reflexive thematic analysis. We relied on Normalization Process Theory during data interpretation to construct four primary themes, organized around the four tenets of this theory: 1) making sense of individual vs social housing (coherence), 2) engagement with messaging about social housing (cognitive participation), 3) implementing social housing (collective action), and 4) appraisal after trying social housing (reflexive monitoring).
Results:
Producers were located in 6 states but based predominantly in the Upper Midwest; herd sizes ranged from 20 -10,000 milking cows (median herd size= 500). Theme 1 (coherence) captured that when producers who had minimal experience with social housing conceptualized ways to house pre-weaned calves, they often focused on differences between individual vs. social housing and the consequences that had on calf health and labor. Theme 2 (cognitive participation) revealed that producers were exposed to widely mixed messaging about the relative benefits (e.g., social/behavior/performance benefits for calves, easier weaning transitions, and societal drivers to adopt social housing) and drawbacks (e.g., risk of disease outbreaks and cross-sucking) of social housing, from veterinarians, peer networks and touring neighboring farms, and broader discourse in their industry. Theme 3 (collective action) highlights the primary logistical factors that shaped decisions to adopt, including weighing existing facility and financial resources (e.g. space or infrastructure allowance), farm size, capacity and training of staff, and dealing with the logistics of grouping calves appropriately by size and age to reduce competition. Many producers highlighted the benefits of pairs as a low risk, low cost opportunity to dabble with social housing. Finally, Theme 4 (reflexive monitoring), revealed that those who reverted back to individual housing largely did so due to an inability to overcome challenges associated with calf health or cross-sucking. While cross-suckling was reported as a persistent challenge by many who socially housed calves, some shared how they had successfully overcome this issue (e.g. increasing milk volumes). Ultimately, producers who used social housing reported several benefits, including calf health, improved calf autonomy, easier weaning transitions, and reduction in labor demands for staff.
Significance:
Overall, our findings highlight how adoption of social housing for pre-weaned calves is a dynamic process that is mediated by how producers interpret and evaluate the relative risks and benefits associated with resource availability, labor considerations, and calf health, welfare, and performance. We suggest our study provides insights as to why social housing is successful on some farms and fails on others.
