DOI: 10.25338/b8hw7r
title: Data from: Measuring motivation for alfalfa hay in feedlot cattle using voluntary interaction with an aversive stimulus

description: Typical diets for finishing cattle are concentrate-rich and low in
 roughage, which may limit species-specific feeding behaviours and
 increase the risk of digestive disorder. Our objective was to measure how
 motivated finishing steers are to access alfalfa hay compared
 with nothing or more of the finishing ration through
 their willingness to interact voluntarily with an electrified
 barrier. Twenty-four 13-mo-old steers, fed a high
 concentrate finishing ration ad-libitum, had access to one of
 three treatments (n=8 steers/treatment) behind the barrier: 1)
 1.5 L (200 g) of alfalfa hay (AF), 2) 1.5 L (~600 g) of the finishing
 ration (TMR), or 3) an empty bin (E). The primary diet (finishing
 ration) was fed 2x/d while the treatments (AF and TMR) were delivered
 only in the morning. The steer voluntarily pushed his muzzle
 against a barrier which rose out of his way, allowing free access
 to the treatment. The electrical current on the barrier increased
 exponentially every 48 h (0, 156, 312, 625, 1250, 2500, 5000 μA)
 until the animal ceased accessing the bin. Visits to the bin were video
 recorded 24 h/d. The final sample size was five AF, eight TMR, and four E,
 largely because animals did not continue to participate in the
 study, particularly in the AF and E treatments. Of those that remained in
 the study, animals with access to an empty bin were less likely
 to advance to the next current than AF and TMR animals
 (P&lt;0.01).They also stopped accessing the treatment rapidly while AF
 and TMR animals continued to interact with the electrified
 barrier, up to likely aversive maximum currents (195±39, 1000±153 and
 977±138 μA, respectively; P=0.01). Animals with access to alfalfa
 ate more of it as a percentage of the amount offered (P=0.03) and
 visited more (P&lt;0.02) than TMR animals as they approached
 the highest current they were willing to touch. We found no
 evidence of differences in latency to approach either the TMR or AF,
 except 48 h before their highest current pushed, when AF animals
 tended to be quicker (P=0.07). The electrified barrier distinguished
 differences in motivation for food resources versus access to an
 empty feeder, indicating that finishing cattle are motivated
 to access alfalfa and additional offerings of TMR. Despite the
 limitations of a small sample size, this is the
 strongest evidence to date that these cattle are motivated to
 contrafreeload. The rationale behind these results, be
 it exploration or other benefits associated with each feed type,
 remain unclear, as forage was not clearly preferred over TMR as
 predicted.
description: Please see the associated publication for details about how these
 data were collected. 
description: Please see the associated publication and README file about how
 these data were handled. 
description: # Data from: Measuring motivation for alfalfa hay in feedlot cattle using
 voluntary interaction with an aversive stimulus
 ## Description of the data and
 file structure The corresponding publication references the supplemental
 materials in this document. The means, standard errors, and confidence
 intervals are reported in the RMarkdown for all data. Missing data has
 been denoted in the raw data files with “NA”. The treatments were applied
 to the 48-h period, but some variables such as daily intake and latency to
 approach to the treatments each day were refreshed on a 24-h basis and
 thus modelled at that level to show the resolution of data collection.
 **Tables and captions (see “Supplemental Tables 230915.pdf”)** *
 Supplemental Table S1. Effect of interacting with an aversive electrified
 barrier to access 1.5 L of either AF, TMR, or E on behaviours in finishing
 cattle fed a high-concentrate diet for current period -1 and 0. *
 Supplemental Table S2. Back-transformed means and SE for models analyzing
 the effect of interacting with an aversive electrified barrier to access
 1.5 L of either AF, TMR, or E on behaviours in finishing cattle fed a
 high-concentrate diet for current periods -1 and 0. * Supplemental Table
 S3. Effect of interacting with an aversive electrified barrier to access
 1.5 L of either AF or TMR on behaviours in finishing cattle fed a
 high-concentrate diet for current periods -4 and 0. * Supplemental Table
 S4. Back-transformed means and SE for models analyzing the effect of
 interacting with an aversive electrified barrier to access 1.5 L of either
 AF or TMR on behaviours in finishing cattle fed a high-concentrate diet
 for current periods -4 to 0. **Graphs (see “Supplemental Figures
 231219.pdf”)** * Figures S1-S5. Scatter plots of behaviours (Confident
 Visits, Unsuccessful Attempts, RIC Registered Visits, % Intake of the
 treatment diets, and Latency to approach the electrified barrier) and
 Current (mA). **Reference Guides** * “Supplementary Materials –
 Description of electrified barrier 230915.pdf” – Reference guide for
 building electrified barrier. * “Supplementary Materials – Instructions
 for daily electrified barrier assessment 221128.pdf” – Reference guide for
 daily assessment of electrified barrier’s functionality. **Videos** *
 “Confident visit.mp4” – Example of a confident visit to the treatment bin.
 * “Unsuccessful attempt.mp4” – Example of an unsuccessful attempt to
 access the treatment bin. **Data** All data in this section were collected
 from 24 steers fed a high-concentrate finishing ration for at least 30
 days before the start of the experiment. Six animals (4 E and 2 AF) were
 removed from data analyses because they did not visit the treatments
 during the 24 h before the start of the experiment. Another AF animal was
 removed from analyses because of sustained technological failure. The
 resulting sample size was 17 animals (4 E, 5 AF, and 8 TMR). Ten 48-h
 periods from 7 different animals’ data were also removed from analyses due
 to technological failure. * *Visit Data 230119.xlsx*; The behaviours
 “Confident_visit”, “Unsucc_attempt”, and “RIC_visit” were counted each
 time the animal was observed performing them and then summed by 48-h
 period. * *MPP_210419.xlsx;* The maximum current animals willingly touched
 the electrified barrier at was recorded as the maximum price paid (MPP) in
 mA. There were no animals that continued to access the treatments at the
 maximum current produced by the device (5000 mA) and thus all animals
 received a “1” in the “Censored” column. * *Latency Data 221213.xlsx*; The
 latency to access the treatment behind the electrified barrier following
 morning feed delivery (0830 h) in min/24 h were calculated by averaging
 the two latencies from each 48-h current period. The average duration of
 this behaviour is recorded as “Latency”. * *Intake Data 221213.xlsx*;
 “Percent_Intake_by_Current_Period” is the mean percent intake of either
 TMR or AF consumed during the two 24-h periods within a 48-h current
 period. * *Descriptive RIC Data 221214.xlsx*; The behaviour “Visit_PB”
 (visits to the primary bin) was summed for each 24-h period
 (“Day_Relative_to_MPP”) for every animal, while “Intake_PB” (intake (kg)
 from the primary bin) was summed as continuous data for each 24-h period
 for every animal. The behaviours “Visit_No_Intake” (visits to the
 treatment bin with no intake), “Time_Spent_Eating” (time spent eating from
 both bins in min/24 h), and “Intake_TB” (intake (g) from the treatment
 bin) were only summarized for AF and TMR animals. The behaviour
 “Visit_No_Intake” was summed by each 24-h period as count data for each
 animal. The behaviours “Time_Spent_Eating” and “Intake_TB” were summed as
 continuous data for each 24-h period for each animal. * *Rumination
 221116.xlsx*; The behaviour “Rumination” is recorded as either “1” if it
 occurred during the 1 min period, or “0” if it did not happen. Spreadsheet
 includes the data for 6 animals. ## Code/Software Annotated versions of
 the Rmarkdown files in .rmd and .pdf can be downloaded in and run in R, or
 viewed in the pdf format.   * *Models and figures for RIC registered
 visits, confident visits, and unsuccessful attempts 230719 (pdf and .Rmd)*
 * *Models and figures for MPP and survival analyses 230719 (pdf and .Rmd)*
 * *Models and figures for latency 230718 (pdf and .Rmd)* * *Models and
 figures for intake 230718 (pdf and .Rmd)*