The effects of alternative weaning methods on behaviour in beef calves

• Published in: Livestock science Vol. 128; no. 1; pp. 20 - 27
• Main Authors: Enríquez, D.H., Ungerfeld, R., Quintans, G., Guidoni, A.L., Hötzel, M.J.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier B.V 01-03-2010; Amsterdam; New York: Elsevier
• Subjects: animal behavior; animal stress; animal well-being; Beef cattle; Behaviour; body weight; Calves; liveweight gain; locomotion; maternal behavior; methodology; Stress; suckling; temporal variation; Weaning; Beef cattle; Calves; Behaviour; Weaning; Stress
• ISSN: 1871-1413; 1878-0490
• DOI: 10.1016/j.livsci.2009.10.007

The aim of this experiment was to compare the behavioural responses and weight change of beef calves weaned using three weaning methods. Forty-eight primiparous Hereford or Hereford
×
Angus nursing beef calves (180.7
±
1.3
days old; mean
±
SEM) were assigned to one of three treatments: 1) CON: weaned abruptly on day 0; 2) FEN: calves were separated by fence line from dams on day −
17 but remained in visual sight of one another; or 3) NF: cows and calves remained together but suckling was prevented on day −
17 by inserting a nose-flap anti-suckling device. In all treatments remote physical separation of the cow and calf took place on day 0. Behaviours were recorded by instantaneous sampling from day −
20 to day −
13, and from day −
3 to day 5, except on day 0. Distance between cows and calves and the fence line in FEN calves and between the dyads in NF calves were recorded from day −
17 to day −
13. Body weights of calves were recorded on days −
24, −
11, 0, 7 and 21. There was a day and treatment by day interaction for all behaviours. Behavioural responses were strongest during the first 2
days after fence line separation in the FEN calves and after remote separation in the CON calves. For the NF calves, behavioural effects were observed immediately after insertion of the nose-flaps, including numerous unrewarded suckling events, and again when remote physical separation took place. Overall the FEN calves vocalized (
P
<
0.03) more than CON and NF calves. CON calves played (
P
<
0.02) and ruminated (
P
<
0.04) more often than FEN and NF calves, and walked (
P
=
0.01) more than NF. On day −
17 and day −
16, FEN calves (and their dams) spent more time within 30
m of the fence line than on day −
15 to day −
13 (
P
<
0.02). NF calves spent more time in close proximity of their dams on day −
17 and day −
16 (
P
<
0.001). Calves of the CON treatment had a greater average daily gain (ADG) than FEN and NF calves (
P
<
0.008); ADG was greater in FEN than in NF calves (
P
=
0.02). Two-stage weaning with nose-flaps resulted in a second distress response after remote physical separation from the dam, and a drop in ADG in both periods indicating that the response was distributed between the two stages. In calves weaned using the fence line method, the response was more prolonged and more intense, with no advantages for weight gain compared to abrupt weaning. In conclusion, the two alternative weaning methods did not appear to provide any clear benefits in reducing weaning distress in beef calves compared to abrupt weaning in the conditions used in this experiment. However, the use of nose-flaps seems to reduce distress better than fence line separation.