Health, physiology, and behavior of dairy calves reared on 4 different substrates

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare the health, physiology, and behavior of group-housed calves reared on wood shavings with those reared on alternative surfaces. At 1 wk of age, 80 calves were moved into 1 of 20 experimental pens (n = 4 calves/pen) where they remained until 6 wk of age. Pens had floors covered with pea gravel (PG), rubber chip (RC), sand (SA), or wood shavings (WS; n = 5 pens/substrate). Body weight, cleanliness, health, and skin surface and vaginal temperature were recorded at 1, 3, and 6 wk of age. Escherichia coli numbers were assessed on the skin surface of the shoulder and in the feces of calves at 3 and 6 wk of age. Blood samples were taken at 1, 3, and 6 wk of age to measure hematological values and cortisol, IgG, and lactate concentrations. Behaviors (lying, running, and self-grooming) were recorded in the home pen at 1, 3, and 6 wk of age using video recorders and accelerometer data loggers. At 6 wk of age, calves were tested individually in an arena test and behavior was recorded continuously for 20 min. Body weight did not differ among calves reared on PG, RC, SA, or WS, regardless of age. All calves were clean and no calves displayed any signs of lameness, leg lesions, or injuries at wk 1, 3, or 6, regardless of substrate. The number of E. coli recovered from a surface area of 100 cm on the shoulder of each calf was affected by rearing substrate, with more E. coli recovered from calves reared on WS than PG, RC, or SA at 3 and 6 wk of age. Fecal E. coli counts were not affected by rearing substrate at 3 or 6 wk of age. Over the entire study period, calves reared on PG and SA had lower skin temperatures than calves reared on RC or WS, but skin temperature was similar between calves reared on PG and SA. However, vaginal temperature did not differ among calves reared on different substrates at 1, 3, or 6 wk of age. Hematology values and cortisol, IgG, and lactate concentrations of calves were similar among rearing substrates over the 6-wk study period. In the home pen, rearing substrate did not influence time spent lying; however, calves reared on WS performed more lying bouts than calves reared on PG or SA. In addition, rearing substrate did not influence the time calves spent running; however, calves reared on WS spent more time self-grooming than calves reared on PG, RC, and SA. During a 20-min arena test, running, bucks, jumps, and kicks performed by calves was not affected by rearing substrate. In conclusion, the physiology and behavior of calves reared on PG, RC, and SA was similar to WS, which is considered the preferred rearing substrate to use when rearing calves. Therefore, PG, RC, and SA may be acceptable substrate options when rearing group-housed dairy calves.

The effects of different types of bedding on the performance, skeletal and behavioral characteristics, hygienic and immunity conditions of suckling Holstein calves

“…In this study, skeletal growth at the end of the period including body length, chest circumference, abdomen circumference, and pelvic width was not affected by the bedding and no significant difference was seen in them, which is consistent with the results of Sutherland et al (2017). Sutherland et al (2017) showed that cement, gravel, chaff, and debris beddings cannot make a significant difference in calf growth performance. In this experiment, only the height from withers showed a significant difference.…”

The effect of calf jackets on the health, performance, and skin temperature of dairy origin beef calves

“…The difference between the two studies may be due to the fact that the calves in this study were older and, thus, were able to withstand cooler temperatures ( Gonzalez-Jimenez and Blaxter, 1962 ; Webster et al, 1978 ). However, a number of studies have documented that skin temperature is not directly related to either rectal or vaginal temperature ( Sutherland et al, 2017 ; Scoley et al, 2019 ). Therefore, although calf jackets appear to create a warmer microenvironment for the calf, they may not be having any impact on core body temperature.…”

Short communication: Design and validation of a hygiene score for calves

“…Panivivat et al (2004) used a scoring system where tail head region, thighs, and legs were counted when soiled with manure. This scoring has been applied by Sutherland et al (2013Sutherland et al ( , 2014Sutherland et al ( , 2017 and Graham et al (2018). Other studies assessed different body regions and their degree of dirtiness (score or percentage): Terosky et al (1997) and Klein-Jöbstl et al (2014) focused on legs, thighs, and the belly, whereas Webster et al (1985) also included the back and the head.…”