Cultivation in rows – Weed control in spring cereal grains

By increasing the row spacing from 12.5 cm to 25 cm in your spring cereal grains it will be possible to both carry out weed control and simultaneously establish a nitrogen-fixing catch crop between the grain rows. As long as the number of plants is maintained when increasing the row spacing and crop damage is avoided, a row spacing up to 30 cm will not result in yield loss. Weed control between the rows results in more than 75% reduction in number of weeds, although aggressive species were reduced less. Weed control between the catch crop rows after harvest reduces perennial weeds

Cultivation in rows – Nitrogen fixation by catch crops and their effect on yield

Row cultivation in cereals with nitrogen-fixing crops can improve nitrogen supply in the crop rotation, while reducing nitrogen leaching. Well-established and competitive catch crops are important, they can both supply a significant amount of nitrogen to the subsequent crops and compete against the weeds. There needs to be a balance between main and catch crops – competitive main crops require early establishment of the catch crop and/or larger row distance. In a less competitive main crop, row distance can be narrower and the catch crops should be sown later. Early harvest is important to get a competitive catch crop. Well established catch crops can increase the yield of the succeeding crop, corresponding to up to 50 kg nitrogen per hectare. Well established catch crops – including nitrogen fixing species – reduce nitrogen leaching by up to 20 kg N per hectare

Cultivation in rows – Catch crops - tolerance and regrowth

Some species, e.g. vetch and oilseedrape, do not tolerate traffic very well, whereas grasses, chicory and plantain tolerate traffic welll. Catch crops with a high risk of regrowth such as white clover and timothy-grass, need to be incorporated into the soil early and maybe more than once and are not suited for systems with reduced tillage, whereas vetch, oilseed rape and fodder radish have very low regrowth after mulching in spring

Cultivation in rows – Sowing time for catch crops

Increased row distance requires weed control in the row, but this results in later sowing of the catch crop. Red clover has the most stable establishment at all times of sowing. Common vetch is not suited for the row cultivation system. Delayed sowing may result in a well established catch crop, especially after one weed control. However, your choice of strategy depends on the crop, level of nutrition, weather and the composition of the weed flora – annual and/or perennial, amount and agressiveness

Faktaark RowCrop

The main challenges for achieving higher and more stable yields in stockless organic farming relate to providing sufficient N supply and controlling competitive weeds. RowCrop has developed a new row cropping system that effectively integrates traditional arable crops with row cultivated legume-based catch crops and targeted weed control

Cultivation in rows – Weed control between stubble rows

By establishing catch crops in connection with the last weed control in the row in a grain crop and weed control row in the stubble after harvest, it is possible to do mechanical weed control of the entire cultivated area during the growing season and at the same time to have vegetation. Thistles (Sonchus and Cirsium) will be reduced by weed control between rows of catch crop after harvest, but only when weed control between crop rows has also been carried out. Common couch grass is not reduced significantly, but needs more vigorous weed control in the stubbl

Shaping cow-calf contact systems: Farmers' motivations and considerations behind a range of different cow-calf contact systems

Most dairy farms rear calves artificially by separating the newly born calf from the dam and feeding the calf milk from a bucket. However, the general public and scientific community have begun to question the effects of artificial rearing on animal welfare. Research so far has focused mainly on dam-calf contact, where each cow takes care of her own calf. However, previous studies show that Danish and other European farmers are using and showing interest in a variety of different cow-calf contact (CCC) systems. In the present study, we used qualitative research methods to explore the perspectives of Danish farmers who either had or had tried to establish a version of a CCC system. Farmers were asked about their motivation for establishing the system, what had shaped the system to its current form, and how they perceived the calves to benefit from the system. Practical considerations was the theme most commonly brought up and related to both why farmers chose to have CCC in the first place and in what way they had chosen to organize their CCC system. Practical considerations included a sense of ease, flexibility, and a more natural and therefore rational approach. The economy was also a repeated theme, but although the economy to a large degree shapes the type of CCC chosen (dam-calf contact or foster cow contact), it was rarely mentioned in relation to choosing a CCC system in the first place. Ethical considerations were a strong motivator for farmers with dam-calf contact systems, although less so for farmers with foster cow contact. The farm's image as seen by the consumer was an important motivation for farmers with many on-farm visitors, and with the farm's image in the eyes of the farming community potentially also influencing farmers. Farmers generally perceived the calves to benefit from the care of the cow and no difference was seen in the importance attributed to care, between farmers choosing dam-calf contact and foster cow systems

Comparing weaning methods in dairy calves with different dam-contact levels

Allowing the dam to rear her calf is an alternative practice in the dairy industry where cow and calf may gain welfare benefits from performing natural and highly motivated behaviors. However, this system has been linked to an increased separation and weaning response. Reducing the daily dam-calf-contact time may be a way to prepare the calf for weaning and separation. The first aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of 8 weeks of half-day dam-calf-contact on calves' response to weaning and separation, compared with calves reared with whole-day dam-calf-contact and an artificially reared, group-housed control with unrestricted access to milk for 20 min twice daily. Weaning off milk and separation from the dam can be viewed as 2 independent stressors. By introducing each stressor separately, it may be possible to reduce the overall behavioral response. The second aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of one-week fence-line weaning before permanent separation. The study was conducted with a 3x2 factorial design with dam-contact treatments: “Whole-day,” “Half-day” and “Control” and weaning treatments “Simultaneous” and “Stepwise.” Whole-day calves were separated twice daily from their dams during milking while Half-day calves were separated daily from the afternoon milking and until next morning milking. Simultaneous weaning and separation were done in wk 9, while Stepwise weaning and separation started in wk 8 with calves being fence-line weaned before permanent separation in wk 9. Data were collected on 69 dairy calves in wk 8 and wk 9, and data were summarized over the 2 weeks for analysis. Stepwise weaning and separation reduced the number of high-pitched vocalizations and activity of dam-reared dairy calves, while having little impact on control calves. There was no difference between Whole-day and Half-day calves in their response to separation, but as expected, dam-reared calves reacted more strongly than the control group. This was also reflected in the average daily BW gain the week after weaning, with Control calves having a higher average daily gains than Whole-day, while Half-day calves were intermediate. However, the behavioral response did not fully wane within the observation period (0–48 h of interventions). In conclusion, one-week fence-line weaning reduced the summed weaning and separation response in dam-reared calves. However, no difference between half-day dam-calf contact and whole-day dam-contact was detected as regards the behavioral response to weaning and separation

The effects of part-time dam-contact and stepwise weaning and separation on the voluntary human approach behaviour of dairy calves

Dairy calves are commonly reared without contact with their dam, which facilitates a human-animal relationship based on close human contact and feeding. Dam-contact may negatively affect calves’ relationship with humans. The current study investigates the effect of dam-contact and weaning method on calves’ response to humans. A total of 69 dairy calves were allocated to one of three dam-contact treatments [Control (separated from dam after 24 h), Whole-day (housed with dam for 23 h/d), and Half-day (housed with dam for 10 h/d)]. Within each treatment, calves were allocated to one of two weaning treatments [Stepwise (weaning off milk at eight weeks, dam-separation/pen change at nine weeks) or Simultaneous (weaning off milk and dam-separation/pen change simultaneously at nine weeks), i.e Control were weaned in the same manner but only the pen change was possible at the separation step, as calves were already separated from the dam]. All animals received a similar amount of human contact, except control calves who were additionally fed milk by teat bucket twice a day. Calves were tested in a random order within block using a human approach test followed by an animal approach test conducted in a 2.5 m x 10 m arena at 10 weeks of age. Stepwise-Control calves had shorter latencies to first approach the test person than Stepwise-Whole-day (p < 0.05, median survival time of Stepwise-Control: 11 s, Stepwise-Whole-day: 111 s and Stepwise-Half-day: 52 s). Among Simultaneous calves, no dam-contact treatment differences were detected for the latency to first approach. Similarly, Stepwise-Control calves had an odds ratio (95% CI) of 24.2 (1.6–365.9, p < 0.05) for coming within 1 m of the test person vs Stepwise-Whole-day calves and 12.5 (1.1–141.1, p < 0.05) vs Stepwise-Half-day calves. Throughout the test period Simultaneous-Control vocalised less [estimated mean no. of vocalisations (95% CI), 3.6 (2.1–6.4)] than both Simultaneous-Whole-day [18.2 (12.8–25.9), p < 0.01] and Simultaneous-Half-day [15.7 (11.0–22.5), p < 0.01] while there was no difference under Stepwise. As expected, Control approached faster and were more likely to come close to the test person than dam-reared calves, but exclusively after the stepwise weaning and separation. For calves tested one week after simultaneous weaning and separation no effect of the dam-contact treatments was found, except a higher frequency of vocalisations for dam-reared calves. This implies that controlling for the stress level related to weaning and separation from the dam is important when interpreting human-animal relationship tests, as dam-contact treatment effects appeared to be affected by high levels of weaning stress

Dam-rearing of dairy calves: Lessons from practice for future research & development

Interest in dam-rearing of dairy calves is growing among researchers, advisors and farmers. This internal project report collates, synthesizes and conveys scientific evidence and information on systems for dam-rearing as practiced by farmers in northern Europe. We hope this report will serve as inspiration for researchers planning experiments on dam-rearing as well as advisors and farmers developing and implementing systems for dam-rearing in practice