DOI: 10.25338/b8v054
title: Data from: Hay provision affects 24-h performance of normal and abnormal oral behaviors in dairy calves

description: Dairy calves often perform abnormal repetitive behaviors (ARBs) including
 tongue rolling and non-nutritive oral manipulation (NNOM) when
 opportunities to perform feeding behaviors are restricted. Many US dairy
 farms limit access to milk, a well-studied risk factor for ARBs. However,
 farms also commonly do not feed forage to young calves, and the motor
 patterns of oral ARBs resemble those necessary for acquiring and chewing
 solid feed. Our objective was to assess how access to hay from birth
 influenced time engaged in normal and abnormal oral behaviors across 24 h.
 Holstein heifer calves were housed individually on sand bedding and fed ad
 libitum water and grain (Control, n = 11) or given additional access to
 hay (Hay, n = 11) from birth. Calves were fed 5.7-8.4 L/d (step-up) milk
 replacer via a teat. At the start of step-down weaning (50 ± 1 d), all
 calves were given access to a total mixed ration (TMR). Feed and water
 intake were measured daily. Oral behaviors (eating, ruminating, sucking
 milk, drinking water, panting, grooming, tongue flicking, tongue rolling,
 and NNOM) were recorded by direct observation at weeks 2, 4, 6, and 8
 using 1-0 sampling at 1-min intervals for 24 h. Grain, hay, and water
 intake increased over time in the preweaning period. One polydipsic calf
 regularly consumed &gt;10 L water/d. During weaning, Hay calves tended
 to consume increasingly more TMR, significantly more water, and less grain
 than Control calves. Access to hay led to more observations spent eating
 solid feed (7% vs. 5%, mean percentage of intervals) and ruminating (24%
 vs. 16%) during the preweaning period compared to calves fed only grain,
 though Control calves appear to ruminate in absence of forage to re-chew.
 Rumination occurred, to a large extent, overnight. Hay calves also spent
 less time self-grooming (12% vs. 14%), tongue flicking (14% vs. 18%), and
 performing NNOM (17% vs. 21%) than Control calves. While NNOM peaked
 around milk feedings, all 3 behaviors were performed throughout the day.
 Tongue rolling was rare across treatments, as was panting, which occurred
 most frequently around 14:00. There were no behavioral differences during
 weaning (wk 8). Overall, we found that hay provision affects most oral
 behaviors that calves perform: it promotes natural feeding behaviors and
 reduces abnormal ones, suggesting hay should be provided. We also found
 that calves perform other behaviors, including polydipsia, repetitive
 grooming, and apparent sham rumination, that may suggest a degree of
 abnormality in these behaviors that has not been previously identified.
 These results highlight the importance of utilizing all oral behaviors to
 better understand calf welfare.
description: See methods in associated publication.
description: The following is also included in the README file associated with
 this Dryad entry. Supplemental
 material: The supplemental materials in this
 section are referenced in the corresponding paper, and provide additional
 information and context for the experiment’s design and results.
 <strong>Tables and captions:</strong>
 <em>Supplemental Table 1. Modified Wisconsin
 Calf Health Scorecard. </em>Rectal temperatures were recorded if a
 calf scored ³3 for these categories combined, excluding ocular discharge.
 Observers were trained to &gt;80% reliability (Kendall’s W) using
 40-photo tests for nasal discharge, ocular discharge, ear position, and
 feces. Cough, respiratory, and attitude were not prevalent enough for a
 test, and were rarely observed during the trial. 
 <em>Supplemental Table 2. Behavior model outputs. </em>These
 three tables reflect the model-predicted (preweaning) or raw (weaning)
 means, SE, and 95% CI for all oral behaviors scored, along with the model
 results. <em>Supplemental Table 3. Feed and
 ADG model outputs. </em>These tables reflect the model results for
 feed (grain, hay, TMR) intake, water intake, and ADG.
 <strong>Figures and
 captions:</strong> 
 <em>Supplemental Figure 1. Rubber mats.pdf; </em>Perforated
 rubber mats placed on top of sand bedding from d 0-5 for all calves to
 reduce accidental sand inhalation. 
 <em>Supplemental Figure 2. Grain and hay.pdf</em>; Grain and
 mountain grass hay (mix of orchard and fescue) fed during this
 experiment. <em>Supplemental Figure 3. Pen
 setup.pdf</em>; Bucket set up for Control (left) and Hay (right)
 treatments. Control calves had grain, water, and empty buckets (left to
 right) while Hay calves had grain, water, and mountain grass hay buckets
 (left to right). Both treatments had access to these buckets beginning on
 d 0. At the start of step-down weaning (50-60 ± 1 d), TMR was provided for
 Control calves in the empty bucket (right) and for Hay calves in place of
 hay. <em>Supplemental Figure 4. Tongue roll
 average by individual.pdf</em>; Overall proportion of 24-h
 observations engaged in tongue rolling in wk 2, 4, 6, and 8. Each colored
 line represents an individual calf. The dashed line represents the start
 of weaning (50-60 ± 1 d). All wk 8 observations were conducted on d 6 of
 step-down weaning when the 2<sup>nd</sup> of 3 milk meals had
 been removed. <em>Supplemental Figure 5.
 Tongue roll time series by individual.pdf</em>; Proportion of time
 engaged in tongue rolling in wk 2, 4, 6, and 8 averaged by individual calf
 in 15-min bins over a 24-h d. Each colored line represents a different
 calf. Dashed lines represent milk feedings, which occurred at 06:45,
 12:45, and 18:45 h in wk 2-6 and at 18:45 h in wk 8, during step-down
 weaning. 
 <strong>Videos:</strong> A
 collection of short videos are available to demonstrate what each
 behavior, as defined in the corresponding paper, looked like. In addition
 to the defined behaviors, there are videos showing what drinking water
 looks like as a young calf (3 days) and an older calf (7 weeks), and what
 appears to be sham rumination; in “Video8_Sham rumination 1” the calf is
 producing orange froth while chewing, while in “Video9_Sham rumination 2”
 the calf does not appear to regurgitate a true bolus, and quickly stops
 chewing. Raw data and
 code: This section includes the data and code
 used for this paper. All data in this section were
 collected from 22 calves fed a standard diet of grain, milk, and water
 (Control treatment, n=11) and additional access to hay (Hay treatment,
 n=11) from birth until weaning at 60±1 d. The column “Age_days” reflects
 the calf’s age when the intake was recorded, while “Date” reflects the
 exact date of intake. “Week” corresponds to the calf’s age in days (i.e.
 1-6 days = week 0, 7-13 days = week 1, etc.). 
 <em>OBiC_1-0 behavioral data.csv; </em>1-0 sampling
 of oral behaviors (ruminating, eating grain, eating hay, sucking milk,
 drinking water, grooming, non-nutritive oral manipulation, tongue flicks,
 tongue rolling, panting) at 1-min intervals for a continuous 24-h day at
 weeks 2, 4, 6, and 8 of life. Note that in these files, tongue flicks were
 originally scored with the name “tongue play.” The raw data thus says
 “tongue.play;” this is the same as tongue flicks. Similarly, sucking milk
 was originally scored with the name “sucking.liquid.” The column labeled
 “Eating” is “eating.grain" + “eating.hay” combined, so calves
 received a 1 if they performed either of those behaviors during that
 minute. <em>JDS.2021-21439_Grain intake
 data.csv; </em>Daily intake of starter grain in grams (g) from birth
 through the end of weaning at 60±1 d. The column “Grain_consumed_dried_g”
 indicates that these values have been converted to a dry matter basis (see
 paper methods for more information about this weekly feed sampling). NAs
 reflect instances where 24h intake could not be reliably captured, e.g.
 because of fecal contamination in the bucket, spillage, negative intake
 values, or lack of DM conversion. 
 <em>JDS.2021-21439_Hay intake data.csv; </em>Daily intake of
 hay in grams (g) from birth through the start of weaning at 50±1 d. The
 column “Hay_consumed_dried_g” indicates that these values have been
 converted to a dry matter basis (see paper methods for more information
 about this weekly feed sampling). NAs reflect instances where 24h intake
 could not be reliably captured, e.g. because of fecal contamination in the
 bucket, spillage, negative intake values, or lack of DM
 conversion. <em>JDS.2021-21439_TMR intake
 data.csv; </em>Daily intake of TMR in grams (g) through the weaning
 period (50-60±1 d). The column “TMR_consumed_dried_g” indicates that these
 values have been converted to a dry matter basis (see paper methods for
 more information about this weekly feed sampling). NAs reflect instances
 where 24h intake could not be reliably captured, e.g. because of fecal
 contamination in the bucket, spillage, negative intake values, or lack of
 DM conversion. Calves 2936 and 2943 have no TMR values due to stepping in
 and kicking their TMR buckets around between every feeding.
 <em>JDS.2021-21439_Water intake data.csv;
 </em>Daily intake of water in liters (L) from birth through the end
 of weaning at 60±1 d. NAs reflect instances where 24h intake could not be
 reliably captured, e.g. because of fecal contamination in the bucket or
 spillage. <em>JDS.2021-21439_Weekly calf
 weights and ADG.xlsx; “</em>Weekly calf weights” sheet presents
 weights for calves obtained via a scale (d 0 weight) or approximated
 through heart girth tape measurements (converted to kg using Heinrichs et
 al. 1992; tape measurements were conducted weekly) that were used to
 determine preweaning average daily gain (ADG), ADG across the full trial,
 and final weight differences. The second tab of this sheet shows only ADG
 by calf (produced by the corresponding .Rmd script, but also included
 here). In this sheet, “ADG_kg/d” reflects kg/d difference from the last
 recorded weight for each calf. 
 RMarkdown code: All codes
 in this section use the data files listed above to build and validate
 models to describe effects of treatment (Hay or Control) and time (Week or
 Day) on behavior, feed intake, and ADG, and produce the figures used in
 the corresponding paper. Rmd files can be downloaded and run in R, or
 downloaded and viewed via the pdf output, which includes the code and
 output previews. Both versions are annotated. 
 <em>JDS.2021-21439_Average daily gain analysis and model
 (pdf and .Rmd)</em>
 <em>JDS.2021-21439_Feed intake data analysis, models, and
 figures (pdf and .Rmd)</em>
 <em>JDS.2021-21439_Behavior data analysis, models,
 boxplots (pdf and .Rmd)</em>
 <em>JDS.2021-21439_Behavior time series plots (pdf and
 .Rmd)</em>