Dairy goat doe-kid rearing systems: Farmers’ motivations and a description of practices, benefits and drawbacks

In French dairy goat systems, kids are generally separated from their mother does shortly after birth. The main drivers of this practice are related to health—especially the prevention of the Caprine Arthritis Encephalitis Virus (CAEV) transmission—and economics. However, the separation of young ruminants from their does is being increasingly questioned by society and has raised concerns about the satisfaction of their behavioral needs. Some farmers choose to leave their female kids with their does. The aims of this study were to understand their motivations for leaving kids with their does, to describe how kids are reared in this case and how farmers perceive different aspects of the impacts of this practice. Individual semi-structured interviews were carried out with 40 farmers who had implemented the kids-with-does practice for at least one year. Compared with the national database describing the French population of dairy goat farmers, the characteristics of the interviewed farmers differed from those of the general population. They were younger and had done longer studies. Their farms were smaller, mainly with rare breeds and milk was mainly processed on-farm under an organic certification system. They chose to implement this practice for different reasons: ethical considerations, improving integration of kids within the herd, saving time and increasing comfort at work or improving the kids’ growth, welfare, and health. The doe-kid rearing contact practices varied greatly be-tween farms, with some kids staying with their does from a period of 45 d to never being separated; furthermore, some kids remained with their does all day, while others remained together part of the day or for a limited time, and daily contact evolved over time. Overall, farmers were satisfied as the benefits quoted were coherent with their motivations to implement this rearing practice. Most have decided to continue the practice, though usually with changes. However, as 40% of them had only 3 years or less of experience of doe-kid rearing, some had not sufficient hindsight into long-term issues such as the transmission of CAEV. It is crucial to tackle challenges associated with this practice, i.e., potentially wild kids, health issues, and economic consequences stemming from a reduction in marketable milk.


INTRODUCTION
Under natural conditions, goats live in herds and kids show a strong attachment to their mother for more than 6 mo (Collias, 1956).However, in intensive dairy systems, female kids intended for herd replacement are generally separated from their does shortly after birth and then fed with milk replacer (Delgado-Pertíñez et al., 2009).This practice is mainly driven by health and economic concerns.One of the main reasons to separate kids at birth from their does is to prevent the transmission of infectious diseases, especially the Caprine Arthritis Encephalitis Virus (CAEV) (Callado et al., 2001;GDS France, 2023).CAEV is mainly transmitted through the colostrum and milk of CAEV-infected does, but it can also be transmitted by horizontal contamination (Adams et al., 1983).The main clinical expression of this disease is chronic arthritis which has a negative impact on goat welfare.In addition, this disease also leads to significant economic losses due to the premature culling of affected animals (Malher et al., 2001) and to a decrease in milk production (Martínez-Navalón et al., 2013).The choice to separate kids from their does is also an economic one, as more milk will be available for selling or processing (Meagher et al., 2019).
However, the separation between offspring and their mothers in dairy farming has been called into question by the public (Ventura et al., 2013;Hötzel et al., 2017;Vaarst et al., 2020), and indeed by the farmers themselves, who want to implement a more natural practice (Bertelsen and Vaarst, 2023).There is currently an ongoing increase Dairy goat doe-kid rearing systems: Farmers' motivations and a description of practices, benefits and drawbacks M. Berthelot, 1 * C. Aubert, 1 N. Ehrhardt, 2 C. Baudry, 1 and C. Paraud 1 in alternative rearing systems for calves in dairy cow farming (Vaarst et al., 2020).Calves can be reared by foster mother cows or cow-calf contact is permitted.This practice is particularly being developed in organic systems (Vaarst et al., 2020).The behavioral impacts of prolonged cow-calf contact have mostly been found to be positive: it promotes more normal social behavior, reduces abnormal behaviors (e.g., cross-sucking, tongue rolling) and sometimes reduces reactions to stressful situations (Meagher et al., 2019).Recent research on goats has shown that Saanen kids behavior was affected by the presence of the doe (e.g., kids reared with their mothers allogroomed more but play and play fight less than kids reared with same-age peers having no contact with their mothers).Following the weaning and mixing of kids, doe-reared kids performed better and were the object of fewer antagonistic interactions than "artificially" reared kids.However, this distinction decreased over time (Toinon et al., 2022).These results underline the influence played by does on the behavioral development of their young.However, research on this topic among goats remains scarce and doe-kid contact rearing systems in dairy goat production have neither been fully explored nor described.
Our study aimed to 1) describe the diverse doe-kid rearing systems currently implemented in France, 2) explore the motivations of farmers for keeping female kids with their does, and 3) assess how farmers perceive the impacts of this practice.The study focused exclusively on female kids intended for herd replacement and farmers who reared goat kids with their mother doe for at least one week and who had at least one year of experience with this kind of approach.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
Before commencement, the study was registered with the French data protection authority (CNIL) and designed to comply with all appropriate laws, regulations and policies governing the use of human subjects in research.All the farmers who agreed to participate in the study were sent an e-mail detailing their rights concerning the collected data.Participation was voluntary and all answers were anonymized.

Farmer identification and recruitment
Given the absence of a centralized database containing the contact information of farmers engaged in rearing female replacement goat kids with their does, farmers were identified through diverse approaches that included referrals from industry representatives, farmers, and online searches.Anticipating variations in answers to the survey and utilizing semi-structured interviews, we aimed to reach a sample size of 30 to 60 farmers to achieve data saturation (Morse, 2000).A list of 73 contacts was created and all these farmers were called.Out of these, 40 farmers willingly responded and met the recruitment criteria.Nine either declined due to a lack of time or initially agreed to participate but could not be reached afterward or changed their mind, 6 contacted farmers had ceased the practice, 2 did not meet the recruitment criteria and the others were either not concerned (they in fact did not rear kids with their does) or the interviewers were not able to contact them.We thus took into consideration the interviews of 40 farmers who reared kids with their does in France.

Interview design
The questionnaire was first tested with 3 farmers in summer 2020.Following these interviews, the questionnaire was improved.Two interviewers were involved in data collection.The first interviewer was the first author, a young female researcher working on goat welfare with previous experience in similar surveys conducted with dairy cow farmers.The second interviewer was the second author, an experienced male technician with many years of experience with dairy goat farmer surveys.To ensure that interviews were conducted consistently by the interviewers, the first 2 phone surveys for data collection were each performed by both interviewers, with one leading the survey and filling in the questionnaire, and the other one only listening and filling in the questionnaire.
The questionnaire was primarily comprised of closedended, multiple-choice, and numerical questions, with a limited number of open-ended questions related to motivations, concerns, benefits, and drawbacks.It was structured around 5 main topics.Initially, it revolved around personal, demographic, and farm-related information.Subsequently, farmers were asked about their motivation for starting doe-kid rearing practices and when they decided to change.The third part focused on describing the way female kids were reared, covering aspects such as length of contact with does, outdoor access, weaning, relations with humans, and milking management.The fourth section concentrated on the impacts of this rearing practice on animal production, animal health, and herd management, with a specific focus on farmers who had transitioned from artificial feeding to doe suckling.Finally, the survey explored general benefits, drawbacks, and future prospects regarding doe-kid rearing practices (10.5281/zenodo.10978015).As practices could evolve over the years, farmers were interviewed on the last complete period of kid rearing.

Interview process
Individual semi-structured phone interviews were conducted from December 2020 to April 2021.Phone interviews were chosen to reach farmers all over France making up the targeted number.Interviews were done from the workplace, each interviewer being alone in his/ her office.No audio recordings were made.At the beginning of each call, the interviewer introduced him/herself and explained the objectives of the study.Farmers were informed that about one hour was needed to complete the whole interview.Each farmer was only interviewed once.The first interviewer interviewed 24 farmers, and the second interviewer, 16 farmers.
Data were collected on paper during interviews and subsequently transferred to an Excel file.The data were not returned to participants.The main researcher was in charge of verifying the final data, checking for coherence, cleaning the file and organizing and coding the data (e.g., creation of qualitative variables from quantitative variables, categorization of the practices according to age at separation) for subsequent analysis.A descriptive analysis was conducted using Excel (Microsoft, USA, Redmond, 2016) and R Studio (Posit Software, USA, Boston, V.2021.09.0).For open-ended questions, responses were categorized to facilitate analysis.When some answers to specific questions were missing, the number of answers was specified in the results.If not, the number was 40.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results from the survey were grouped and discussed according to 5 main themes: 1) Participants and farm demographics; 2) Motivations and fears before implementing a doe-kid rearing system; 3) Diversity of rearing practices; 4) Impacts of doe-kid rearing practices on behavioral, financial, animal production, and health aspects; and 5) Global benefits, drawbacks and future prospects.

Participants and farm demographics
Interviews took on average one hour and 10 min.The demographic data on farmer participants and their farms are presented in Tables 1 and 2.
As 75% of the farmers were under the age of 49, the participants were slightly younger than the French national references (60% of goat breeders being under the age of 49) (Assmann, 2021).Almost 3-quarters of the farmers reported that they did not have a farming background (Table 1), while 60.5% of the farmers (n = 38) had completed at least 2 years of studies after obtaining high school diploma.The interviewed farmers had a higher study level than national references (Agreste, 2016), as only about 20% of French farmers nationwide (all productions) had taken a higher education course (e.g., Diploma of Advanced Technician, engineer).
Participants were located throughout France (Figure 1).Their distribution was broadly coherent with the national distribution of French dairy goat farmers, except for the department of Corsica (Assmann, 2021).We observed an over-representation of Corsican farmers in our sample: 17.5% of interviewed farmers were located in Corsica, while Corsican goat breeders only account for less than 5% of total French goat farmers.This high proportion of Corsican farmers may be due to the fact that in this department, rearing kids with their does appeared to be the norm (Bordeaux et al., 2008).
In our population, 67.5% of herds had fewer than 100 goats, whereas only 51% of dairy goat farms at the national level had herds of this size (Assmann, 2021).Of the interviewed farmers, 75% kept fewer than 30 female kids for herd replacement.This represented a mean herd replacement rate of 24.4% (range: 8-108%).This mean herd replacement rate was lower than the national mean herd replacement rate of 35% (Pomiès et al., 2023).On 12.5% of the farms, goat-related production was as important as another production (dairy cows, ewes, ducks or vineyards for instance).The mean human labor unit per farm was 1.9 (ranging from 1 to 6).All farmers produced milk, and one farmer also reared Angora goats for wool production.Of the interviewed farmers, 82.5% processed all milk on-farm, which is far higher than national references (47%; Assmann, 2021).65% of the farmers also indicated that they reared other kids with their does for different purposes, mainly for meat or sale.Of all the farmers surveyed, 22.5% milked their does by hand.This percentage is quite high, as mechanized milking is widely used on French farms (Le Du, 1989).A little over one quarter (25.6%) of the farmers (n = 39) complied with a milk inspection system.
Most of the farmers reared a rare breed only (45%) or one rare breed in addition to Alpine or Saanen goats (32.5%).This differed from what is generally observed on French farms, where Alpine and Saanen goats represent 97% of goats reared for milk production, making them the most common breeds on farms (France génétique Elevage, s.d.).Mating was seasoned on most farms.82.5% of all the participating farmers mated young females for the first time around 8 mo of age (minimum 6, maximum 11), while the remaining farmers mated kids at 18 mo.The 'organic' label was attributed to 52.5% of productions and the 'Nature&Progrès' label-which is more demanding-to 2.5%.On a national level, only about 20% of French goat farmers were certified 'organic' in 2019 (Assmann, 2021 and Agence Bio s.d.).A similar over-representation of organic farms was also observed in a study on cow-calf contact (Michaud et al., 2018), and studies on this topic in the dairy cow production sector have mainly concerned organic farmers (Vaarst et al., 2020).Another specific feature of the interviewed farmers is that they all gave their goats outdoor access (pasture, trails, mountain pastures in the summer, etc.), while grazing is practiced on only 40% of goat farms in France (Agreste, 2019).
Twenty-two farmers (55% of the surveyed farmers) had previous experience in artificial rearing.Half of them began their activity after 2009 (1991-2020).Among these farmers, half of them changed from rearing kids on artificial milk to doe-kid rearing 5 years ago or less.Concerning farmers who had always reared kids with their does, 50% began their activity after 2015 (1988-2020), and so 50% have less than about 5 years of experience with the practice, which is similar to the group of farmers who started rearing kids with artificial milk.Finally, 40% of the interviewed farmers had only 3 years or less of experience in doe-kid rearing.
The profiles of the farmers in our survey showed specific particularities compared with national references with respect to farmers' age and training, herd size, organic certification, outdoor access for goats, milk being processed on-farm, goat breeds, herd replacement rate and milking practice.Similar particularities (e.g., low herd replacement rate, practiced crossbreeding) were also observed among French dairy cows farmers who reared calves with nurses in organic systems (Constancis et al., 2022a).

Motivations and fears before implementing a doe-kid rearing system
Farmers' answers were grouped to facilitate analysis.For instance, time savings at work or an increased comfort at work were merged into one category; ethical reasons, a more natural system and personal value and pleasure were merged into another category.
The main drivers quoted by the farmers to explain why they chose a doe-kid rearing system were their personal values, their ethics and/or the fact that this system is considered more natural (42.5% of the farmers).The second motivation (35% of the farmers) was to allow bonding between kids and their mothers to improve the integration of kids into the herd and to let does express their maternal behavior.Third, 32.5% of the farmers hoped that this system would decrease their work time and increase their comfort.Finally, improving kids' growth, kids' and does' welfare, kids' health and immunity were 3 other quite important motivations cited by the farmers (27.5%, 22.5% and 22.5% respectively).Other reasons quoted by between 7.5% and 15% of the farmers included "cost savings" or "prohibitive cost of organic milk powder" or "feeding autonomy"; "more coherent with organic farming regulations" or "anticipating a change in organic farming regulations"; "poor management of artificial rearing"; and "group dynamic" or "work group."Some Corsican farmers indicated that they had implemented the practice because it was traditional to rear kids this way in this region.
As more than 50% of the farms in our survey were organic, the primary motivation expressed (a more natural system, ethical reasons…) is coherent with Lund's (2006) definition of animal welfare in organic agriculture, which emphasized 'natural living' and the preference of organic farmers for a more natural system (Wagenaar and Langhout, 2007).As identified by Bertelsen and Vaarst (2023), the term 'natural' here did not refer to how things occur in nature, but was closely tied to an ethical responsibility for animal care, enabling them to express their needs.This encompassed maternal instincts and the bond between offspring and mothers.
A perception of ease of management (flexibility, and reduced labor or work time and improved working conditions) was also quoted by both Danish (Bertelsen and Vaarst, 2023) and French dairy cow farmers (Michaud et al., 2018).Improved animal health and welfare and lower breeding costs were also motivations mentioned by dairy cow farmers (Michaud et al., 2018;Eriksson et al., 2022;Constancis et al., 2022a).Lastly, some farmers mentioned their participation in a work group where the practice was mentioned.Vaarst and Christiansen (2023) supported the idea that practicing communities can help farmers who were keen on developing, implementing, and enhancing cow-calf contact systems in different dairy farming contexts.
The majority of farmers (72.5%) indicated that they did not have concerns before choosing to implement this practice.Among the fears quoted by the remaining farmers, there were 1) milk or financial loss (12.5% of the farmers), negative health impacts (10%), wilder kids (7.5%), poor growth, teat issues, does without a maternal instinct and kids exposed to cold (2.5% each).Conventional dairy cow farmers in pasture-based systems in New Zealand expressed similar fears with cow-calf contact systems: increased risk of mastitis, difficulty in handling cows, lower milk production (Neave et al., 2022).These cow farmers also expressed fears not mentioned by the farmers in our study (e.g., difficulties associated with a change in the system, stress at separation).Surveys should be carried out among goat farmers who have not implemented doe-kid rearing practices, to identify all reasons that prevent from implementing this practice.

Doe selection criteria and colostrum management.
The following criteria to choose those does who would be allowed to keep and suckle female kids were cited by the farmers: milk production (70% of the farmers), udder conformation (30%), nice personality (30%), health (25%), standard/beauty criteria (17.5%), body condition (17.5%) and rusticity (15%).However, some farmers selected the kids directly based on their birth weight, growth or morphology (12.5%).
On 82.5% of the farms, kids suckled colostrum independently but the farmer intervened if needed.Fifteen percent declared they never intervened and 2.5% systematically intervened.Failing to feed colostrum in a timely manner was one of the issues raised by dairy cow farmers with a cow-calf rearing system (Neave et al., 2022).If good quality colostrum, with an adequate concentration of immunoglobulins, is not taken quickly and in sufficient quantity, the passive transfer of immunity could fail (Zamuner et al., 2023).In our survey, this aspect was not mentioned as an issue, though the farmers appeared to keep a careful eye on the kids and intervened for instance if the kid did not suckle or needed help to suckle correctly.However, colostrum quality was mainly unknown to farmers, as only one farmer used a refractometer to check colostrum quality.In addition, we lacked information on the quantity and timing at the first colostrum intake.
Rearing systems.All but one of the farmers reared all the female kids kept for herd replacement with the does.The vast majority (90%) of farmers left the kids with the whole herd.While kids could be allocated to different pens, according to goat management practices, they were still reared the same way.Only 7.5% of the farmers al- lowed kid access only to their own mothers, which were separated from the herd when they were reunited with the kids.One farmer granted kids access to the whole herd for 1 mo, and then only to specific does (50-60 adults for 40 kids) for another month.Unlike for cows (Vaarst et al., 2020), in our survey, goat farmers did not use freeroaming foster mother does to adopt and suckle the kids.
In our study, 3 rearing systems linked to age at doekid separation were identified: 1) "Early separation" (35% of the farms) where kids were separated from the does between 45 and 90 d of age (mean age: 66.6 d), 2) "Late separation" (25% of the farms) where kids were separated from the doe between 120 and 240 d of age (mean age: 175.5 d) and 3) "No separation" (40% of the farms) where kids were never completely separated from their does.In each of these 3 rearing systems, 2 or 3 subsystems were identified, linked to the daily time spent by kids with the does: 1) "Restricted contact" (<2h/day), 2) "half-day contact," 3) "full-day" contact (24h/24).Similar practices in terms of time spent per day by calves with cows have been described in dairy cow farming (Johnsen et al., 2016).The 3 systems and their sub-systems are presented in Figure 2.
Restricted contact was mostly found in the "Early separation" rearing method and followed a period of full-day contact.Kids accessed their does generally before milking.
In the half-day system, kids either spent the day or the night with the does.In this category we included mixed systems of half-day and full-day contact, which varied considerably from one farm to another as to the duration of the half and full-day contact period, with some farms having a full-day contact period longer than the half-day contact period, and vice versa.This system was found in the 3 rearing systems.When describing their practice, farmers indicated that kids were generally separated at milking or when does go out or come in from the pasture.Some farmers also indicated that they created a specific pen only accessible to kids, where kids spent their time when separated; this facilitated manipulation, as they learned to quickly go into this pen when needed.
Full-day contact throughout the rearing period was the least common method in this survey.In our survey, 4 farmers who let kids stay with their does all the time separated them at between 45 and 90 d of age, which was close to what was described by Johnsen et al. (2016) in cows, where calves and cows were kept together 24 h per day for 6 to 12 weeks.The other 4 farmers who used this system separated the kids late or did not separate them at all.The time spent by kids with does is highly variable between farms, and in most cases, kids experimented periods of separation from their doe during the day.In their review, Newberry and Swanson (2008) indicated that brief periods of separation may reduce the impact of separation at weaning.On the other hand, in rodents and primates, the periodic removal of neonates from their mothers for several hours can lead to behavioral and physiological signs of depression (Pryce et al., 2005;Newberry and Swanson, 2008).Also, the "restricted contact" system may limit the opportunities for kids to learn from their own mothers or other does (Johnsen et al., 2016).One of the benefits of a free contact system, on the other hand, appears to be the proper expression of natural social behavior.A disadvantage of this practice, however, is the high stress level felt by both animals and farmers at weaning time (Johnsen et al., 2016).However, Bertelsen and Jensen (2023) did not find that half-day rearing reduced the behavioral response to weaning and separation in calves.
Half-day and full-day systems in goat farming have been compared by Winblad von Walter et al. ( 2021).These authors were not able to conclude on which treatment (full access, half-day contact or permanent separation from an early age) was the most stressful.In their respective studies, Högberg et al. (2021) focused on kids, while Bertelsen and Jensen (2023) examined calves, and neither study found significant differences in the average daily weight gain, whether reared with their mothers the whole day or reared with their mothers for a half-day before weaning.However, in their experiment, Roadknight et al. (2022) suggested that calves from a half-day contact system were hungrier than those from full-day contact at the end of the half-day, as they showed a longer latency to lie, a shorter lying duration and more time spent suckling when reunited with cows.
Finally, Johnsen et al. (2016) indicated that a half-day system can be considered more labor-intensive than letting kids remain with their does all the time due to the daily separation of kids and does.However, they moderated their statements by indicating that this separation could be automated.On the other hand, Roadknight et al. (2022) suggested that half-day contact may offer practical advantages over full-day contact, as it may facilitate pasture management, and only requires once-daily separation.
Doe-kid rearing practices were highly variable between farms.The effects of the different rearing practices on kids' behavior, growth, stress at weaning and working time are not well-known and deserve further investigations.
Access to pasture.Of all the interviewed farmers, 72.5% let kids go out to pasture with their does, especially when kids stayed more than 90 d with them.The mean age of first outdoor access with their does was 35 d (range: 0-120 d).According to the vast majority of farmers (96.5%, n = 29), going out with the does facilitated pasture learning for kids.They learnt earlier how to graze by copying the does so as to discover the environment (crossing rivers, learning about fences and respecting them).These sentiments also were shared by dairy cow farmers (Vaarst et al., 2020).However, this practice raised a health issue.Kids are particularly susceptible to be early parasitized as soon as they eat grass if they go outdoors with the does (Constancis et al., 2022b;Hoste et al., 2012).
Weaning and separation.Sixty percent of the interviewed farmers permanently separated kids from their does (no contact).One of the reasons was to wean the kids (weaning is defined here as the cessation of milk consumption).This was the reason given by all the farmers using the "early separation" (n = 14) rearing method, except by one who separated kids at 45 d before weaning them 3 weeks later.In this group, the median age of kids at separation and weaning was 60 d (range: 45-90 d).When kids are separated at birth from their does, they are then generally weaned around this age on European goat farms (Vickery et al., 2022).Concerning farmers who separated kids after 120 d (i.e., "late separation," n = 10), 3 farmers indicated this was done to wean kids (weaning was done at 120, 135 or 150 d), and the other 7 explained that this was done to manage mating with selected bucks or to postpone mating to 18 mo.In this late separation category, weaning could occur either at the moment of separation or be managed by the doe herself.
On these farms (n = 24), when kids were completely separated from the does, 20.8% of the farmers did not hear the kids bleating, or only for a few hours after separation; 54.2% heard bleating for between 1 and 3 d; and 25% said the bleating lasted for more than 3 d.Concerning the does' reaction, 37.5% of farmers did not hear bleating, or only for a few hours after separation; 45.8% heard bleating for between 1 and 3 d; and 16.7% said the bleating lasted for more than 3 d.These results were similar to what dairy cows farmers heard when separating calves from cows: they heard vocalizations by calves and cows for a mean of 2.4 d (Michaud et al., 2018).All of the farmers indicated that they did not encounter any difficulty in feeding kids after their separation.The stress felt at separation by does and kids may depend on the daily contact time between kids and does and the kids' age at the time of definitive separation.Wenker et al. (2022) indicated that weaning of calves is less stressful at 8 mo of age than between 8 and 12 weeks of age.The duration of bleating may also be impacted by the geographic location of kids after physical separation.In our study, on 54.2% of the farms where kids were separated from the does (n = 24), kids were housed in the same building than does after separation.When visual or auditory contact are maintained, acute responses may be more intense and prolonged compared with separation without any possible contact (Neave et al., 2022).
Farmers did not express the fact that separation could be a stressing moment for both does and kids.They did not notice unusual behavior in kids after separation.Late separation was, however, a concern for conventional dairy cow farmers (Neave et al., 2022), and in a survey conducted by Michaud et al. (2018), farmers who reared calves with dams or foster mother cows considered that separation is a stressful period for cows.
The other farmers (40%) never fully separated (24h/24h) kids from does.Avoiding separation could be construed as helpful for farmers, as it avoids having to reintegrate kids into the herd and assures good relationships between animals.In this group, weaning was either done using a "goat bit," a small wooden bit placed in the kid's mouth to prevent her from suckling its mother, while still allowing her to be with the does (8 farmers) or naturally by the does (8 farmers).According to farmers who used goat bits, the 'goat bit' does not prevent the kids from eating solid food.However, to our knowledge, negative impacts on kids' behavior or possible injuries (especially mouth injuries) have never been investigated.The median age at weaning in the "no separation" group (excluding the farmers who never completely separated kids from their mothers and did not use traditional goat bits) was 112.5 d (range: 60-150).
Interestingly, separation from does was not always associated with weaning, but can be associated with mating, and inversely, no separation did not mean that kids were not weaned earlier.Most farmers in our survey weaned kids later than on conventional farms in Europe (67.5% at 90 d or more, including farmers who let the does weaned the kids themselves; Vickery et al., 2022).Late weaning was also observed on organic dairy cow farms that implemented a cow-calf contact system (Belluz, 2018) or a foster cow system (Constancis et al., 2022a).As for daily time spent with the does, weaning practices were highly variable among farms.Further studies are needed to investigate how the different weaning practices affect kids and does welfare.
Milking management.Among the interviewed farmers, 97.5% milked the does that were rearing female kids.One did not currently milk them, but planned to.Seventy-seven percent of the farmers (n = 39) started milking the does rearing the female kids the week following kidding, while the others started at 65 d on average (range: 10-180).Thirty-eight point 5 percent of the farmers milked does that were rearing female kids twice a day, 35.9%only once.The other farmers switched from once-daily milking to twice-daily milking (or vice versa) during the lactation period.The practice of once-daily milking may be explained by the fact that it may reduce the workload (Komara et al., 2009).The association between once-daily milking and cow-calf rearing was also observed in 8 farms out of 20 where French dairy cow farmers reared calves with nurses (Constancis et al., 2022a).Fifteen point 4 percent of the farmers (n = 39) did not milk these does that were rearing female kids in the same way as they milked the does that were not rearing kids or were rearing fattening kids (e.g., the other does were milked earlier after parturition).
On 27.5% of the farms, kids could follow their does to the milking area (or milking was done in the pen where the kids were too) during the whole suckling period, and 7.5% of the farmers let kids follow their doe at milking time for some of the suckling period.Most of the farmers who separated kids during milking found separation easy (for some, kids were already separated at the time of milking), but a learning phase was needed.However, 2 farmers found it difficult.Contrarily to most of farmers interviewed in our study, dairy cow farmers who did not implement the cow-calf contact felt that bringing cows to the milking-parlor would be difficult and stressful for workers in a cow-calf contact system (Neave et al., 2022).
Finally, 75% of the interviewed farmers believed that does being suckled by kids were neither more difficult nor easier to milk than the other goats.However, 15% of the farmers reported that milking does that were being suckled by kids was more challenging, while 5% found it easier.Another 2.5% of farmers noted only a difference for primiparous does, for which it was easier.The remaining 2.5% of farmers did not know.

Impacts of doe-kid rearing practices on behavioral, financial, animal production, and health aspects
Behavioral aspects.82.5% of the farmers thought that the presence of the mothers enhanced kids' feeding behavior (ingestion or diversification).7.5% did not think that and 10% did not know.Dairy cow farmers also thought that calves developed capacities and skills through learning form the dams (Vaarst et al., 2020).Several studies have pointed out that learning and socializing are 2 benefits for the young of having access to maternal care (Mogi et al., 2011).
All the farmers were asked if it was easy to handle kids before separation from the does or generally speaking if they do not separate kids from does.The reply was yes for 45%, moderately for 40% and not easy for 12.5%.Two point 5 percent did not know.For farmers who separated kids from their does (n = 24), 45.8% considered it easy to manage the kids after separation, 50% considered it moderately easy and 4.2% thought it was not easy.At first milking 67.6% (n = 37) of the farmers considered that does were easy to manage, 27% moderately easy, 2.7% difficult and 2.7% did not know.Handling seems to improve with time as 94.3% of the farmers (n = 35) said that adults were easy to handle, while one farmer said they were not and the other did not know.Some farmers could not answer to the 2 last questions concerning does at first milking and adults, as their doelings had not yet kidded for the first time or had only just kidded, so they did not have enough hindsight.
Fifty-nine point one percent of the farmers who had previously reared kids on artificial milk before changing to doe-kid rearing (n = 22) indicated that it was more time-consuming to create a relationship with doe-reared kids than with kids raised on artificial milk.31.8%answered that it was the same and 9.1% that it took them less time than before.Seventy-two point 7 percent found kids were wilder when reared with their does than when "artificially" reared, 22.7% did not see any difference, and 4.6% found they were less wild.
In dairy cow production, one argument for separating calves from cows is that leaving calves with their dams could increase difficulties in handling the young as they could be wilder.Furthermore, cows could become more aggressive toward humans to defend their calves (Vaarst et al., 2020).However, as in our study, these last authors indicated that even if some dairy cow farmers found that calves were wilder, others had the opposite experience.Moreover, Neave et al. (2022) indicated that farmers practicing cow-calf contact said that cow-reared heifers were still friendly and didn't become wild, and some even said that they became friendlier after weaning, which also seemed to be the impressions of the interviewed goat farmers.
Working conditions.Eighty-six point 4 percent of the farmers who changed the way they reared kids (n = 22) indicated that doe-kid rearing took them less time than artificial rearing, 4.5% more time and 9.1% the same time.Part of the time spent managing artificial rearing may be redirected to other tasks: spending time with kids, manipulations to separate them from the does if they did not stay all day with them.
In dairy cow production, the time saved is controversial.Vaarst et al. (2020) indicated that most interviewees considered that farmers need to reconsider cow-calf contact systems, as they did not necessarily allow them to save time and effort, especially due to the time needed to get calves used to humans.
Dairy milk production and financial aspects.The farmers were asked about milk production and milk quality.However, the answers were too imprecise and some did not have the information sought (maybe as only 25.6% of the farmers complied with a milk inspection system), so the results are not presented for these variables.
Sixty-seven point 5 percent of the farmers thought that the presence of kids could stimulate doe milk production, 15% thought not and 17.5% did not know.In regard to farmers who consistently raised kids with their does in our survey (n = 18), 83.3% believed that this practice reduced the quantity of collected milk.Another 11.1% were uncertain, and 5.6% thought there was no impact.Additionally, 50% believed that this practice negatively affected their financial results, while 38.9% believed there was no impact, and 11.1% were uncertain.
Concerning financial aspects, farmers who had changed their practice estimated that there was no impact of the practice on their income, while others estimated they had a lower or higher income.However, they agreed on the fact that a doe-kid rearing system lowered the quantity of milk delivered or processed (Table 3).Economic impacts may be strongly linked to milk production, which appeared to be lower for most farmers, probably due to the fact that kids consumed part of the saleable milk.However, some farmers explained their higher income by the fact that the practice took them less time and they had fewer veterinary costs.This feedback was also mentioned by cow-calf contact farmers; even if there were possible saleable milk losses, they gained in animal health, didn't pay a calf rearer and reduced labor requirements (Neave et al., 2022).
The review by Meagher et al. (2019) reported that out of 16 papers investigating the effect of suckling on milk production during the suckling period, 7 found a decrease, 7 an increase, and 2 no difference.The results were also controversial after the suckling period, but most studies that assessed quantities beyond the suckling period did not find statistically significant differences in long-term yield after separation (Meagher et al., 2019).
Kid growth.The majority of farmers estimated that the growth of the kids was good before (82.5%) and after (70%) weaning.The farmers who switched from artificial rearing to doe-kid rearing agreed that kids grew better both from birth to weaning and after weaning when they were reared by their mothers (Table 4).However, all these results must be treated with caution, as age at weaning may differ from farmers' previous practice, was highly variable between farms and as only 40% of farmers weighed their kids to objectify this feedback.
In 3 studies (Paez Lama et al., 2013;Tsiplakou et al., 2016;Torres et al., 2021), better growth was observed in doe-reared kid groups compared with kids reared with artificial milk.However, no differences were found in other studies (Delgado-Pertíñez et al., 2009;De Palo et al., 2015).These different results between studies may be due to kid ages, the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of maternal milk and additional solid food given, the different methods of administering artificial milk and the different breeds (Tsiplakou et al., 2016).

Health aspects.
Doe udder health Twenty-five percent of interviewed farmers considered that by suckling, kids damaged udder integrity.Some specific issues were quoted: injuries from teeth, some found the udder wet while others said it was too dry, possible emergence of pustules or chafing, contagious ecthyma, and udder asymmetry due to the fact that kids suckled on the same teat.Seventy-five percent of the farmers thought that the practice did not impact the prevalence of mastitis, 7.5% estimated that it lowered it, and 17.5% did not know.Regarding somatic cells count (SCC), most farmers (72.5%) did not know if there was an impact of doe-kid rearing practices on SCC.No farmer reported sanitary issues linked to Shiga toxin producing Escherichia coli.The difficulty in answering questions concerning mastitis and SCC may be due to the fact that most farmers did not adhere to any milk control system.In dairy cows, several studies demonstrated a beneficial effect of suckling systems in reducing the risk of mastitis in dairy cows (lower results for the California Mastitis Test compared with non-suckled cows) or no effect (Beaver et al., 2019).
In the group of farmers who had changed their practice, 63.6% observed less diarrhea among their kids from birth to weaning.The others did not see any impact.After weaning, only 22.7% observed less diarrhea.As for growth, these results have to be taken with caution.Concerning respiratory issues, the farmers estimated that the practice did not have an impact whatever the kids' age.
In their review, Beaver et al. (2019) indicated that 6 studies demonstrated the benefits of cow-calf contact on scours, 8 no differences and 2 a greater risk of scours in dam-reared animals.Several factors may have impacted the results: study design, breed or diagnostic methods.Finally, among the papers reviewed by Beaver et al. (2019) on respiratory health in dairy cows (n = 7), 5 did not find an impact of the calf-rearing system (dam vs. artificial), one found a higher risk of pneumonia, and one found a lower risk.Other factors, such as housing structure, could have an impact on respiratory disease.
Infectious diseases One of the main reasons for separating kids from does at birth is to prevent does transmitting disease to their kids, for example CAEV or paratuberculosis (Adams et al., 1983;Ikonomopoulos et al., 2007).
Only one farmer declared to be officially free from CAEV.Among the other farmers, 47.5% reported clinical signs of CAEV (mostly swollen knees, or sometimes udder asymmetry) on a variable but imprecise proportion of their goats.Most farmers did not report an evolution of clinical signs within the herd, but some farmers indicated that they did not have enough hindsight to see an evolution mainly because they had only been goat farming for  a few years, whereas CAEV is a disease that takes a long time to develop.Others never quoted clinical signs.The survey revealed that 32.5% of the farmers said they had observed clinical signs evocating paratuberculosis in their herds (weight loss).Only 5% of the farmers vaccinated goats against paratuberculosis, and 5 farmers explained that they would introduce vaccination in the future if needed.In cow-calf contact systems, none of the studies reviewed by Beaver et al. (2019) was able to identify an increased prevalence of paratuberculosis.

Global benefits, drawbacks, and future prospects
Benefits and drawbacks.We asked farmers about the main benefits but also, through a different question, the specific benefits concerning their own welfare.As answers were sometimes similar, they were merged per topic to simplify the analysis, which probably impacted the number of answers concerning benefits for the farmer.Among all the benefits and drawbacks quoted by farmers, some topics (such as work time and wild kids) have been discussed in the previous section and will not be discussed again here.Feedback from farmers was coherent with previous more detailed results from our survey as presented above.
Benefits quoted directly concerning the farmers' welfare were: pleasure at work and coherency with personal values (75%) and decreased working time and/or increased comfort (65%).Rearing kids with does is a source of pride for the farmers and a pleasure, which is very motivating.The benefit concerning pleasure at work and coherency with personal values was also quoted by dairy cow farmers (Vaarst et al., 2020).
Other benefits concerning the animals, which nonetheless contributed somewhat to farmers' welfare, were better integration or learning of kids within the herd and bonding with the herd (55%), good growth (52.5%),increased doe and kid welfare (50%) and the kids' good overall health (42.5%).Among the other benefits quoted by less than 20% of the farmers were the good quality of meat and/or the fact that this practice is a marketing benefit and a source of good communication with consumers; economic gain or fewer veterinary costs; fewer issues than with milk feeders and no need to manage milk powder; coherent with the organic system; allows milk production to be spread throughout the year.
Our results are in line with the benefits found by a survey conducted with dairy cow farmers for cow-calf contact rearing.Farmers stated that this practice reduces labor cost and improves calf growth, health, and welfare (Bolton et al., 2021).Better growth, health, less disease, and a lighter workload were also positive economic consequences reported by farmers implementing cow-calf contact (Hansen et al., 2023).
22.5% of the farmers did not identify any drawbacks with doe-kid rearing.32.5% of the surveyed farmers expressed the fact that kids were considered too wild, not close enough to humans, or noted that this practice requires the farmer to spend more time with them to avoid having wild kids.Another drawback quoted by 20% of the farmers was the supplementary time needed or arduous nature of some tasks, like the separation of kids from does for milking, or of does from the rest of the herd when they return from pasture, more cleaning, and more attention needing to be focused on kids.The same percentage of farmers indicated that they felt that the practice has negative economic impacts or that they have less milk to sell.Seventeen point 5 percent of the farmers were annoyed that kids managed to enter the feeding area or did not respect the pasture fences.Other drawbacks were concerns about health impacts (CAEV, paratuberculosis, parasitism) and how to manage them (10%), poor growth of kids, udder injuries and the fact that it was not easy to match kids with their mothers at birth when there were a lot of kids born at the same time.
Our results are in line with drawbacks stated by dairy cow farmers, who raised the issue of separation stress, loss of saleable milk, and lack of control during the milk feeding period (Bolton et al., 2021).The reduction of saleable milk was considered as the most important barrier to adopting cow-calf contact practices by Norwegian farmers (Hansen et al., 2023).However, as in our study, farmers who reared calves with cows estimated that the benefits outweighed the potential challenges, in particular concerning health and growth, which afforded economic benefits in the long term.However, dairy goat farmers are confronted with CAEV, a disease that develops over the long-term and which is not found in dairy cow production.
Future prospects.Most farmers will continue to rear kids with their does, but some will make changes (Table 5).
Communication.Among the participating farmers, 75% shared information about their practices through various means; e.g., visitors, Innovative Centres for the Valorisation of Farming and Rural areas, prospective farmers, technicians, and trade unions.However, only 30% of them were part of a group that exchanged insights on doe-kid rearing whereas Vaarst and Christiansen (2023) showed that social exchanges between farmers can play an important role in helping them to adopt a new rearing system or adapt it.
When asked about how other farmers and technical advisors perceived this practice, 37.5% responded 'positively', 2.5% 'both positively or without opinion', while 42.5% expressed that other farmers and technical advisors have a positive view but with reservations, primarily related to financial and health concerns.Ten percent of the famers indicated that other farmers and technical advisors had a negative perception, and 7.5% that they did not have an opinion on the matter.Regarding consumers perception, the majority of the farmers indicated that consumer perceived positively the practice, though 7.5% of respondents considered that consumers did not have a particular opinion on the topic.

Methodological considerations
A possible source of bias in this study's results stems from the fact that we did not have a pre-defined list of farmers carrying out the practice, and so farmers were not randomly selected from a population of farmers who had implemented the practice.Moreover, some advisors gave us more contacts than others, which may lead to an over-representation of farmers in some areas, like Corsica.This procedure implies that we cannot generalize the profiles and practices identified to all farmers carrying out this practice.
Another potential source of bias is the fact that the study relied on interviews, where responses were documented without an audio recording.Nevertheless, it is important to note that the majority were closed-end questions, thus minimizing the risk of transcription errors.However, certain questions could not be analyzed either because the responses lacked the necessary precision for analysis or due to missing data.

General discussion
Our study has provided a comprehensive description of the doe-kid rearing practice in France.It is important to acknowledge that, due to our study's limited sample size, we cannot generalize the results.The participating farmers had all implemented doe-kid rearing systems tailored to their specific farming contexts, and the study was conducted exclusively in France.Moreover, as some of the farmers had recently implemented the practice, they did not always have enough hindsight's to answer to all our questions.However, the insights gained from this description may prove valuable to farms with similar characteristics, such as those practicing grazing, milk processing, or maintaining small to medium-sized herds.The predominant finding is that the practices vary greatly from one farm to another, and are tailored to each system and farmer.We also noticed that farmers made their practice evolved over time until they found the one which suited to them.Furthermore, doe-kid rearing seemed to be integrated into a broader farming system, such as the adoption of once-daily milking, in an effort to reduce labor demands and allocate more time to other farm activities or social and family engagements.Overall, farmers were mostly satisfied with the practice, underlying positive aspects: more pleasure at work, save time, better herd cohesion and better kids' growth and health.
Most aspects of our results align with those observed in cow-calf systems, such as various rearing methods, motivations, benefits, and disadvantages.However, in dairy goat production there are specific concerns linked to CAEV transmission from does to kids, even if this aspect was little mentioned by the interviewed farmers.This health issue should be taken into consideration when choosing a doe-kid rearing system, as the clinical expression of CAEV could lead to major health issues.Indeed, it is this health issue that greatly limits implementation of the practice.It appears important for farmers to have an idea of their clinical status when choosing to rear kids with their does, to know to which disease kids' could be exposed.Surprisingly, the stress at separation was not a major concern among the farmers in our study.Finally, the practice of allowing kids to graze outdoors with the does has prompted questions regarding potential parasitic infections that can lead to diarrhea and mortality, which could be even more problematic than in cattle farming, given goats' low level of immunity to gastrointestinal parasites (Hoste et al., 2012).
Limited or no references exist regarding the effects of daily contact time or age at weaning on kid and doe welfare, health or milk production.The effect of does' presence on kids' health, growth, behavior, relationship with farmers and does' welfare, health, production and Had to stop this year due to high number of kids kept and bought to increase herd number.But will do it for the following season, and will separate kids during the day Stop 2.5 Negative financial impact and poor kid growth Continue 57.5Among this category, one farmer said that he will continue like that for the next year, but may stop if pasture management is too difficult Continue but with changes 37.5 New building for kids after separation, change the age of weaning (and separation), modify the time spent in daily contact, implement practices to familiarize kids with the farmer, grant pasture access economical results need to be better objectified compared with conventional system.This would also provide some answers for conventional farmers, who, like dairy cows farmers (Neave et al., 2022), might have many fears.These elements, along with exchanges with farmers who have already implemented the practice, could help to remove certain obstacles.

CONCLUSIONS
Our study revealed diverse aspects of the doe-kid rearing practice in France, especially concerning the marked variability in the practices, which seemed to be adapted to each system and still evolving.The main benefits that farmers agreed upon were coherency with their personal values, time savings, and a better relationship within the herd.Drawbacks concerned more particularly the fact that kids could be wilder, that additional time may be needed for specific tasks related to this system, and there is a financial loss.One major point of vigilance concerns transmissible diseases (such as CAEV) that have to be taken into account.These first results need to be completed on several important aspects, such as sustainability aspects.This research provides valuable insights by described doe-kid rearing practices, and opens areas for future research or exploration.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Distribution of farmers over the different regions of France (n = 40) Berthelot et al.: Doe-Kid Rearing: Description and Farmers' Feedback Berthelot et al.: Doe-Kid Rearing: Description and Farmers' Feedback

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. Description of the different doe-kid rearing systems Berthelot et al.: Doe-Kid Rearing: Description and Farmers' Feedback Berthelot et al.: Doe-Kid Rearing: Description and Farmers' Feedback Berthelot et al.: Doe-Kid Rearing: Description and Farmers' Feedback Berthelot et al.: Doe-Kid Rearing: Description and Farmers' Feedback Table 3. Impacts of practice change on goat milk production and financial aspects % of participants (n = 22) What impact do you think the change in rearing practice has had on your income?you think the change in rearing practice has had on the quantity of milk produced Berthelot et al.: Doe-Kid Rearing: Description and Farmers' Feedback Table 5. Farmers' outlook concerning doe-kid rearing (n = 40) Prospects % of participants Examples of change Do you think you will continue or stop the practice?Stop for the current kid season and then do it again 2.5

Table 1 .
Berthelot et al.: Doe-Kid Rearing: Description and Farmers' Feedback Demographics of interviewed participants rearing kids with their does (n = 40)

Table 4 .
Impacts of a change in practice on kid growth