Search

Veal calves raised under intensive conditions may express non-nutritive oral behaviors. When expressed in an abnormal way, these behaviors can be a sign of mental suffering and reduced welfare due to a mismatch between environmental or management features and the animal's needs. The aims of this study were to estimate the prevalence of non-nutritive oral behaviors in a large sample of veal farms in Europe and to determine the potential influencing factors present at farm level. Data were collected on 157 commercial veal farms in the 3 main veal-producing countries in Europe (the Netherlands, France, and Italy). Observations of 3 non-nutritive oral behaviors (manipulating substrates, tongue rolling, and manipulating a penmate) were performed when calves were aged 14 wk, and the prevalence of these behaviors was calculated. Information on management practices and characteristics of the building and equipment were collected on all farms to assess potential influencing factors for each of the 3 behaviors. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated to evaluate the effect of each individual factor within a generalized linear model. The mean percentage of calves per farm performing manipulating substrates was 11.0 ± 0.46%, performing tongue rolling 2.8 ± 0.18%, and manipulating a penmate 2.7 ± 0.09%, with a high range between farms. Allowing more space for calves than the legal minimum requirement of 1.8 m²/ calf and housing them in groups of >10 calves/pen reduced the incidences of manipulating substrates and tongue rolling. Incidence of manipulating substrates was lower for calves fed maize silage compared with calves fed cereal grain, pellets, or muesli. A higher risk of tongue rolling was found when baby-boxes (i.e., single housing during the first 5 to 8 wk) were not used. Risk of calves manipulating a penmate was higher for calves of milk- or meat-type breeds compared with dual-purpose breeds and for calves fed with 280 to 380 kg compared with those fed >380 kg of milk powder in total for the fattening period. The study allowed assessment of multiple factors across farms that showed variety in terms of conditions and level of non-nutritive oral behaviors. Identification of the factors influencing non-nutritive oral behavior is helpful to define potential actions that could be taken on farms to improve the welfare of calves and reduce the prevalence of these behaviors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The human–animal relationship is an important component of the welfare of farm animals and for this reason animal responsiveness tests to humans are included in on-farm welfare assessment schemes that provide indicators for this. However, apart from the behaviour of stockpersons towards their animals, other factors may also influence animals’ reactivity to humans as observed through behavioural tests, which can add a further layer of complexity to the interpretation of test results. Knowledge of these factors may help a better interpretation of differences from one farm to another in the outcome of human–animal relationship tests, and may provide clues for improving the relationship between animals and humans. The main objective of this study was to identify whether management or environmental factors could influence the outcome of human–animal relationship tests in veal calves. Two tests were performed when calves were aged 14.9 ± 1.6 (SD) weeks in 148 veal farms: the voluntary approach of an unfamiliar human standing at the feeding fence and the reaction towards an unfamiliar human who entered the home pen and tried to touch each calf in a standardised way (Calf Escape Test (CET) – score 0 to 4). Questionnaires were filled in and interviews with the stockpersons were performed in order to obtain information on stockpersons, management, animal and building characteristics. The latency to touch an unfamiliar human at the feeding fence was significantly correlated with the CET scores. Total number of calves on the farm, space allowance, breed, environmental enrichment, stockperson's experience and season of observation influenced the percentage of calves that scored 0 in CET (i.e. calves that could not be approached). Type of milk distribution, type of breed and number of calves per stockperson influenced the percentage of calves that scored 4 in CET (i.e. calves could be touched). For both CET0 and CET4, the level of self-reported contacts by the stockperson (analysed only on the French subset of 36 farms) did not influence the results. This paper concludes that according to the tests conducted on veal calves on commercial farms, factors such as milk distribution method, breed of the calves or the level of experience of stockpersons with veal farming can have an impact on the results of tests focusing on human–animal relationships. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]