Reduction in cross-sucking in calves by the use of a modified automatic teat feeder

Reduction in cross-sucking in calves by the useof a modi®ed automatic teat feeder

Roland Webera, Beat Wechslerb,*

aSwiss Federal Research Station for Agricultural Economics and Engineering, Centre for

Proper Housing of Ruminants and Pigs, CH-8356 TaÈnikon, SwitzerlandbSwiss Federal Veterinary Of®ce, Centre for Proper Housing of Ruminants and Pigs,

FAT, CH-8356 TaÈnikon, Switzerland

Abstract

Cross-sucking may be a problem in group-housed calves fed by automatic teat feeders. In the

present study, the behaviour of calves fed by a conventional feeder with an open feeding stall

(n � 15 calves) was compared with the behaviour of calves fed by a modi®ed feeder, closing in the

rear after the calf has entered (n � 14 calves). It was found that the calves fed by the feeder with the

closed stall stayed longer in the feeding stall following milk ingestion (P < 0:001), showed longer

bouts of non-nutritive sucking directed to the teat after milk ingestion (P < 0:005) and performed

less cross-sucking in the ®rst 15 min after milk ingestion (P < 0:001) than calves fed by the feeder

with the open stall. The design of the feeder had, however, no signi®cant in¯uence on the incidence

of cross-sucking performed without close temporal association with milk ingestion. As the

modi®cation in the feeding stall reduces cross-sucking and is not costly, it should be feasible to

introduce it in practice. # 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Cattle; Calves; Cross-sucking; Non-nutritive sucking; Feeding; Group-housing

1. Introduction

Calves raised separated from their mothers and fed on milk or milk replacer are highly

motivated to perform non-nutritive sucking. The behaviour is directed preferably to

conspeci®cs (cross-sucking), but calves may also suck on inanimate objects (Kittner

and Kurz, 1967; Mees and Metz, 1984; Graf et al., 1989). Lidfors (1993) found that the

frequency of cross-sucking decreased with time after milk feeding. About 15 min after

milk ingestion, the level was equal to that of calves being fed concentrate. In addition, she

demonstrated that cross-sucking is reduced substantially after weaning off milk. Given

Applied Animal Behaviour Science 72 (2001) 215±223

* Corresponding author. Tel.: �41-52-368-33-71; fax: �41-52-365-11-90.

E-mail address: [email protected] (B. Wechsler).

0168-1591/01/$ ± see front matter # 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

PII: S 0 1 6 8 - 1 5 9 1 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 1 1 1 - 3

these results, she concluded that `̀ cross-sucking is stimulated by the ingestion of milk,

possibly through a feed-back mechanism, increasing motivation to perform sucking

behaviour once milk has been ingested''.

de PassilleÂ and Rushen (1997) investigated motivational and physiological aspects of

non-nutritive sucking by offering calves housed in individual pens, a dry arti®cial teat

under different experimental conditions. In accordance with the results of Lidfors (1993),

they found that the calves sucked the teat signi®cantly more if they had drunk milk than if

they had drunk nothing and that the calves sucked the teat signi®cantly less when it was not

offered immediately after a meal but with a delay of 10 or more minutes (de PassilleÂ et al.,

1992). They also showed that non-nutritive sucking in calves is stimulated more by

ingestion of milk than water (de PassilleÂ et al., 1992) and that small amounts of milk will

ef®ciently elicit non-nutritive sucking, suggesting a relatively in¯exible response to the

taste of milk (Rushen and de PassilleÂ, 1995). Trying to identify aspects of milk responsible

for eliciting non-nutritive sucking, they found that milk and commercial milk replacer do

not differ in the amount of sucking induced and that the protein components of milk alone

do not stimulate sucking (de PassilleÂ et al., 1997). Interestingly, milk also elicits non-

nutritive sucking in calves that have been weaned off milk 14 days prior to experimental

milk ingestion (de PassilleÂ et al., 1997). With respect to physiology, de PassilleÂ et al. (1993)

reported that post-prandial rises in both insulin and cholecystokinin are higher in calves

sucking a dry arti®cial teat after milk ingestion than in calves without access to such a teat.

This may explain the satiating effect of non-nutritive sucking in calves (Rushen and de

PassilleÂ, 1995).

Cross-sucking may occur both in neighbouring calves housed individually and in group-

housed calves. In the former, the behaviour is directed typically towards the mouth and ears

(Scheurmann, 1974), whereas in the latter, the scrotum, the prepuce, the udder area and the

ears are typically involved (Sambraus, 1984; Graf et al., 1989; Margerison et al., 1996). de

Wilt (1985) observed that individual calves may develop preferences for sucking on one

particular part of the body for several consecutive days.

Cross-sucking in calves raised separated from their mothers is not only relevant with

respect to animal welfare, indicating that the calves' motivation to suck is not suf®ciently

reduced during milk ingestion (Rushen and de PassilleÂ, 1995). The behaviour is also

harmful to victims and probably linked to inter-sucking in sub-adult and adult dairy cattle

resulting in considerable economic losses caused by pathological changes in the udder and

milk loss (Rutgers and Grommers, 1988; Keil and Graf, 1998; Keil et al., 2000). As a

consequence, several studies have been carried out to reduce or prevent the development of

cross-sucking in group-housed calves. One possibility to do so is to increase the time the

calves need for milk ingestion, as the duration of non-nutritive sucking is inversely related

to the duration of normal sucking during milk ingestion (Kittner and Kurz, 1967). For

example, prolonging milk ingestion by feeding calves by an arti®cial teat instead of feeding

them by a bucket results in a reduction of the duration of non-nutritive sucking in group-

housed calves (Mees and Metz, 1984). The effect is even more pronounced, if arti®cial

teats with smaller ori®ces are used (Graf et al., 1989). Another possibility to reduce cross-

sucking is to restrain the calves for at least 10 min after completion of milk ingestion

(Kittner and Kurz, 1967; Sambraus, 1984; Graf et al., 1989), whereby calves cannot cross-

suckle until sucking motivation has declined to a low level (de PassilleÂ et al., 1992; Lidfors,

216 R. Weber, B. Wechsler / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 72 (2001) 215±223

1993). With calves fed by automatic teat feeders, however, this method has not been

possible until now. The feeding stalls of conventional feeders are open in the rear, and the

calves are often replaced by pen mates within a short time after completion of a meal.

Consequently, cross-sucking is prevalent in such housing conditions.

In the present study, an automatic teat feeder with a modi®ed feeding stall,

closing in the rear after the calf has entered (Wendl et al., 1997), and a conventional

feeder with an open stall were used to feed group-housed calves. It was hypothesised that

with the closed feeding stall: (1) the calves would stay longer in the stall after milk

ingestion; (2) the duration of non-nutritive sucking on the teat after completion of a meal

would be increased; and (3) cross-sucking in the ®rst 15 min after milk ingestion would be

reduced.

2. Methods

2.1. Animals and housing conditions

The study was carried out with a total of 15 and 14 calves fed by a conventional

automatic teat feeder with an open feeding stall or by a modi®ed automatic teat feeder with

a closed feeding stall (Fig. 1), respectively. The modi®ed feeder was developed by Wendl

et al. (1997) at the Institute and Bavarian State Center for Agricultural Technology of the

Fig. 1. The modified automatic teat feeder used in the experiment (originally designed by Wendl et al., 1997).

When entering the feeding stall, the calves enclosed themselves.

R. Weber, B. Wechsler / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 72 (2001) 215±223 217

University of Technology, Munich. With this feeder, the calf encloses itself when entering

the stall. Thus, it cannot be disturbed by pen mates during drinking nor be chased away

after milk ingestion, which allows it to stay in the stall after a meal and to show non-

nutritive sucking on the teat without being disturbed.

The study was carried out on the research farm of the Swiss Federal Research Station for

Agricultural Economics and Engineering in TaÈnikon. The calves were kept in two dynamic

groups containing 11±12 animals of different ages at a given time. They were housed in two

deep litter pens (26.1 and 19.6 m2 for the groups with the open and the closed feeding stall,

respectively) in an non-insulated building. In addition, the two groups had access to the

same outside yard (23.5 m2) in alternation every second day. Before being introduced into

the experimental groups, the calves were housed in individual crates (135 cm� 85 cm) for

the ®rst 10 days (range 5±16 days) after birth. In these crates, they were fed by means of a

bucket equipped with a teat. When assigning them to the pens, we aimed at keeping group

sizes even and at having a similar age structure in each group. Between the two groups,

there was no statistically signi®cant difference in the age of the calves. The calves were

either Brown Swiss, Swiss Simmental or crossings of these breeds with Limousin. There

were 13 female and 16 male calves (open feeding stall: seven males, eight females; closed

feeding stall: nine males, ®ve females). The calves were fed on milk, starting with 4 l per

day. This amount was increased to 7 l over the ®rst 5 days after introduction into the

experimental pens. When the calves had reached the age of 7 weeks, milk intake per day

was gradually reduced over the next 5 weeks to 1.5 l. In a given meal, a calf could consume

1.5 l (1.0 l during the ®rst 5 days and after day 70 of its stay in the pen), resulting in two to

®ve meals per calf per day. In addition, the calves were offered hay ad libitum and small

amounts of concentrates in a trough. They were weaned and removed from the experi-

mental pens when they were 100±110 days of age.

2.2. Behavioural observations and statistical analyses

Over a period of 9 weeks, each group was observed directly on 7 days for 7 h each

(between 04:00 and 08:00 h and between 18:00 and 21:00 h). The observation periods

chosen covered those hours of a day when the calves were most active and when most

meals were consumed. The following behavioural parameters were recorded individually

for each calf by continuous recording using a laptop:

1. Visits (number and duration) to the feeding stall of the automatic feeder. It was

differentiated whether the calf ingested milk or not;

2. Non-nutritive sucking bouts (number and duration) directed to the teat of the feeder. It

was differentiated whether the calf had ingested milk or not during the visit to the

feeder;

3. Attempts of pen mates to replace a calf from the feeding stall;

4. Successful replacements of a calf from the feeding stall;

5. Cross-sucking bouts (number). It was differentiated whether the cross-sucking

individual had ingested milk within the last 15 min before the start of the bout or not.

With cross-sucking occurring after milk ingestion, successive attempts to direct cross-

sucking to the same or different calves were attributed to the same bout.


In the analysis, an average value was computed for each calf for each behavioural

parameter over all observation days. As the calves were housed in dynamic groups, the

number of observation days per calf varied between 5 and 7. The average values were

compared between calves fed by the conventional and the modi®ed automatic teat feeder

using Mann-Whitney U-tests. In order to determine whether the age of the calves had an

effect on cross-sucking (analysis of variance), they were grouped according to their

average age over the observation days (<41 days, 40±80 days and >80 days old).

3. Results

Calves fed by the automatic teat feeder with the open feeding stall frequented the feeder

signi®cantly more often than calves fed by the feeder with the closed stall (Table 1). This

was true both for visits with and without milk ingestion. On the other hand, the duration of

visits to the feeder was signi®cantly shorter both for visits with and without milk ingestion,

if the calves were fed by the feeder with the open feeding stall. The number of non-nutritive

sucking bouts occurring during visits to the feeder involving milk ingestion did not differ

between the two feeders, whereas the number of non-nutritive sucking bouts occurring

during visits to the feeder without milk ingestion was signi®cantly higher for the feeder

with the open feeding stall.

The duration of non-nutritive sucking bouts directed to the teat after milk ingestion was

signi®cantly longer in calves fed by the feeder with the closed feeding stall (P < 0:005,

Fig. 2). Regarding visits without milk ingestion, on the other hand, there was no signi®cant

difference in the duration of non-nutritive sucking bouts. The calves made signi®cantly

fewer attempts to replace a calf from the feeder if the stall was closed, and no calf had ever

been successfully replaced from the closed stall (Table 1).

Cross-sucking during the ®rst 15 min after milk ingestion was signi®cantly less frequent

in calves fed by the feeder with the closed stall (P < 0:001, Fig. 3). In 98 (92%) of all 107

visits (in all calves) involving milk ingestion to the feeder with the closed stall, the calf did

Table 1

Comparison of the behaviour of calves fed by a conventional automatic teat feeder with an open feeding stall

(n � 15 calves) or by a modified feeder, closing in the rear on entering of the calf (n � 14 calves)a

Behavioural parameter Feeder with

open stall

Feeder with

closed stall

P-values

Number of visits to the feeder with milk ingestion 1.9 (0.6) 1.4 (0.5) 0.05

Duration of visits to the feeder with milk ingestion 3.4 (1.2) 6.4 (2.2) 0.001

Number of visits to the feeder without milk ingestion 8.0 (3.8) 2.9 (1.4) 0.001

Duration of visits to the feeder without milk ingestion 1.1 (0.4) 2.3 (0.9) 0.001

Number of non-nutritive sucking bouts after milk ingestion 1.6 (0.6) 1.8 (0.9) N.S.

Number of non-nutritive sucking bouts without prior milk ingestion 5.7 (2.4) 3.2 (2.1) 0.02

Number of attempts to replace a calf from the stall 0.6 (0.9) 0.1 (0.1) 0.01

Number of successful replacements of a calf from the stall 0.5 (0.7) 0.0 (0.0) 0.01

a Average (�S.D.) values per calf are presented. Frequencies are given per 7 h of data collection per

observation day. Durations are given in minutes.


Fig. 2. Duration of non-nutritive sucking bouts (in minutes) directed to the teat during visits to the feeder with

and without milk ingestion. Data of calves fed by a feeder with an open and a closed feeding stall are compared.

Average (�S.D.) values per calf are presented.

Fig. 3. Number of cross-sucking bouts occurring within 15 min after visits to the feeder with and without milk

ingestion. Data of calves fed by a feeder with an open and a closed feeding stall are compared. Average (�S.D.)

values per calf are presented.


not show cross-sucking afterwards, whereas such behaviour did not occur after only 77

(62%) of all 125 visits involving milk ingestion to the feeder with the open stall. Half the

calves in the pen with the closed stall never showed cross-sucking after milk ingestion. In

the pen with the open stall, on the other hand, all individuals showed this behaviour at least

once after milk ingestion. Neither the breed nor the sex nor the age of the calves had

statistically signi®cant effects on cross-sucking rates (analysis of variance). Cross-sucking

occurring without prior milk ingestion within the last 15 min was not signi®cantly affected

by the design of the feeding stall.

With both types of feeding stalls, there was much variation in the duration of non-

nutritive sucking after milk ingestion (Fig. 4), and there were many short bouts of such

behaviour which were not followed by cross-sucking. Both in the group with the open

feeding stall and in the group with the closed feeding stall, there were no statistically

signi®cant correlations (Spearman rank correlations; n � 15 and 14 calves, respectively)

between the frequency or the duration of non-nutritive sucking and the frequency of cross-

sucking. The correlations were calculated separately for cross-sucking bouts occurring

after milk ingestion and cross-sucking bouts occurring without prior milk ingestion.

4. Discussion

In accordance with our hypotheses, the calves fed by the automatic teat feeder with the

closed feeding stall: (1) stayed longer in the feeding stall following milk ingestion; (2)

showed longer bouts of non-nutritive sucking directed to the teat after milk ingestion; and

(3) performed less cross-sucking in the ®rst 15 min after milk ingestion than calves fed by

the automatic teat feeder with the open stall. These results are in line with published

Fig. 4. Duration of non-nutritive sucking bouts (in minutes) occurring after milk ingestion in automatic teat

feeders with an open or a closed feeding stall. It is differentiated whether the calf showed cross-sucking within

15 min after milk ingestion or not.


evidence showing that calves are highly motivated to suck on a dry teat after milk ingestion

(Hammell et al., 1988; de PassilleÂ et al., 1992), that sucking motivation decreases within a

period of about 10±15 min after milk ingestion (de PassilleÂ et al., 1992; Lidfors, 1993; de

PassilleÂ and Rushen, 1997) and that cross-sucking is reduced in group-housed calves, if

they are prevented from interacting with pen mates for a period of 10 or more minutes after

milk ingestion (Kittner and Kurz, 1967; Sambraus, 1984; Graf et al., 1989). However, we

do not know whether the feeder with the closed feeding stall has a positive effect on cross-

sucking in sub-adult and adult dairy cattle.

Wendl et al. (1997) tested an automatic teat feeder with a closed feeding stall similar to

the one used in the present study in comparison with a feeder with an open stall. In contrast

to our study, they fed the same individuals ®rst by the feeder with the open stall and, during

a second observation period, by the feeder with the closed stall. In accordance with our

results, they found that cross-sucking was much reduced with the closed feeding stall.

However, they did not investigate the relation between cross-sucking and non-nutritive

sucking.

On average, calves in the pen with the closed feeding stall showed longer non-nutritive

sucking bouts directed to the teat after milk ingestion than calves in the pen with the open

stall, and this was associated with less cross-sucking occurring after milk ingestion.

However, no clear threshold value existed with respect to the duration of non-nutritive

sucking performed during a given visit to the feeder involving milk ingestion and the

incidence of cross-sucking after that visit. Consequently, factors other than the duration of

non-nutritive sucking also have an in¯uence on cross-sucking occurring after milk

ingestion. Possibly, calves which had shown only a short bout of non-nutritive sucking

after milk ingestion and did nevertheless, not perform cross-sucking afterwards turned to

other oral activities such as feeding on the hay offered ad libitum. Kittner and Kurz (1967)

reported that providing calves with concentrates immediately after milk ingestion reduces

cross-sucking. Given the large individual variation in cross-sucking, it may not be possible

to prevent this behaviour completely when calves are fed arti®cially.

The design of the feeding stall only had an effect on cross-sucking occurring within

15 min after milk ingestion. With respect to cross-sucking performed without close

temporal association with milk ingestion, different motivational patterns seem to be

involved, requiring additional measures to reduce or prevent it. Aurich and Weber

(1994) reduced the diameter of the milk tube of an automatic teat feeder to increase

the duration of sucking for milk ingestion in the calves. Compared to a conventional teat

feeder, this modi®cation was effective in increasing the duration of sucking for milk

ingestion, but did not result in a reduction of cross-sucking after milk ingestion.

In conclusion, our results show that the use of an automatic teat feeder with a feeding

stall enclosing the calf on entering is effective in reducing cross-sucking in calves

compared to an automatic feeder with an open stall. As the modi®cation in the feeding

stall is simple and not costly, it should be feasible to introduce it in practice.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Elke Deininger for her assistance in gathering data. Georg Wendl and

Nina Keil made valuable comments on the manuscript.


References

Aurich, K., Weber, R., 1994. Einfluss eines erhoÈhten Saugwiderstandes auf das Saugverhalten einer

KaÈlbergruppe. In: Aktuelle Arbeiten zur artgemaÈssen Tierhaltung 1993, KTBL-Schrift 361. KTBL,

Darmstadt, pp. 154±166.

de PassilleÂ, A.M.B., Christopherson, R., Rushen, J., 1993. Non-nutritive sucking by the calf and post-prandial

secretion of insulin, CCK and gastrin. Physiol. Behav. 54, 1069±1073.

de PassilleÂ, A.M., Metz, J.H.M., Mekking, P., Wiepkema, P.R., 1992. Does drinking milk stimulate sucking in

young calves? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 34, 23±36.

de PassilleÂ, A.M., Rushen, J., 1997. Motivational and physiological analysis of the causes and consequences of

non-nutritive sucking by calves. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 53, 15±31.

de PassilleÂ, A.M., Rushen, J., Janzen, M., 1997. Some aspects of milk that elicit non-nutritive sucking in the calf.

Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 53, 167±173.

de Wilt, J.G., 1985. Behaviour and welfare of veal calves in relation to husbandry systems. PhD thesis,

University of Wageningen.

Graf, B., Verhagen, N., Sambraus, H.H., 1989. Reduzierung des Ersatzsaugens bei kuÈnstlich aufgezogenen

KaÈlbern durch Fixierung nach dem TraÈnken oder VerlaÈngerung der Saugzeit. ZuÈchtungskunde 61, 384±400.

Hammell, K.L., Metz, J.H.M., Mekking, P., 1988. Sucking behaviour of dairy calves fed milk ad libitum by

bucket or teat. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 20, 275±285.

Keil, N.M., Graf, B., 1998. Euterbesaugen bei Aufzuchtrindern beziehungsweise Milchsaugen bei KuÈhen:

Analyse von Einflussfaktoren auf die Genese und das Auftreten. In: Aktuelle Arbeiten zur artgemaÈssen

Tierhaltung 1997, KTBL-Schrift 380. KTBL, Darmstadt, pp. 100±109.

Keil, N.M., AudigeÂ, L., Langhans, W., 2000. Factors associated with inter-sucking in Swiss dairy heifers. Prev.

Vet. Med. 45, 305±323.

Kittner, M., Kurz, H., 1967. Ein Beitrag zur Frage des Verhaltens der KaÈlber unter besonderer BeruÈcksichtigung

des Scheinsaugens. Archiv fuÈr Tierzucht 10, 41±60.

Lidfors, L.M., 1993. Cross-sucking in group-housed dairy calves before and after weaning off milk. Appl. Anim.

Behav. Sci. 38, 15±24.

Margerison, J.K., Phillips, C.J.C., Preston, T.R., 1996. The effect of restricted suckling and non-suckling systems

on dairy cow and calf behaviour. Anim. Sci. 62, 655.

Mees, A.M.F., Metz, J.H.M., 1984. Saugverhalten von KaÈlbern Ð BeduÈrfnis und Befriedigung bei

verschiedenen TraÈnkesystemen. In: Aktuelle Arbeiten zur artgemaÈssen Tierhaltung 1983, KTBL-Schrift

299. KTBL, Darmstadt, pp. 82±93.

Rushen, J., de PassilleÂ, A.M., 1995. The motivation of non-nutritive sucking in calves, Bos taurus. Anim. Behav.

49, 1503±1510.

Rutgers, L.J.E., Grommers, F.J., 1988. Melkzuigen door runderen: een literatuuroverzicht. Tijdschr.

Diergeneeskd. 113, 418±430.

Sambraus, H.H., 1984. Gegenseitiges Besaugen von KaÈlbern bei kuÈnstlicher Aufzucht. Berl. MuÈnch. TieraÈrztl.

Wschr. 97, 119±123.

Scheurmann, E., 1974. Ursachen und VerhuÈtung des gegenseitigen Besaugens bei KaÈlbern. TieraÈrztl. Prax. 2,

389±394.

Wendl, G., Schuch, S., Wendling, F., 1997. Ein geschlossener TraÈnkestand zur Verringerung des gegenseitigen

Besaugens in der KaÈlberaufzucht mit rechnergesteuerten TraÈnkeautomaten. In: Wendl, G. (Ed.),

AussenklimastaÈlle und automatische Melksysteme in der Milchviehhaltung. Landtechnik-Schrift, Band 7,

pp. 81±90.


Documents

Reduction in cross-sucking in calves by the use of a modified automatic teat feeder