Correction: Welfare of calves and heifers on dairy farms with cow-calf contact rearing or early separation (Frontiers in Veterinary Science, (2025), 12, (1610084), 10.3389/fvets.2025.1610084)

Abstract

Animal Behavior and Welfare In the published article, there was an error in Table 4 as published. The number of farms with disbudding was adapted for calves and heifers as authors discovered that one farm had been classified wrongly, and the number of farms with at least two clean, functioning water points for calves was corrected due to a typo in the previous version (the number of farms equaled 26, although we only visited 25 farms). Moreover, the format of several z-values was adapted to standardize it in accordance to the other tables and the odds ratio for the heifer-measures was adapted. The corrected Table 4 and its caption appear below. Results for physical and resource/management measures. Descriptive statistics and test results for potential differences between farms with cow-calf-contact (CCC) or early separation (ES) are shown. Significant p-values (p ≤ 0.05) are marked in bold. Ear infections and umbilical infections were never observed and thus are not listed. 1Physical parameters with prevalences >0 on more than 20 farms. 2Physical parameters with prevalences >0 on 20 farms or less. For swellings, values for calves from 2 CCC and 2 ES farms were not available. 4Due to occurrence on less than four farms, no statistical tests were conducted for these measures. 5For calves: m2/animal, for heifers: m2/700 kg. 6For comparison of only organic farms: CCC: n = 25 (calves) or n = 19 (heifers), ES: n = 14 (calves and heifers). In the published article, there was an error in Table 10 as published. The descriptive and statistical values for Absence of prolonged thirst (only ES calves and CCC heifers), Comfort around resting (only calves), ease of movement (only CCC heifers), Absence of injuries (only ES calves), Absence of disease, Absence of pain induced by management (for both CCC and ES calves and heifers), Good feeding (only ES calves), Good housing (CCC and ES calves and ES heifers) and Good health (both CCC and ES calves and heifers) slightly changed. This is (1) due to the detected changes for the number of clean, functioning water points and disbudding and (2) due to slight necessary corrections for the calculation procedures for ease of movement, absence of injuries and absence of disease that were not displayed correctly in the submitted version. There is now a significant difference for the Criterion score for “Ease of movement” in heifers. However, this does not change the scientific conclusions as the underlying measure “space allowance” had shown a significant difference before and is already discussed in the published manuscript. In addition, there is now a significant difference for “Good feeding” in calves. Also here, this does not change the scientific conclusion as the significant difference in the underlying measure “Number of clean, functioning water points” has been thoroughly discussed in the submitted version. The corrected Table 10 and its caption appear below. Criterion and principle scores for calves and heifers. Descriptive statistics and results of Mann–Whitney U-test between CCC (calves: no. farms = 25, heifers: n = 19) and ES (n = 25) farms or, for “Good human-animal relationship,” regression model's p-value, are shown. Significant p-values (p ≤ 0.05) are marked in bold. 1Criterion contributes to Principle “Good feeding.” 2Criterion contributes to Principle “Good housing.” 3Criterion contributes to Principle “Good health.” 4Criterion contributes to Principle “Appropriate behavior.” 5To compare scores for “Good human-animal relationship” in calves, a regression model with farm, rearing system and percentage of tests in single housing was calculated to take into account differing test location. In the published article, there was an error in Figure 1 as published. The number of ES farms scoring “excellent” or “enhanced” was adapted for calves. The corrected Figure 1 and its caption appear below. Percentage of visited farms with each overall classification according to the WQP for calves (top) and heifers (bottom). Calves: CCC: n = 25, ES: n = 25. Heifers: CCC: n = 19, ES: n = 25. In the published article, there was an error. Resulting from the changes described above, some sections of the text needed to be adapted. A correction has been made to three sentences in the Abstract. The first sentence previously stated: “Both CCC calves and heifers had more space (calves and heifers: p < 0.001), were less often disbudded (calves: p = 0.032, heifers: p = 0.020) and had more access to pasture (p < 0.001).” The corrected sentence appears below: “Both CCC calves and heifers had more space (calves and heifers: p < 0.001), were less often disbudded (calves: p = 0.002, heifers: p = 0.003) and had more access to pasture (p < 0.001).” The second sentence previously stated: “Accordingly, rearing systems differed in Criterion and Principle scores. Both CCC calves (p = 0.011) and heifers (p = 0.043) scored higher in “Appropriate Behavior” and calves scored higher in “Good housing” (p = 0.001).” The corrected sentence appears below: “Accordingly, rearing systems differed in Criterion and Principle scores. Both CCC calves (p = 0.011) and heifers (p = 0.043) scored higher in “Appropriate Behavior” and calves scored higher in “Good feeding” (p = 0.047) and “Good housing” (p = 0.001).” The third sentence previously stated: “CCC farms had a better WQ classification than ES farms (calves: p = 0.022), heifers: p = 0.046) with 20% or 32% of CCC farms reaching “excellent” for calves or heifers compared to 4 or 8%, respectively. The corrected sentence appears below: “CCC farms had a better WQ classification than ES farms for calves (p = 0.023), and 20% or 26% of CCC farms reached “excellent” for calves or heifers compared to 0 or 12%, respectively.” A correction has been made to three sentences in the Section 3.3 Criterion and Principle Scores. The first sentence previously stated: “Both CCC calves and heifers scored higher in the Criteria “Absence of pain induced by management procedures,” “Other behaviors” (i.e., access to pasture), and “Positive emotional state” (i.e., QBA). The corrected sentence appears below: “Both CCC calves and heifers scored higher in the Criteria “Ease of movement,” “Absence of pain induced by management procedures,” “Other behaviors” (i.e. access to pasture), and “Positive emotional state” (i.e. QBA, Table 10).” The second sentence previously stated: “In addition, calves differed in the Criterion score “Ease of movement” (Table 10).” This sentence can be deleted, as the information is integrated in the previous sentence. The third sentence previously stated: “Cow-calf contact calves had higher Principle scores for “Good housing” and “Appropriate Behavior” (Table 10).” The corrected sentence appears below: “Cow-calf contact calves had higher Principle scores for “Good feeding,” “Good housing,” and “Appropriate Behavior” (Table 10).” A correction has been made to one sentence in the Section 3.4 Overall classification. The sentence previously stated: “Five (= 20%) CCC farms received an overall classification “excellent” for calves, while this was only the case for 1 (4%) ES farm (p = 0.034, standardized residuum: |1.2|, Figure 1).” The corrected sentence appears below: “Five (= 20%) CCC farms received an overall classification “excellent” for calves, while this was the case for no ES farm (p = 0.023, standardized residuum: |1.6|, Figure 1).” A correction has been made to one sentence in the Section 4 Discussion. The sentence previously stated: “The results led to higher WQ scores for CCC farms in five of the 11 Criteria for calves, three of the 11 Criteria for heifers, two of the four Principles for calves and one of the four Principles for heifers and a higher overall classification for CCC farms for both calves and heifers.” The corrected sentence appears below: “The results led to higher WQ scores for CCC farms in five of the 11 Criteria for calves, four of the 11 Criteria for heifers, three of the four Principles for calves and one of the four Principles for heifers and a higher overall classification for calves for CCC farms.” A correction has been made to one sentence in the Section 4.1.3 Resource- and management-based measures, Paragraph 3, sentence 1. The sentence previously stated: “Fewer CCC (52% of the CCC farms) than ES farms (84% of the ES farms) disbudded their calves (one CCC and one ES farm used polled genetics).” The corrected sentence appears below: “Fewer CCC (48% of the CCC farms) than ES farms (88% of the ES farms) disbudded their calves (one CCC and one ES farm used polled genetics).” A correction has been made to one sentence in the Section 4.2.2 Good housing. The sentence previously stated: “Even though CCC heifers had more space than ES heifers, it was not reflected in the Criterion or Principle score, as the other measures balanced the differences between rearing systems.” The corrected sentence appears below: “The higher space allowance of CCC heifers compared to ES heifers is reflected in the Criterion score for “Ease of movement” but not in the Principle score for “Good housing,” as the other measures balanced the differences between rearing systems.” A correction has been made to Section 4.3 Overall classification. The sentence previously stated: “Differences between rearing systems occurred not only in single measures but also in the aggregated overall classification, pointing toward enhanced welfare states in CCC compared to ES animals in our sample, with at least one quarter of CCC farms classified as “excellent” and only one farm “acceptable” in calves.” The corrected sentence appears below: “Differences between rearing systems occurred not only in single measures but also in the aggregated overall classification for calves, pointing toward enhanced welfare states in CCC compared to ES calves in our sample, with at least one quarter of CCC farms classified as “excellent” and only one farm “acceptable.” Also for heifers, differences point toward better overall well-being in CCC animals (26% of the farms reached “excellent” compared to 12% of the ES farms, and no CCC farm was classified as “acceptable” compared to 12% of the ES farms), although differences were not confirmed statistically.” The original article has been updated.