Effects of ‘Five freedoms’ environmental enrichment on the welfare of calves reared indoors

Abstract

We provided comfortable resting areas in pens and tools for self-grooming and suppressing aggressive behavior for environmental enrichment in Japanese black and Japanese Shorthorn calves. At the start of the experiment, the black calves (n = 10) were 164 days old and 138 kg in weight, and the Japanese Shorthorn calves (n = 10) were 176 days old and 164 kg in weight. Calves of each breed were divided into two groups (the enrichment group and the non-treatment group), and each group was housed in a 4 m x 7.2 m pen. The effect of enrichment on calf welfare was estimated on the basis of daily weight gain and behavior. The brush stimulated the grooming behavior in calves although the mean time of using the brush decreased during the experiment. The partition of the feed trough and the wooden wall in the pen decreased the agonistic behavior in Japanese Shorthorn calves (P < 0.01) and increased the affiliative behavior in Japanese black calves (P = 0.08). The cleanliness of the bedding increased sternum lying and lying with the head touching the flank or ground in Japanese black calves and decreased the standing resting behavior in both breeds (P < 0.05 in all the cases). However, the treatments did not have an effect on daily weight gain. We concluded that the treatments would improve the welfare of calves and function as environmental enrichments.

Sleep and lying behavior of milking Holstein cows at commercial tie‐stall dairy farms

“…Phillips and Rind (2001) reported that the daily sleeping time of Holstein-Friesian cows fed different feeding frequency ranged from 63 to 75 min/day. Ninomiya and Sato (2009) reported that Japanese Black calves slept about 20 min in conventional pen and about 40 min in enriched pen.…”

“…There are some studies about cow's sleep under experimental condition (Fukasawa, Komatsu, & Higashiyama, ; Fukasawa, Komatsu, Higashiyama, & Oshibe, ; Krohn & Munksgaard, ; Ninomiya & Sato, ; Norring, Valros, & Munksgaard, ; Phillips & Rind, ; Ruckebusch, ). However, there is not on farm study about cow's sleep because the sleep observation on farm can be a difficult and impractical task due to the following reasons: (a) most cattle sleep during night (Ruckebusch, ); (b) sleep bouts can be short (Ruckebusch, ); and (c) the presence of an observer could affect natural sleep behavior.…”

“…There are some studies about cow's sleep under experimental condition (Fukasawa, Komatsu, & Higashiyama, 2018;Fukasawa, Komatsu, Higashiyama, & Oshibe, 2017;Krohn & Munksgaard, 1993;Ninomiya & Sato, 2009;Norring, Valros, & Munksgaard, 2012;Phillips & Rind, 2001;Ruckebusch, 1972). However, there is not on farm study about cow's sleep because the sleep observation on farm can be a difficult and impractical task due to the following reasons:…”

The use of accelerometer to measure sleeping posture of beef cows

“…Most notably, accelerometers are widely used for monitoring posture and behavior of animals because of their low cost and small size (Watanabe et al 2005;Ledgerwood et al 2010;Hokkanen et al 2011). In this study, sleeping posture is defined as the posture that cattle adopt with their neck relaxed and their head against their flank in a lying position, as reported in several previous studies (Ruckebusch 1975;Phillips & Rind 2001;Ninomiya & Sato 2009;Norring et al 2012) (Figure 1). They used an accelerometer mounted on the neck to detect sleeping and lying time of calf, although not for adult cattle.…”

Effects of habitat complexity, dominance and personality on habitat selection: Ideal despotic cichlids

“…However, the factors that make a particular habitat valuable, such as structural complexity, may vary for individuals differing in dominance status. The presence of physical complexity within a habitat can impede visibility (Clayton, ; Eason & Stamps, ), or movement (Deboom & Wahl, ; Loss et al, ; Radabaugh, Bauer, & Brown, ); as a result, resource monopolization (e.g., Basquill & Grant, ) and aggressive behaviour are often lower in complex than open habitats (Batzina & Karakatsouli, ; Chaloupkova, Illmann, Bartos, & Spinka, ; Corkum & Cronin, ; Danley, ; Ninomiya & Sato, ). Consequently, more aggressive competitors may experience increased competitive success in open habitats, but smaller, less competitive individuals are more often found in habitats with more habitat complexity (Gibb & Parr, ; Höjesjö, Johnsson, & Bohlin, ).…”