Does nutritive and non-nutritive sucking reduce other oral behaviors and stimulate rest in calves?

Abstract

After a milk meal, bucket-fed calves show non-nutritive oral activities, including cross-sucking, and this can discourage producers from rearing them in groups. Sucking is known to induce a quiet state in humans and rats. We examined if nutritive sucking affects non-nutritive oral activities in calves, if it reduces arousal (assessed through behavior and cardiac activity), and if sucking a dry teat can compensate for the lack of nutritive sucking. In Exp. 1, the behavior and the cardiac activity of individually housed calves fed milk from a bucket were compared to those of calves fed milk through a teat. During the meal, the heart rate of bucket-fed calves was higher than that of teat-fed calves (P < 0.0001). After the meal, only bucket-fed calves displayed bar sucking. Compared to the teat-fed calves, they spent more time licking their pen or their neighbor (P < 0.001 and P < 0.05), their heart rate was less variable (P < 0.01), and they lay down with the head unsupported by the neck less quickly (latency to lie down: 51 min vs 42 min, P < 0.05). In Exp. 2, individually-housed bucket-fed and teat-fed calves were observed with or without access to a non-nutritive teat after the meal. Bucket-fed calves sucked the dry teat for longer than teat-fed calves (P < 0.001). In bucket-fed calves, access to the dry teat reduced the time spent nibbling (P < 0.01) and tended to shorten the latency to lie down (P < 0.10). In Exp. 3, group-housed bucket-fed calves were compared with group-housed calves fed with an automatic teat feeder system. Bucket-fed calves spent more time nibbling at 1 mo, but at 3 mo they spent less time nibbling and cross-sucking; they drank more milk and put on more weight. We conclude that, for calves housed individually, teat-feeding reduces non-nutritive oral activities after the meal and induces a calmer state than bucket-feeding. Providing calves with a dry teat partly compensates for the lack of nutritive sucking. For calves housed in groups, the use of an automatic teat feeder may not reduce calves' motivation for sucking. No improvement of growth was observed with teat-feeding either with a teat-bucket or with an automatic feeder.

A survey of dairy calf management practices in some producing regions in Brazil

“…The supply of liquid diet in the bucket is the most widely adopted because of its easy cleaning and the lowest time for the consumption by the calves. However, the supply of the liquid diet in a bucket does not meet the calf's need to suckle, thus increasing the occurrence of non-nutritive suckling (Veissier et al, 2002) and cross-suckling among calves (Jensen and Budde, 2006), mainly when they are grouped.…”

“…When animals are raised individually, there is a reduction in the dissemination of diseases as well as a reduction in the competition for feed (Veissier et al, 2002). However, animals that are raised collectively begin to develop playful, exploratory, and competitive behaviors that will be beneficial in the postweaning phase (Jensen and Budde, 2006).…”

Ultrasonographic examination of the oesophageal groove reflex in young calves under various feeding conditions

“…In the present study, oesophageal groove closure was confirmed in all calves throughout the 17-week study period. Several studies have shown that groove closure can also occur as a conditioned reflex; the sight of the trough containing the milk induced the reflex in lambs (Ørskov et al, 1970), and the noise associated with feeding preparations and the smell of the milk were thought to do so in calves because their heart rate increased above the normal range before sucking began (Veissier et al, 2002). In the latter study, feeding took place twice a day at the same time, which could have contributed to the conditioning of the oesophageal groove reflex.…”

Behavioural restriction.

“…Furthermore, the behaviour seems functionally important: allowing early-weaned, bucket-fed calves to suck rubber teats increases the release of satiety hormones ( Fig. 7.6); while allowing calves to suck milk from teats instead of buckets decreases their heart rates and increases heart-rate variability (signs of reduced sympathetic activation), and seems to induce calmer, more restful states (Veissier et al, 2002). This treatment also reduced the abnormal oral behaviours directed at pen mates and at the pen's bars (though, perhaps surprisingly, providing hay to eat is effective too; Haley et al, 1998).…”

“…For more precision, we need studies involving fewer variables -specific environmental enrichments identifying particular natural behaviours whose performance reduces frustration. Examples of this type of finding include: that male rats live longer and are healthier into old age if they can mate regularly (Salmon et al, 1990); that devices attracting foraging or foraging pecks reduce feather pecking in caged hens (Huber-Eicher andWechsler, 1998, McAdie et al, 2005, Dixon et al, in press); and that farmed rabbits given wooden sticks to gnaw spend less time gnawing the bars of their cage, are less aggressive and grow better (Princz et al, 2007(Princz et al, , 2009 [ Haley et al, 1998;Veissier et al, 2002;Rushen and de Passillé, 2006). Researchers used non-nutritive rubber teats offered alongside or after a bucket of milk, and also compared calves that obtained their milk by sucking rubber teats with those having to drink directly from buckets.…”