No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Little information is available on how much water ad libitum milk-fed calves consume during the milk-feeding stage and during weaning to solid feed. Further, no information exists on the effects on calf behavior and performance of different water delivery systems during these stages. Therefore, the objectives of this study were first, to examine the water intake of calves fed acidified milk replacer ad libitum during the milk-feeding and weaning stages, and second, to determine whether the method of water delivery affected water and feed intake and growth during these periods or oral behavior during weaning. To evaluate this, we registered feed and water intake, growth, and oral behaviors of 24 dairy calves before and after abrupt weaning from a 7-wk ad libitum acidified milk replacer feeding regimen. Two water sources (open bucket and nipple) were compared. During the 7-wk milk-feeding period, the calves drank, on average, 12.9 +/- 0.7 L/d of acidified milk replacer but very little water. However, after abrupt removal of milk, the 2-mo-old calves rapidly increased their water intake. Moreover, no differences in water intake between the 2 water sources were noted either before or after abrupt weaning. Calves were observed to have some difficulties in using the water nipple. Calves provided water through the nipples consumed less water at each drinking bout but visited the water nipple more frequently compared with calves provided access to water from the bucket. We observed no differences in all other behaviors observed. Overall, the calves rapidly increased their feed intake, rumination time, frequency of cross-sucking, and vocalization after weaning. In conclusion, despite the calves' consuming very little water when provided ad libitum access to acidified milk replacer, they dramatically increased their water consumption after abrupt weaning from milk. Calves did experience some difficulties in using the water nipples.

In rats, sucking milk reduces anxiety and promotes non-rapid eye movement (NREM) sleep, and in calves it induces resting but the effect on sleep is unknown. Here, we investigated how calves' sleep was affected by colostrum feeding methods. Forty-one calves were blocked by birth date and randomly allotted within blocks to the experimental treatments. Calves were housed for four days either with their dam (DAM) or individually with warm colostrum feeding (2 L four times a day) from either a teat bucket (TEAT) or an open bucket (BUCKET). DAM calves suckled their dam freely. Calves' sleeping and sucking behaviour was filmed continuously for 48 h at the ages of two and three days. Behavioural sleep (BS) was defined as calves resting at least 30 s with their head still and raised (non-rapid eye movement) or with their head against their body or the ground (rapid eye movement, REM). Latency from the end of colostrum feeding to the start of BS was recorded. We compared behaviour of TEAT calves with that of DAM and BUCKET calves using mixed models. Milk meal duration was significantly longer for TEAT calves than for BUCKET calves (mean AE S.E.M.; 8.3 AE 0.6 min vs. 5.2 AE 0.6 min), but equal to that of DAM calves. We found no effect of feeding method on the duration of daily BS (12 h 59 min AE 1 h 38 min) but we found a tendency for the daily amount of NREM sleep; BUCKET calves had less NREM sleep per day than TEAT calves (6 h 18 min vs. 7 h 48 min, S.E.M. = 45 min) and also longer latencies from milk ingestion to BS (21.9 AE 2.0 min vs. 16.2 AE 2.0 min). DAM calves slept longer bouts than TEAT calves (10.8 AE 1.0 min vs. 8.3 AE 1.0 min) and less often (78 AE 4 vs. 92 AE 4). Sucking colostrum from a teat bucket compared with drinking from an open

Animal welfare labeling schemes have been developed to respond to consumers’ expectations regarding farm animal welfare. They are designed to certify that labeled products comply with certain animal welfare standards. In this study, 12 pig welfare labeling schemes were reviewed, and their criteria related to pig welfare were compared. Information regarding farrowing criteria, space allowance, outdoor access, mutilations, and provision of enrichments and bedding material were gathered from the labels’ internet pages and documentation. The results indicated a substantial variation between the labels in terms of the level of animal welfare they ensure. While certain schemes barely exceeded the minimum standards for the protection of pigs in the European Union, more demanding tiers of the multitier schemes had the potential to improve animal welfare substantially. The most ambitious tiers of multistage schemes were often comparable to organic standards providing outdoor facilities and additional space. The heterogeneity of the labels’ standards complicates the comparison of labels.

No abstract