Effect of the number of daily distributions of solid feed on veal calves’ health status, behaviour, and alterations of rumen and abomasa

Figures & data

Table 1. Feed ingredient and chemical composition (mean ± SE) of the solid feeds provided to the calves during the fattening cycle in the two farms.

	Farm A		Farm B
Period of fattening (mean calves’ age)	I (29–75 day)	II (76 day–end)	I (21–169 day)	II (170 day–end)
Ingredient, as fed basis
Corn grain, %	44.0	67.0	60.0	43.0
Barley and corn based commercial mixture^a, %	44.0	–	–	16.0
Corn grain based commercial mixture^b, %	12.0	33.0	40.0	22.0
Corn silage based commercial mixture^c, %	–	–	–	18.0
Chemical composition
Dry matter (DM), %	88.3 ± 0.6	87.2 ± 0.6	87.0 ± 0.4	76.9 ± 0.3
Crude protein (CP), % DM	12.4 ± 0.2	9.1 ± 0.2	9.3 ± 0.1	10.0 ± 0.2
Ether extract (EE), % DM	3.7 ± 0.2	3.5 ± 0.1	3.5 ± 0.2	3.5 ± 0.1
Starch, % DM	58.6 ± 0.8	62.5 ± 1.9	60.6 ± 0.4	53.8 ± 0.3
Neutral detergent fibre (NDF), % DM	13.6 ± 1.0	15.5 ± 1.1	16.6 ± 0.9	21.1 ± 0.5
Non-fibrous carbohydrate^d, % DM	66.1	68.9	62.1	68.1
Ash, % DM	4.2 ± 0.2	3.0 ± 0.1	2.5 ± 0.3	3.3 ± 0.2
Iron, ppm	25.5 ± 0.7	21.8 ± 1.2	22.7 ± 1.5	26.0 ± 0.8

^aCommercial mixture containing mainly barley, flaked corn, oat, corn grain, lupin bean, corn gluten, and soybean proteins; ^bCommercial mixture containing mainly corn grain, corn gluten, and wheat straw; ^cCommercial mixture containing mainly corn silage, corn grain, and ammonium propionate; ^dNon-fibrous carbohydrate content calculated as: 100 − (NDF + CP + EE + ash)

Table 2. Description of the animal-based measures used in the assessment protocol for the in vivo examination of calves’ health status during the week before the beginning of the experimental differentiation of the number of solid feed distributions, and 1, 2, and 3 months after the beginning of the experimental differentiation of the number of solid feed distributions.

Measure	Description
Gastrointestinal disorder
Poorer body condition	average weight and condition behind for more than 30% compared to the mid-range of the batch
Bloated rumen	obviously tensed abdomen, more convex than the shape of the ribs
Diarrhoea	liquid manure on calf body
Respiratory disorder
Abnormal breathing	difficult or laboured breathing, calf performing belly movements, increased respiratory frequency over 40/min
Coughing	visible, sudden and noisy expulsion of air
Nasal discharge	clearly visible flow/discharge from the nostrils, transparent to yellow/green and often of thick consistency
Integumentary alteration
Hard skin or hyperkeratinisation	thickened skin (wrinkled with loss of hair), often at the shoulders/withers
Chewing wounds	damaged tail/ear with/without presence of fresh blood or scab
Urine drinking signs	wet, yellow snout (sucklers), swollen hairless prepuce (victims)
Skin lesion or swelling	alopecic sites; irregular skin due to mycoses, parasites, viruses; skin redness; or swelling
Locomotory disorder
Lameness	abnormality of movement, from reduced ability to use one or more limbs in a normal manner to complete inability to bear weight
Joint lesion	thickening of the joint due to accumulation of synovia, swelling
Claw lesion	inflammation with red and swollen skin at the claw edge
Generally compromised health status
Sick appearance	an apathetic calf or showing hanging ears or a body position indicating pain or any combination of these signs
Wet calf	wet coat along the entire back
Dull fur	entire coat being dull, not shiny or glossy, sometimes appearing as dry or long or both

Figure 1. Prevalence of veal calves observed with bloated rumen (Least square means ±95% confidence intervals) (top figures) and haemoglobin concentration (Least square means ± SEM) (bottom figures) according to the interaction between treatment and observation or blood sampling day (left figures) and between farm and observation or blood sampling day (right figures). Different letters (A–C) indicate significant differences for observation or sampling day (p <.001). Different letters (X–Z) indicate a significant farm × blood sampling day interaction (p <.001).

Table 3. Least means and 95% confidence intervals of prevalence of veal calves observed with health status problems during the four health status observation days according to the number of daily solid feed distributions (2× and 3×) and to the farm (A and B).

	Solid feed distributions (SFD)		Farm (F)		p Value
	2×	3×	A	B	SFD	F	SFD × F	Observation
Pens observed (n)	28	28	56	20
Calves observed^a (n)	216	222	330	108
Clinical signs^b, % of calves
Bloated rumen	2.4 (1.2–4.7)	3.8 (2.4–6.0)	3.4 (2.3–5.1)	2.6 (1.3–5.1)	.230	.446	.416	.001
Coughing	3.4 (2.3–5.0)	5.5 (3.9–7.6)	3.7 (2.7–5.0)	4.9 (3.2–7.6)	.058	.349	.343	.220
Skin lesion or swelling	8.1 (6.3–10.3)	6.2 (4.5–8.7)	7.5 (6.1–9.2)	6.7 (4.4–10.4)	.140	.631	.745	.003
Joint lesion	3.7 (2.4–5.7)	5.3 (3.7–7.5)	5.5 (4.6–6.5)	3.6 (1.9–6.6)	.153	.096	.869	.019

^aAverage number of calves observed during the 4 health status observation days; ^bOnly the occurrences of clinical signs having an overall prevalence above 5% of calves are processed using a multivariate regression model and presented in this Table.

Figure 2. Effect of treatment × time from milk-replacer distribution interaction on the percentage of veal calves observed in standing posture, eating solid feed or performing non-nutritive oral behaviour during the three 5-h behavioural observation sessions (Least square means ± SEM). Different letters indicate significant differences within a given behaviour (p <.05 lower case; p <.001 capital letters). 1° SFD: 1st solid feed distribution for all calves; 2° SFD: 2nd solid feed distribution only for calves receiving three daily doses of solid feed.

Table 4. Post mortem rumen and abomasal mucosa evaluations (mean ± SE) carried out at the slaughterhouse according to the number of daily solid feed distributions (2× and 3×) and to the farm (A and B).

	Solid feed distributions (SFD)		Farm (F)		p Value
	2×	3×	A	B	SFD	F
Inspected rumens (n)	209	209	340	74
Rumen mucosa alteration, % of rumens
Hyperkeratinisation	36.8 ± 0.03	28.2 ± 0.03	32.8 ± 0.03	31.1 ± 0.05	.099	.874
Plaques	84.7^B ± 0.02	95.2A ± 0.01	89.8 ± 0.02	90.5 ± 0.03	.001	.999
Inspected abomasa (n)	209	205	337	77
Abomasal lesion, % of abomasa
Presence on torus pylorus	75.6 ± 0.03	78.5 ± 0.03	80.1^a ± 0.02	63.6^b ± 0.06	.552	.008
Presence of at least 1 lesion in pyloric area	88.0 ± 0.02	91.2 ± 0.02	90.8 ± 0.02	84.4 ± 0.04	.367	.206
Small lesions	57.9 ± 0.06	61.0 ± 0.07	60.8 ± 0.05	53.2 ± 0.10	.590	.280
Medium lesions	51.7 ± 0.08	56.1 ± 0.08	57.9^A ± 0.06	36.4^B ± 0.14	.421	<.001
Large lesions	72.7 ± 0.08	74.6 ± 0.09	76.6^a ± 0.07	61.0^b ± 0.15	.742	.014
Abomasal lesion score^a	10.7 ± 0.53	11.3 ± 0.58	11.8^A ± 0.44	7.4^B ± 0.71	.770	<.001

^aScore weighed according to the number of lesions (from 0 to maximum of 4, censored) and size category (1 = < 0.5 cm²; 2 = 0.5 – 1 cm²; 3 = > 1 cm²) calculated as [(n of lesions size 1 × 1) + (n of lesions size 2 × 2) + (n of lesions size 3 × 3). Different superscript letters indicate significant differences for p < .001 (A-B) and for p < .05 (a-b) within treatment and farm effects.