Three years of situated social learning and development of diverse cow-calf contact systems in Danish organic dairy farms

This study had 2 aims: first, to describe the intent of a learning process among farmers about cow-calf contact (CCC) systems using a so-called Stable School approach, where farmers advise farmers. The second aim was to identify the main themes that arose from the conversations held throughout the 21 meetings that focused on the topic of CCC. The meetings were hosted by 10 host farmers. In total, 32 farmers, farm managers, employees, and calf caregivers who collectively represented 16 farms participated. Characteristics of participating farms varied widely, including herd sizes, which ranged from 7 to 600 cows. At each of the 21 meetings, a written summary was recorded and uploaded to a common data storage site. Using an inductive approach, words, phrases, topics, and suggestions were coded into themes relevant to CCC systems and processes of learning and change. The longitudinal nature of this study allowed for the capturing of how farmers changed their views on how to care for the animals and the concept of keeping cows and calves together. A central theme was how they identified particular challenges associated with a CCC system, such as space requirements or pasture access, and then collectively identified potential solutions for implementing cow-calf contact on their farms, increasingly using experience from their own farms. In addition to raising questions regarding the practical aspects of implementing a CCC system, many participants also raised ethical questions, and many acknowledged their pleasure and joy in seeing the system work and the animals thriving (e.g., when calves were playing or seemed to learn very quickly from the cows). Steps that led to an increased understanding among farmers on this topic included developing a shared language, for instance, referring to the “sharing of milk with the calf” rather than the “loss of milk.” Despite the diversity of farms represented by the participants, there was an overall acceptance that they were colleagues and thus were highly supportive of each other. Many participants viewed foster cow systems as a more feasible option for providing CCC than dam-rearing systems, but some also viewed the foster cow system as a stepping stone to their long-term goal of implementing a dam-rearing system. This study provided evidence that socially situated learning and communities of practice can facilitate learning by farmers interested in developing, implementing, and improving CCC systems in different dairy farming contexts.


INTRODUCTION
The early separation of a cow and her calf in dairy production has been a growing issue among citizens (Ventura et al., 2013;Busch et al., 2017;Cardoso et al., 2017;Weary and von Keyserlingk, 2017), and damrearing systems have increasingly been explored as a possible solution in Denmark and other European countries over the past few years.Dam-rearing systems can potentially contribute to the full expression of maternal-filial behavior, and thereby improve the welfare and natural behavior of both calf and mother cow (Wenker et al., 2021).Cow-calf contact (CCC) systems include dam rearing but are broadly understood by Sirovnik et al. (2020) as any housing or management system that permits a cow and a calf to be in physical contact, be it a dam and her own calf (dam rearing) or a foster cow and her foster calf (foster cow rearing).It is argued that CCC systems, including foster cow systems, generally allow calves to meet their natural needs better than conventional calf systems (Wagner et al., 2012(Wagner et al., , 2015;;Buchli et al., 2017).Studies also indicated that calves will have better opportunities to learn social skills in CCC systems (Flower and Weary, 2001;Wagner et al., 2013;Meagher et al., 2015;Santo et al., Three years of situated social learning and development of diverse cow-calf contact systems in Danish organic dairy farms Mette Vaarst 1 * and Iben Alber Christiansen 2 2020).A shift in the dairy sector to implement CCC, particularly in indoor housing systems, will no doubt require substantive changes in the views on animals, as well as management and animal care.Denmark is a country with a strong dairy sector, both historically and economically, including a strong export sector based on butter (Lampe and Sharp, 2018).On most dairy farms, the primary source of revenue comes from the sale of milk.Extended CCC generally has been found to reduce the amount of saleable milk while the calves are suckling (Meagher et al., 2019).Any system that reduces the amount of saleable milk is frequently viewed as problematic by farmers (Lehmann et al., 2021).In the case of a CCC system, allowing calves to suckle from the dam will reduce the amount of revenue generated by the farm from the sale of milk (Lehmann et al., 2021).Thus, implementing a CCC system where the calf remains with the dam will require considerations given to diversifying income streams to include revenue from sources other than milk (Mogensen et al., 2022).In foster cow systems, it is to some extent possible to limit the calves' milk intake by regulating the number of cows per calf, and the potential welfare implications for the foster cow of nursing different numbers of calves need to be addressed and further investigated.In both conventional and organic farming, calves have been referred to as "by-products," and even as "excess animals" (e.g., Rell et al., 2022) or "surplus calves" (e.g., Haskell, 2020, andWebb et al., 2022) when they are not kept for milk production.Even though CCC systems might produce bigger and stronger calves, these calves seem to be valued less than lost milk because the monetary value of calves remains small.
The separation of calves and cows within minutes, hours, or a few days after birth has long been the norm and a widely accepted practice among farmers and farm-related actors and has not been questioned by the general public until recently, and many may not have been aware of this (Placzek et al., 2021).When confronted with the fact and entering into discussions about it, some express concern, and some see it as the most animal welfare friendly compared with creating stronger bonds between cow and calves (Ventura et al., 2013;Busch et al., 2017;Cardoso et al., 2017;Hötzel et al., 2017;Weary and von Keyserlingk, 2017).A recent Canadian study indicated that dam rearing was viewed as the best, and citizens were skeptical of early separation followed by foster cow rearing (Sirovica et al., 2022).Since 2018, several research and development projects have been initiated in Denmark to investigate different aspects of CCC systems (Anonymous, 2018;GrazyDaiSy, 2018;Jensen, 2021).This research has in-cluded studies of the perception of and experience with CCC systems of farmers and other dairy sector stakeholders (Vaarst et al., 2020;Constancis et al., 2022), as well as on-farm research (Anonymous, 2020).A growing body of evidence suggests that participatory and action-based research approaches can be useful as they facilitate the co-development of potential improvements (Neef and Neubert, 2011;Chevalier and Buckles, 2019), which has also been demonstrated in the agricultural sector (Bruges and Smith, 2008;Cargo and Mercer, 2008), where ideally all relevant stakeholders are participants in processes of common learning, innovation, and development.This could, for example, be by using a farmer group approach called "Stable Schools," which is a concept building on theories of social and situated learning and respectful equal participation (Lave and Wenger, 1991), acknowledging that learning mainly happens through social processes and is situated in the environments and settings where the learnings should be applied and used.This approach was developed in Denmark in 2004-2005 as an advisory method where farmers advise other farmers (Vaarst, 2007;Vaarst et al., 2007).It has since been used in various contexts throughout Europe (March et al., 2014;Ivemeyer et al., 2015;Brinkmann and March, 2018;Hansmann et al., 2020).A Stable School is an established group of farmers who meet on the participants' farms in rotation.By meeting on each other's farms, all participants take the role of being the host farmer, as well as a group member who participates in advising the host farmer.This contributes to building mutual trust and respectful dialog.The host farmer sets the agenda with 2 problem areas and one success story.A so-called facilitator plans the agenda in close collaboration with the coming host farmer before a meeting and distributes it to all group members.The facilitator leads the dialog at the 2 1/2to 3-h meeting, which is organized to promote dialog while allowing everybody to speak in turn around the table, and for the host farmer to bring the meeting to a conclusion, as described by Vaarst (2007), Vaarst et al. (2011), andIvemeyer et al. (2015).The facilitator sends out meeting minutes from each meeting and ensures that a follow-up of each meeting is done at the following meeting or another agreed-upon time.
This article had 2 aims: first, to describe how social and situated learning took place in a Stable School process with a focus on the development of CCC systems, including how the approach worked in this specific context of developing new dairy systems.The second aim was to identify the main themes that arose from the conversations on CCC, held during 21 meetings over 3 years.
Vaarst and Christiansen: SOCIAL LEARNING TO DEVELOP COW-CALF CONTACT SYSTEMS

Stable School Approach, Meetings, and Follow-up
One major activity in this Danish project was the use of the Stable Schools concept as a means to bring farmers and calf caregivers together for the common development of CCC systems, starting in April 2019.The original focus was dam-rearing systems.Participating farmers changed the focus to hybrid systems (where the calf stayed with its dam for some days or weeks and then was introduced to a foster cow) and foster cow systems, as these were the predominant types of systems that emerged on their farms.
The Stable School approach was modified, compared with the original approach as described (e.g., in Vaarst, 2007), in the following ways: 1) Normally, a Stable School group is considered a closed group, allowing mutual trust to develop, because all group members commit to being a host farmer for one or more meetings, and in this way expose themselves and their farms to the other group members.However, the members of the original core group in our study decided to keep the group open during the course of the project.This allowed "only visiting farmers" to participate if they expressed particular interest in organizing a CCC system at their own farm but had not necessarily established it yet.This choice was re-approved every half year by the Stable School group, in recognition that it was generally difficult to obtain knowledge about CCC systems for farmers in Denmark because it was still an uncommon practice.The members expected that more experience and suggestions would be brought forward as the number of participants increased, to everybody's benefit.The research project would also benefit from the enriched exchange of experience and common knowledge generation, which could be communicated more widely.The procedure to become a member of the Stable School was to get in contact with the facilitator, who sent out the meeting invitations.This happened in several ways: Some newcomers contacted one of the existing group members, who created contact between the facilitator and the person interested in becoming a member.Others learned about the Stable School through different farmer networks or from articles in farmer magazines, which prompted them to contact the facilitator.The group was also open to multiple participants from each farm.Some farm owners brought their herd manager, calf caregiver, or any other staff member involved with the herd to some meetings for different reasons.On a few occasions, up to 3 participants from the same farm attended one meeting.This could be because the topics on the agenda were of direct relevance to this farm and, as a part of the common learning within farms, scheduling these topics was prioritized in periods when the workload might not be too heavy.2) Normally, the Stable School members share a goal, such as reducing antibiotic use, where everybody in the group has some experience.In this project, we were aware that the advice given by fellow farmers might not always be based on experience, but partly on a common exploration and discussions of certain topics or problem areas that were not known by everybody.
According to the original approach, a Stable School group should not last longer than a year because it was foreseen to be an intense period of change, and farmers should be given time to implement new practices and structures on their farms following the advice from fellow group members.In this project, some of the farmers stayed in the group throughout the 3-year period, although they did not participate in every meeting.Some farmers only participated in a few of the meetings over a short time, and this helped them make an informed decision that they and their farms were not ready to establish a CCC system.During the project period, 21 Stable School meetings were held between April 2019 and January 2022 (8 in 2019, 6 in 2020, 6 in 2021, and 1 in January 2022), with 10 host farmers and a total of 32 farm-related participants (excluding the authors and facilitator) connected to 16 different farms.
The group continued to meet after the data collection was closed.Table 1 lists some key information about the participating host farms.The Research Ethics Committee at Aarhus University, Denmark reviewed the study design and found that ethical approval was not needed according to the Danish legislation.Anonymity was guaranteed to all participants.All Stable School participants contributing data to the study signed a declaration of consent on their voluntary participation.
Table 2 provides details on the participation, success stories, and problem areas on the agendas of the host farmers.Only on-farm meetings were considered meaningful, and the long periods without meetings were due to the COVID-19 lockdowns.
The first author participated in 15 meetings and took notes and photos.The second author participated in 20 meetings and was the facilitator of 17 of these meetings (from mid-2019 onward).From early-to mid-2019, an  The Stable School started in April 2019.CCC = cow-calf contact.
2 NA = not applicable.In relation to time with foster cow, NA means that these calves were never together with foster cows, because they were with their own mother cows (their dams) during the mil feeding period.
3 Each calf born in the herd is with its dam, and bought-in calves are bonded to these cows as foster cows along with her own calf.From an age of 2 mo, they will be separated in the night and the cows only milked in the morning. 4 The system varies between years, depending on the weather and other factors; most years about half of the cows have had their own calf plus one other calf, so half of the cows are taken out of the CCC system and milked twice per day.The cows that stay with the calves stay only half time and graze without the calves half time (some years during the night, other years during the day), and cows from this system are milked once per day.

5
The calves not kept in the dairy herd are sold from these herds at an age of 2 to 3 wk.
Vaarst and Christiansen: SOCIAL LEARNING TO DEVELOP COW-CALF CONTACT SYSTEMS Not only an expense to have a cow-calf system but also a gain in flexible time and energy use. 1 The first COVID-19 lockdown happened between meetings 9 and 10, and the second lockdown between meetings 15 and 16.Before each meeting, the facilitator and the host farmer spoke over the phone about the agenda, which should include one success story from the farm and 2 problem areas that the host farmer wanted to work on.At each meeting (except the first), a follow-up was done by the previous host farmer on what had happened regarding the commitments on the 2 problem areas.The number of farmer participants include the host farmer(s), and the number of participating farms include the host farm.Apart from these participants, the authors of this article participated, one as facilitator, and one writing notes from the meetings.At meetings 1 to 3, an experienced external facilitator was involved to help initiate the process.experienced Stable School facilitator was hired to facilitate the meetings and to mentor the second author.
To organize a meeting, the facilitator made contact with the host farmer one week before the meeting to set the agenda, with all the participants in the Stable School kept in the email loop.After each meeting, the facilitator completed the meeting minutes based on her own notes and the first author's meeting notes (if present at the meeting).At the first 3 meetings (which were facilitated by an experienced facilitator who mentored the second author) the notes from this facilitator also contributed to the aligned meeting notes.At meeting number 18, the second author was ill, so the first author managed the meeting notes alone.The meeting notes contained clarifications and details regarding the issues on the agenda, as well as suggestions from the group participants to solve these issues.Aspects of the CCC systems, which were spontaneously raised in the conversation at the meetings, were also included in the meeting notes.The facilitator sent the meeting notes to everyone in the group, and the shared meeting notes were considered approved if no points were mentioned before or at the following meeting.If remarks were made, they were written into the meeting notes for the following meeting as a point for follow-up.Follow-up from each meeting normally happened at the following meeting and was a point on the agenda.Since meeting intervals were highly variable, the intervals for followups also varied.If the host farmer of a meeting could not be present at the next meeting (which happened 7 times in total), the facilitator followed up over the phone and presented it at the meeting, or on email after the meeting.In all cases but one, the follow-up was included in the minutes.Some issues were not relevant to follow up with at the following meeting (e.g., if seasonal calving was practiced on a farm and the problem area was related to calvings that would only happen about 10-11 mo later, or if more research was needed to find the right equipment).

Data Analysis of the Stable School Meeting Notes
At each of the 21 Stable School meetings, the meeting notes, which were recorded and shared with participants for common approval, were uploaded into NVivo data analysis software (https: / / lumivero .com/products/ nvivo/ ; version 12.6) by the first author.Using an inductive approach, words, phrases, topics, and suggestions were coded into themes relevant to CCC systems and processes of learning by the first author, and discussed between the authors.This approach allowed for the capturing of how farmers described the successes in the systems, as well as challenges and suggestions for solutions.Furthermore, statements on changed views on how to look at and care for animals and the concept of keeping cows and calves together were grouped into categories.

"The Whole System Is Working Well"
Table 2 lists the success stories and problem areas focused on at each of the meetings.
Most host farmers in this group identified the successes to be connected to "the system as a whole" (in contrast to highlighting a specific element that was working well), using terms such as "harmony," "thriving," and "peaceful," and emphasizing how the animals or humans "got to know the system better" (Table 2).As mentioned above, many aspects of the CCC systems were spontaneously raised in the conversation at the meetings.From these conversations, it became clear that despite the challenges experienced, the participants generally agreed that it was a pleasure seeing the calves with the cows.Concepts mentioned repeatedly include the way the calves played, how calves seemed to learn things from the cows, how calves were perceived as "feeling safe" or "curious" or "naughty," and the calves' fast development.This pleasure of experiencing the CCC systems seemed to outweigh some of the worries that were expressed at the beginning of the Stable School process (e.g., whether the family or the neighbors would be bothered by the noise during cow-calf separation, whether the calves would become sick more easily when living between cows and calves of different age groups, and whether the calves would become more difficult to work with later in their lives).Such worries were expressed at the first meetings, but generally dissipated quickly and were replaced by more practical questions, doubts, and choices.

Widely Different Problem Areas
Table 2 gives an overview of the problem areas included on the agenda of the 21 meetings.As shown, they ranged from practical and specific problems to broad and system-oriented issues, which often encouraged an exchange of viewpoints beyond giving specific advice to the host farmer.Some problem areas were brought up several times, reflecting that each context required its own solution to a shared problem, although it could also be influenced by the fact that new participants entered the group and were struggling with the same issues in the beginning.The type of advice provided by fellow farmers evolved over time, even though new participants kept joining throughout the 3 years.The first meetings mostly involved a common exploration of CCC systems, and it was clear that the systems were new to almost everybody.Over time, more experiencebased advice became possible.As mentioned above, most farmers had the idea and intention from the beginning to practice some form of dam-rearing system.
The initial focus of farmers establishing CCC systems was clearly on the cow and the calf themselves: how to ensure that the calf got enough milk and feed, and was safe and thriving in the system, and how to observe them.Gradually, the focus shifted to how to use existing buildings in new ways and designing new types of pens, doors, walkways, grazing systems, feeding opportunities, hides, and other farm structures.The key concepts mentioned most often were the need for space and flexibility in the housing structures (e.g., the possibility to enlarge or divide pens, instead of having fixed walls), a sufficient number of pens for calving and bonding, and facilities for gradual weaning and separation.Plans for rebuilding, reorganizing, or building new systems were discussed toward the end of the data collection period when more of the participants asked for help with their building plans.
Issues related to grazing were another frequent discussion topic, brought up and discussed at 15 of the 21 meetings.All the farms were organic, and many farmers had a strong wish to let the animals graze, even though it is not mandatory to allow calves younger than 4 mo to graze.On the positive side, the mutual care between the cows and calves and the play behavior of the calves were mentioned.The farmers with grazing calves and cows noticed how quickly the calves learned the routines around walking to the fields, getting to know the electric fences, and interacting with other animals as group members.The concerns discussed were vulnerable calves, the need for rotation between fields, and the potential need for extra protection against, for example, rain or exposure to the sun.

The Calf, Cow, and Milk
The farmers implementing dam-rearing systems in the project period experienced difficulty getting milk from the cows when they were nursing their calves.The Stable School members speculated whether the calf had emptied the udder, but perceived it mainly as a problem of failed milk let-down, interpreting it as a phenomenon of the cow ("deliberately") keeping milk back to save it for her calf, and it appeared on the agenda as such (Table 2, meetings 1 and 18).The discussion came up spontaneously at several meetings and the suggested potential solutions ranged from technical advice-such as how to stimulate milk let-down in the preparation phase in the milking parlor-to changing routines, such as trying to separate the cow from her calf a few hours before or after milking.
Interestingly, the wording around the milk let-down problem gradually changed over time, although not consistently, from "loss of milk" to "sharing of milk between calves and farmers," and discussing what a "fair share" could be.However, the "lack of sharing the milk" remained a challenge for most farmers who kept calves with the dam for weeks or longer, but it made the hybrid system appear more feasible because the farmers also experienced that a cow's yield increased dramatically after separation, and the cow had roughly the same total yield per lactation.Some of the farmers pointed to the need for changes to price systems for milk and calves or subsidies for CCC systems if CCC systems should be more widely implemented.
At the final meeting, one farmer put the following question on the agenda: "How can the economy in a cow-calf system be calculated, and which factors should be included?"The host farmer shared a comprehensive economic calculation of the costs and revenue of the foster cow system that he had developed over the past year, which prompted a rich discussion on the financial costs and benefits of the different CCC systems.The host farmer concluded that he had gained economically from his foster cow system: he already had the buildings where the foster cows and calves stayed, and he had saved money on electricity and labor hours, among other things.Additionally, the calves did not become sick or die.Although this only covered one specific foster cow system on a single farm, it illustrated that a well-working CCC system with foster cows could be economically profitable.Furthermore, this seemed to expand the understanding of these systems and which effects should or could be taken into consideration when creating a financial plan, so the discussion widened from a focus on "less saleable milk" to include other factors.This has also been discussed by Eriksson et al. (2022), who discussed experience of having less labor involved in CCC system, and Hansen et al. (2023), who pointed to increased health and growth of calves.In the 3 years of Stable School, some of the farmers experienced having cows enter the milking herd that had been born as calves in their CCC system, but the growth of the heifers and the productivity of these cows were not systematically followed up.Farm economy, milk yields, and labor intensity seemed to be very farm specific, and most expressed that the amount of time spent with calves was quite similar, but just more unpredictable in CCC systems, which is in accordance with what was found by Bertelsen and Vaarst (2023) and Johanssen et al. (2023).However, Knierim et al. (2020) modeled and compared the full accounting of a dam-calf system with Vaarst and Christiansen: SOCIAL LEARNING TO DEVELOP COW-CALF CONTACT SYSTEMS an artificial rearing system, and found that in some cases, dam-calf systems could improve net profit.

Helping Each Other Navigate Problems, Especially Related to Ill Calves
At 6 meetings on 5 farms, calf disease was one of the problem areas discussed.In 5 cases, the illnesses were related to diarrhea caused by a virus, coccidia, or cryptosporidia, and in one case it was an unspecific lack of growth among some calves.The diseases were experienced both in outdoor and indoor systems and probably reflected one of the major shifts that the farmers had to go through when establishing CCC systems.Keeping a close eye on the calves and intervening early, as well as being very strict and alert regarding hygiene, group size, and age differences in a group of calves, all proved to be paramount to disease prevention, and calf care in both dam-rearing and foster cow systems seemed to require a completely different approach than in previous systems.It was noticed at a couple of meetings that the ones who normally took care of the calves had to undergo some learning and training to expand their skill set, including developing an ability to spot early signs of problems and to quickly judge the abilities of cows to take care of their calves.This need learning new practices and new ways of observing calves and cows was also explained by some of the farmers (e.g., Anonymous, 2022).Additionally, the need for communication between different persons on the farm became even more important to ensure a rapid and agreed-upon intervention and common learning for the future.This was explicitly addressed at meeting number 19 as a point on the agenda (Table 2).

Jumping Between "How to Do It" and "How to Think About It"
Many of the topics on the meeting agendas were practical problem areas and often centered on how to perform certain routines, especially new ones such as weaning, separation, improving reproduction, avoiding milk fever, and managing teat wounds.Some efforts were directed toward making the system work in the way that the farmer had envisioned it before starting (e.g., half-time systems).New routines and ways of looking at animals were discussed (e.g., "How can you determine if one calf drank more or less than the others?").Such issues often came up spontaneously as a part of the conversation at the meetings.
Many issues that arose throughout the process related to "how to think about these cow-calf systems."Gradually, the common notion of what constituted a "suitable system" changed, and at the same time continually stimulated debates and explorations.This emerged, for example, in the gradual move toward more and more interest in foster cow systems.Although dam rearing was the initial sole focus and was still highlighted as a way to fulfill the needs of both cow and calf, there was an increased interest in and inclusion of foster cow systems or hybrid systems (dam rearing for some weeks, followed by foster cow systems).The cows' interests were debated: the mother cow would still miss her calf in a foster cow system.Furthermore, there were 2 separation procedures: first the calf and its mother cow, and later the calves and their foster cow.The compromise between the animals' interests and practical concerns was discussed.Likewise, the choices to keep or sell bull calves, and at which age, were discussed several times, and also appeared on the agenda at meeting numbers 5 and 12 and as a success story at meeting number 6.The consumers' interests were mentioned a few times (e.g., in relation to milk prices or private sale of calf meat), but the farmers' own thoughts on what seemed right or wrong dominated the discussions.

Development of CCC Systems to Be Continued in New Forms
Farmers (that is, farm owners, managers, or employees) met 21 times over a period of 34 mo.Originally, 5 farms were represented.This gradually expanded to 16 farms, which were shareholders of 5 different dairy companies (in addition to an ice cream company, a café, a farm shop, and a local canteen).
At the 21st meeting, the Stable School approach was discussed.The process over the 3 years was generally greatly appreciated by the members, but they agreed to continue meeting using a more "discussion-based approach."However, the overall conclusion was that the process had been valuable for many reasons, including giving farmers the courage to change practices, enabling the exchange of viewpoints, helping each other, and stimulating continued change and adjustments.

How Can Situated Social Learning Potentially Contribute to Shaping Communities of Practice on CCC Systems?
The Stable School data pointed strongly to the benefits of being part of social processes to improve learning about complex systems.Farmers from vastly different farm backgrounds, almost none of which were suited to CCC systems from the start, socially co-produced knowledge at multiple learning sites, rather than "transferring" or "reproducing" knowledge.Thereby the knowledge as well as the learning process became meaningful to the participants because each could pick what was relevant to his or her situation (as discussed by Lave, 2019).The constant negotiation and renegotiation (e.g., of the advantages and disadvantages of different systems) showed that the Stable School environment created a safe space, which is a precondition for asking colleagues to help solve challenges in the herd.The common learning seemed to be built on dynamic cybernetic approaches as, for example, explained by Schön (1989) and Blackmore (2010), because the participants in these Stable Schools generated new contextual knowledge.They started talking about changed views on calves, sharing joy when seeing calves play and be on pasture with cows, and in some ways agreeing on new views and vocabularies around cow and calf behavior.Seen from this perspective, it could be carefully suggested that the social learning environment could shape emerging communities of practice, contributing to the participants seeing new futures and forming new identities as dairy farmers, and developing common understandings and vocabularies around cows and calves.Communities of practice are traditionally connected to professions where elements of social learning are taking form through apprenticeships (Lave and Wenger, 1991) and the transfer of knowledge from experienced to new learners happens in practice.This Stable School initiative was based on "practice as a center," which is paramount for this type of learning, as emphasized by Lave (2019).Although learning and knowledge generation happened in a group of experienced farmers who were mostly inexperienced with CCC systems, the core concepts from communities of practice might provide relevant insights into the dynamics related to these types of social change processes.This study points to the relevance of exploring whether and how common learning about new practices and systems could stimulate dialogs and transformations of views, support changes in the dairy sector toward new priorities on animals' needs, and specify the roles and responsibilities of farmers and caretakers of calves and dairy herds.

Future Perspectives on CCC Systems As a Step Toward Social Change in the Dairy Sector
This article is based on a relatively small number of Danish organic dairy farmers, who collectively explored the possibilities for creating CCC systems, which could be perceived as a major break with many of the characteristics of traditional dairy farming and its focus on milk production.We cannot conclude beyond the level of the farmers and farmer communities, and only give a reflection on the context of this phenomenon of the generally rising interest in CCC systems over the last few years, in combination with other agendas, for example regarding climate change and biodiversity, which potentially can affect the future directions of the dairy sector.Constancis et al. (2022) discussed foster cow systems in France as part of an agroecological transition.Thompson (2022) unfolded the motivations and experiences of a small group of British farmers, who kept calves with their mothers for much longer, described as "ethical dairying," and connected this to care and affective, empathetic entanglements with their animals, which can be viewed as strong responses to a concern that increasingly has been raised by the general public (Busch et al., 2017).Shaping dairy farming systems around such qualities and considering the life quality and natural needs of cows and calves can potentially be part of food quality conventions, along other qualities such as organic production, local food, and community involvement in food production, as explored by Thorsøe et al. (2017).Geels and Schott (2007) outlined a model and typology of sociotechnical transition pathways, including levels from niche innovations, which potentially could be aligned and stabilized, and could contribute to existing or new structures and designs, depending on various influences and windows of opportunity.In this regard, CCC systems potentially be part of larger sector transformations, in combination with other innovations and ways of organizing dairy farming activities, beyond niche production.These perspectives are beyond the scope of this article, but the outcomes of the 3 years of Stable School developments may suggest that further development of CCC systems at a wider scale will require more support and be more strongly prioritized through markets and governance of agricultural systems.

Reflections on the Applied Methodologies
The Stable School approach used in this study was open and dynamic.Some participants could be characterized as "core participants," who also opened up their farms and exposed themselves to the group and attended the meetings whenever possible.Compared with an approach where a smaller, closed group focused on a goal of mother-bonded calf rearing for a shorter period, this approach allowed for changing the focus along the way and probably gave a more nonhomogeneous and diverse conversation over time.Due to practical considerations, many participants were inhibited from joining some meetings (e.g., some had fewer possibilities to leave their farms, and 3 of the farmers were on maternity leave during the 3-year period).Some participants only participated in one or a few meetings, which could potentially create a negative atmosphere or hinder mutual sharing.In this case, the farms were extremely diverse, as can be seen in Table 1, which could hinder the learning between farmers.Finally, Vaarst and Christiansen: SOCIAL LEARNING TO DEVELOP COW-CALF CONTACT SYSTEMS the Stable School participants were shareholders of 5 different dairy companies, and they had no common business or legislative interest to fulfill by being participants.It was remarkable that such a highly diverse group of dairy farmers with very different backgrounds kept inspiring each other and discussing both practical and ethical issues and perceptions over a 3-year period.The atmosphere remained respectful and encouraged newcomers to join the conversation using the Stable School methodology of taking rounds and inviting each participant to give suggestions.
Regarding the research methodology, both authors had roles in the process as facilitators and notetakers.Neither of the authors gave direct feedback or participated in the conversations at the meetings.This research approach carried elements of action research as defined, for example, by Reason and Bradbury (2001) in terms of the direct influence on the process exercised by the facilitator (the second author) at most of the meetings: making contact with the host farmer, helping formulate the agenda, and guiding the conversations at the meetings.All suggestions and inputs were written down during the meeting as they were raised by the Stable School participants and were verified at the meeting when the host farmer revealed the future action points.They were confirmed after the meeting notes had been forwarded to everybody at the following meeting.The authors are conscious of the potential biases in the research approach but are confident that these notes serve as solid and verified documentation of the Stable School process.

CONCLUSIONS
Twenty-one Stable Schools meetings on 10 host farms demonstrated the value of social learning among the dairy farming community and how social learning in the context of cow-calf contact can play an important role in aiding farmers to adopt a new farming system.A wide range of issues and solutions were brought up in the conversations, and common knowledge and insights were developed.The participants helped each other solve concrete problems connected to the CCC systems.Some challenges were left unsolved, such as challenges with milk let-down in dam-rearing systems.Pleasure in seeing the system work and animals thrive was widely articulated, and the conversations during the meetings covered both the practical issues, ethical considerations, and views on farmers' roles in relation to animals and farming systems.A shared language was developed in some areas, which pointed to the relevance of considering communities of practice as a relevant concept for understanding the dynamics in the Stable School group.Foster cow systems received increasing interest, and practical possibilities such as existing housing systems shaped most systems.Some farmers mentioned higher prices for milk or calves or changing subsidy systems in favor of CCC systems as a precondition for more widespread changes in the sector toward CCC systems.

Table 1 .
Vaarst and Christiansen: SOCIAL LEARNING TO DEVELOP COW-CALF CONTACT SYSTEMS Characteristics of the farms, where Stable School meetings were hosted in the 3-yr period of cow-calf Stable Schools Host farm

Table 2 .
Overview of Stable School meetings held in the period from April 2019 (mo 1) to January 2022 (mo 34) 1

Table 2 (
Continued).Overview of Stable School meetings held in the period from April 2019 (mo 1) to January 2022 (mo 34) 1