ReviewFrontiers in veterinary science2025
A scoping review on pair housing dairy calves: health and performance outcomes and tactics to reduce cross-sucking behavior.
Review in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of Partial Cow-Calf Contact and Social Companions on Health, Performance, and Behavior of Calves.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Effects of pelleted timothy hay on pair-housed Holstein calf performance.Journal of animal science · 2026Article
- The effects of feeding pelleted timothy hay to ameliorate the duration, frequency, and latency to start cross-sucking behavior in paired dairy calves.JDS communications · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Calves raised in pairs or triplets often experience better growth performance outcomes when compared to their individually housed peers. However, veterinarians may be concerned that pair housing compromises calf health, and producers are concerned about abnormal oral behavior (e.g., cross-sucking). In this literature review, we evaluated the effect of pair or triplet housing vs. individual housing practices on calf health outcomes and performance since 2016. We also evaluated the literature on mitigation strategies to ameliorate cross-sucking in socially housed calves. We found that when researchers used pair housing practices, there was a lack of association between housing practice and risk of bovine respiratory disease (BRD) status in all studies (100%, 7/7). Only one study lacking healthy control calves found a negative effect on calf diarrhea in week 3 (1/8 studies). However, a moderate number of researchers (57%, 4/7) did not use a validated clinical scoring system to diagnose calves with BRD status. Half of the researchers (50%, 4/8) also did not report their diagnostic criteria for diagnosing diarrhea in their calves, and we suggest this is needed for future work. All researchers who fed calves at least 7 L/d of milk and recorded calf starter intakes found that pair-housed calves consumed more calf starter either preweaning or post-weaning (100% 6/6). However, growth benefits were only observed in 4 studies, in which 75% fed calves at least 7 L/d of milk. Cross-sucking is mitigated by providing socially housed calves with an outlet for oral behavior, such as a teat for milk feeding, offering at least 7 L/d of milk, offering a teat with starter, and forage. We recommend that future studies investigating social housing utilize validated clinical scoring systems for calf health monitoring, report disease diagnostic criteria, and feed ≥ 7 L/d of milk to promote performance benefits in pair-housed calves. More research is needed to understand how cross-sucking develops as a habit in socially housed calves.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.