Validation of a methodology for characterization of rumination, lying, standing, and performing non-nutritive oral behaviors and behavioral patterns in Holstein dairy calves

Calf behavior is closely related to its early growth, production performance, and health performance. Continuous behavior recording is the most accurate but also time-consuming method used for monitoring animal behaviors, so the instantaneous sampling method is often adopted to minimize the time required to quantify behavioral observations in animal studies. Moreover, the optimal sampling intervals required to yield accurate information for estimating Holstein dairy calves' behaviors are still unknown. Our primary objective was to determine the most optimal sampling intervals for monitoring behaviors of Holstein dairy calves during preweaning and weaning periods to improve efficiency while maintaining reliability. The secondary objective was to describe their behavioral patterns. Rumination, lying, standing, and non-nutritive oral behavior (NNOB) data of 18 calves (observation time: 360 h/calf, 6,480 h in total) were continuously recorded for 15 d (3 d at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 wk of age). The continuous behavioral data were compared with instantaneous sampling at 5 s, 10 s, 15 s, 30 s,1 min, 3 min, 5 min, 10 min, 15 min, 30 min, and 60 min intervals. Sampling intervals were considered accurate if they met 4 criteria: coefficient of determination ≥0.90 (i.e., strongly related to true values), slope = 1, intercept = 0 (i.e., they did not over- or underestimate true values), and relative error <10%. The most optimal sampling interval was considered the highest sampling interval among the 11 sampling intervals that meet the criteria for accurate monitoring. As expected, the strength of the linear relationship between the continuous recording and instantaneous sampling decreased as the sampling intervals increased. The results varied across the different behaviors, with rumination, lying, standing, and NNOB being reliable at instantaneous recordings of 3 min, 10 min, 10 min, and 1 min for the preweaning period (1, 3, and 6 wk of age) and 10 min, 10 min, 15 min, and 3 min for the postweaning period (9 and 12 wk of age). In terms of behavioral patterns, lying time decreased, whereas rumination, standing, and NNOB time increased with age. After weaning, no significant changes in time spent performing these behaviors. Additionally, the rumination behavioral pattern becomes stable after wk 6 with decreasing after the morning feeding and occurring mainly in the morning. In conclusion, instantaneous sampling is a reliable method for monitoring the behaviors of dairy calves, but the optimal sampling intervals should be selected based on different ages and management conditions.

Evaluating accurate and efficient sampling strategies designed to measure social behavior and brush use in drylot housed cattle

Efficient sampling strategies expedite behavioral data collection. While multiple studies have evaluated sampling strategies for core behaviors in cattle, few have focused on social interactions. To identify sampling strategies that accurately captured cattle social behaviors and brush use feedlot steers (n = 3 pens; 9 steers/pen) were observed from 8:00 to 17:00. Average bout duration (sec), total duration per day (sec), and bout frequency were recorded for allogrooming, bar licking, tongue rolling, and brush utilization. Frequency was recorded for headbutting and mounting. Data was extracted from continuous observation datasets using eight different sampling strategies and the results subsequently compared. Differences among sampling strategies were evaluated using a non-parametric One-Way ANOVA Kruskal-Wallis Test. Pearson correlation evaluated the strength of association between a specific sampling strategy and continuous observations. Bout duration for allogrooming (P > 0.65), bar licking (P > 0.60), tongue rolling (P > 0.99), brush use (P > 0.99), and mounting frequency (P > 0.70) did not differ from continuous observations. Tongue rolling (r2 > 0.95, P <0.0001) and brush use (r2 > 0.70, P < 0.0003) were best captured when cattle were observed from 08:00 to 14:00. When cattle were continuously observed from 08:00 to 14:00 or for 15 minutes every 30 minutes, allogrooming (P > 0.2) (frequency, duration), bar licking (P > 0.95) (frequency, duration), brush use (P > 0.1) (frequency, duration), heat butt (P > 0.30) (frequency), or tongue rolling (P > 0.30) (frequency, duration) did not differ from continuous observations. Observing cattle for 15 minutes every 30 minutes yielded the highest accuracy for all behavioral metrics and was considered the most effective strategy for comprehensively evaluating cattle social behavior (r2 > 75; P < 0.05). These results provide insight into accurate and efficient sampling strategies that expedite social behavior data collection in cattle and will facilitate efficient generation of new knowledge regarding cattle social behaviors.

Impact of Stationary Brush Quantity on Brush Use in Group-Housed Dairy Heifers

Our objectives were to evaluate the effect of stationary brush quantity on brush use and competition in weaned dairy heifers naïve to brushes. Sixty-three Holstein heifers (95 ± 5.7 days old) were housed in groups of eight (with the exception of 1 group of 7) with two or four stationary brushes (n = 4 groups/treatment). Brush-directed behaviors of grooming, oral manipulation, and displacements were recorded continuously for all heifers 0–6, 18–24, 120–126 and 138–144 h after brush exposure. Linear mixed models were used to evaluate the effects of brush quantity and exposure duration. Total brush use and competition were not affected by brush quantity, but heifers with access to more brushes used them for longer bouts, suggesting greater opportunity for uninterrupted use. Total brush use was greater in the first and final 6 h observation periods, which was driven by the greatest duration of oral manipulation and grooming in those respective periods. The continued use of brushes by all heifers in the final period indicates the importance of providing appropriate outlets for these natural behaviors to promote animal welfare. The effect of brush quantity on bout characteristics suggests that brush use was less restricted with four compared to two brushes per eight heifers.

Towards a Positive Welfare Protocol for Cattle: A Critical Review of Indicators and Suggestion of How We Might Proceed

Current animal welfare protocols focus on demonstrating the absence (or at least low levels) of indicators of poor welfare, potentially creating a mismatch between what is expected by society (an assurance of good animal welfare) and what is actually being delivered (an assurance of the absence of welfare problems). This paper explores how far we have come, and what work still needs to be done, if we are to develop a protocol for use on commercial dairy farms where the aim is to demonstrate the presence of positive welfare. Following conceptual considerations around a perceived “ideal” protocol, we propose that a future protocol should be constructed (i) of animal-based measures, (ii) of indicators of affective state, and (iii) be structured according to indicators of short-term emotion, medium-term moods and long-term cumulative assessment of negative and positive experiences of an animal's life until now (in contrast to the current focus on indicators that represent different domains/criteria of welfare). These three conditions imposed the overall structure within which we selected our indicators. The paper includes a critical review of the literature on potential indicators of positive affective states in cattle. Based on evidence about the validity and reliability of the different indicators, we select ear position, play, allogrooming, brush use and QBA as candidate indicators that we suggest could form a prototype positive welfare protocol. We emphasise that this prototype protocol has not been tested in practice and so it is perhaps not the protocol itself that is the main outcome of this paper, but the process of trying to develop it. In a final section of this paper, we reflect on some of the lessons learnt from this exercise and speculate on future perspectives. For example, while we consider we have moved towards a prototype positive welfare protocol for short-term affective states, future research energy should be directed towards valid indicators for the medium and long-term.

Measuring Calves' Usage of Multiple Environmental Enrichment Objects Provided Simultaneously

This study aims to assess calf usage of five potential enrichment devices provided simultaneously. We used 25 weaned Holstein-Friesian calves housed in groups of five (five replicates), and their behavior was recorded continuously with video cameras. This longitudinal observational study used a pen equipped with a mechanical and fixed brush, cowhide, and horizontal and vertical ropes. Data collected included how many visits each object received per day, the type of object usage, and the duration of the visits. Calves used all five objects at least once, and they used items more during the daytime than at night. Brushes were used mainly for grooming (e.g., rubbing or scratching), while ropes and cowhide for oral interactions (e.g., licking, chewing, and biting), most likely to lack oral stimulations that would naturally be satisfied by suckling and grazing at this age. The objects most frequently used were the mechanical brush and the horizontal rope, and they received the highest number of visits (214.9 and 154.9 bouts/day, respectively). The least chosen object was the stationary brush, which had the lowest number of visits (62.9 bouts/day). The provision of multiple enrichment objects for weaned calves should be considered as they may add complexity and novelty to barren environments.

Stationary brush use in naive dairy heifers

Weaned dairy heifers are often housed in environments with few appropriate outlets for grooming or oral manipulation. Our objective was to characterize brush use by naive heifers, including patterns over time. In phase 1, groups of 4 heifers (n = 13 groups, 146.4 ± 9.1 d old, mean ± standard deviation; SD) were introduced to a bedded pack pen with 4 wall-mounted brushes (25.4 × 6.0 cm with 3.8-cm-long bristles). On d 1, 2, and 6 of exposure, continuous video recordings were used to observe 2 focal heifers per group for brush use (oral manipulation, grooming, and the sum of total brush use; all averaged at the group level). Latency to use a brush upon entering the pen was 3.4 ± 4.9 min (mean ± SD; range: 0.1 to 17.8 min among individuals). Heifers used the brushes for oral manipulation (39.7 ± 17.5% of brush use, mean ± SD) and grooming (60.3 ± 17.5%), primarily of their heads (89.9 ± 5.4% of grooming). In phase 2, heifers were moved in pairs (n = 13 pairs/treatment) to freestall pens either with (brush treatment) or without (control) brushes mounted inside the stalls for the first 5 d of phase 2 (d 8-12 of the study); on the last day (d 13 of the study), brushes were provided in both treatments. On d 8 (brush treatment) and 13 (both treatments), one focal heifer/pen was recorded for the same behaviors as in phase 1. Linear mixed models were used to evaluate brush use patterns across days (phase 1: d 1, 2, and 6; phase 2 brush treatment: d 8 vs. 13) and between treatments on d 13. In phase 1, brush use was greatest on d 1 [45.9 min; 95% confidence interval (CI): 33.2-63.3 min, back-transformed from natural-log values], decreased on d 2 (25.0 min, 95% CI: 18.4-34.0 min), but then remained steady until d 6 (21.0 min, 95% CI: 15.4-28.5 min); the initial reduction in total brush use was due to changes in grooming, but oral manipulation remained relatively static. In phase 2, heifers in the brush treatment showed similar usage on d 8 versus d 13 (3.8 vs. 3.7 min, 95% CI: 1.9-6.8 vs. 1.9-6.5 min). Compared with heifers with continuous brush access on d 8-12, those in the control treatment showed more brush use on d 13, both for oral manipulation (6.6 vs. 2.5 min, 95% CI: 3.8-11.1 vs. 1.3-4.5 min) and grooming (3.5 vs. 1.2 min, 95% CI: 1.9-5.7 vs. 0.5-2.3 min). Our study is the first to characterize stationary brush use in weaned dairy heifers. We conclude that, despite lacking previous experience, heifers use brushes for both grooming and oral manipulation.

Effect of environmental enrichment devices on behavior of individually housed beef heifers

In research settings, certain experimental designs may require cattle to be housed individually. Individual housing of cattle may make the animals more susceptible to boredom and result the development of undesirable behaviors. The objective of this trial was to investigate the effects of different environmental enrichment devices (EED) on the behavior and feed intake of heifers. Twenty mixed-breed single-sourced heifers were used in a completely random design. Heifers were housed individually (3.05 m × 3.66 m) with the ability to have physical contact with adjacent heifers. Heifers were randomly assigned to one of the four EED treatments, including a jolly ball (JLY), a broom head (SRCH), a 182 cm 5-knot rope (RP), or a Pas-a-Fier roller (RLR). Behavior was recorded using 8 h long daily instantaneous scan sampling in 30 min intervals over three periods: 7 d prior to EED addition (PR), 7 d with EED (EDP), and 7 d after removing EED (PST). Standing, laying, eating, drinking, and exploratory behaviors were evaluated. Exploratory behaviors included: interaction with water trough, feed bunk, water pipe, pen gate, pen wall, EED, grooming, or allogrooming. Rumination behavior was also recorded during each observation time. Time standing and standing bouts were greatest for RP (P < 0.05), while JLY and RLR spent the most time lying down (P < 0.05). All heifers spent the majority of observation times lying down, followed by solely standing (P < 0.05). Heifers on the RP treatment interacted the most with their EED, followed by SRCH (P < 0.001). Rumination increased during EDP compared to PR (P < 0.001). These results suggest that a RP suspended from the ceiling in the pen may be used most frequently by individually housed beef heifers.