NUTRITION, FEEDING, AND CALVES
Effects of Resistance to Milk Flow and the Provision of Hay
on Nonnutritive Sucking by Dairy Calves1
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lennoxville, PQ, Canada J1M 1Z3
ABSTRACT
This study examined effects of resistance to milk
flow and the provision of hay on the duration of
nutritive sucking and subsequent nonnutritive suck-
ing by dairy calves. In a series of four experiments, 12
male Holstein calves were individually fed milk from
an artificial teat. Resistance to milk flow was varied
by adjusting the orifice size within the milk supply
tube. Using a Latin square design, each calf was fed
the same quantity of milk using four orifice sizes (one
per day for 4 consecutive d). The duration of nutritive
sucking (time required to finish the milk meal) was
longer when calves were fed from the smallest orifice
size (0.16-cm diameter) than when calves were fed
from the largest orifice size (0.55-cm diameter).
Calves compensated for resistance to milk flow in an
attempt to maintain milk intake; however, changes in
sucking rate alone were probably not responsible for
observed differences in the rate of milk consumption
from different orifice sizes. The duration of nonnutri-
tive sucking (sucking of the teat following the milk
meal) was significantly reduced when calves were fed
from the smallest orifice compared with that when
calves were fed from the largest orifice. Nonnutritive
sucking was reduced but not eliminated even with the
longest meal duration. The provision of hay to calves
following the meal also significantly reduced the
amount of nonnutritive sucking. Reduction in flow
rate when calves drink milk through a teat and the
provision of hay after the meal can reduce the inci-
dence of nonnutritive sucking following the meal and
may help to limit cross-sucking in group housing
systems.
( Key words: behavior, calves, nonnutritive sucking,
cross-sucking)
Received December 30, 1997.
Accepted April 3, 1998.
1Lennoxville Contribution Number 572.
2Corresponding author (Lennoxville address).
1998 J Dairy Sci 81:2165–2172 2165
D. B. HALEY,*,†,2 J. RUSHEN,* I.J.H. DUNCAN,†
T. M. WIDOWSKI,† and A. M. DE PASSILLÉ*
*Dairy and Swine Research and Development Centre,
†Department of Animal and Poultry Science,
University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1
INTRODUCTION
During the milk feeding period, most veal calves
and many dairy replacement heifers are fed from a
bucket, are kept individually in stalls or hutches, and
are often tethered (9, 30). Much concern has been
raised about the effect of social and behavioral restric-
tion on the well-being of calves raised under such
conditions [review; (22)]. Increased interest has
arisen in the development of group housing systems
for raising veal calves and replacement heifers. One
behavioral problem that often occurs in group housing
systems is nonnutritive sucking (i.e., calves suck on
pen fixtures or on other calves without receiving any
nutritive reinforcement) (19, 26, 35). The sucking of
other calves (cross-sucking) is directed at the ears,
muzzle, tail, scrotum, navel, prepuce, and the udder
area (8, 12, 24) and is generally thought to be
detrimental to calf health (28, 32). Cross-sucking can
result in injury to the area sucked (24); can lead to
the consumption of urine ( 8 ) ; and, in extreme cases,
may reduce BW gain (12). For these reasons, there
has been an interest in the understanding of the
sucking behavior of calves (21).
Nonnutritive sucking of pen fixtures and of other
calves has not been reported for calves suckling a cow.
Thus, it has been hypothesized that nonnutritive
sucking is done to compensate for the deprivation of
nutritive sucking (sucking for milk), which would
normally be performed during nursing (12, 16, 31).
In support of this hypothesis, calves fed from a bucket
spend more time sucking a dry teat than do calves fed
from an artificial teat (2, 10, 14, 17, 35), and cross-
sucking occurs less frequently when calves are fed
from an artificial teat than when calves are fed from a
bucket (11, 15, 27).
If nonnutritive sucking is performed to compensate
for a lack of nutritive sucking, then nonnutritive
sucking may be reduced by increasing the amount of
nutritive sucking that occurs. Metz ( 2 0 ) used two
sizes of teat orifices to affect milk flow rate and found
that nonnutritive sucking tended to be reduced with a
2166 HALEY ET AL.
smaller teat orifice. However, the results were not
statistically analyzed.
Cross-sucking and other forms of nonnutritive
sucking are most common immediately after a milk
meal (7, 19). Kilgour and Dalton ( 1 8 ) have sug-
gested that access to dry feed is a possible solution to
sucking problems, and Hoyer and Larkin ( 1 5 ) ob-
served that sucking among calves fed from a bucket
was limited when calves were encouraged to eat hay
or chaff immediately after they finished their milk
meal; however, sucking behavior was not directly
tested.
The objective of this research was to compare the
effects of resistance to milk flow on meal duration and
subsequent nonnutritive sucking. We hypothesized
that an increase in the resistance to milk flow and an
increase in the amount of nutritive sucking would
reduce or eliminate nonnutritive sucking after the
meal. We also examined whether the provision of hay
to calves would distract calves from nonnutritive
sucking after the meal.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Calves and Housing
Calves were housed and fed according to Recom-
mended Codes of Practice for the Care and Handling
of Special-fed Veal Calves ( 1 ) , and all experimental
procedures were approved by an experimental ethics
committee at the Dairy and Swine Research and De-
velopment Centre in compliance with the guidelines
of the Canadian Council on Animal Care. Twelve
male Holstein calves separated from their dam within
24 h of birth were housed individually in pens (2.1 ×
1.85 m ) that permitted visual, auditory, olfactory,
and limited physical contact with at least one adja-
cent neighbor. Calves were kept on a Pasture Mat
flooring (Promat Ltd., Seaforth, ON, Canada) and
were provided with fresh wood shavings for bedding
each day. All pens were in the same artificially venti-
lated room with a preset minimum temperature of
20°C and a maximum allowable variation of 8°C per
24-h period. Artificial lighting was provided on a
12-h photoperiod from 0600 to 1800 h.
Feeding
Calves were individually fed whole milk via a rub-
ber teat. The daily quantity was equal to 10% of the
mean BW of the group and was divided into two equal
portions fed at 0745 and 1545 h at a mean tempera-
ture of 30°C (27 to 33°C). Depending on their age,
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 81, No. 8, 1998
calves received 100 to 400 g/d of long alfalfa hay at
1600 h. Water was available for ad libitum intake via
a self-filling float-activated water bowl, which was
cleaned once each week.
Apparatus
A milk delivery system was developed that allowed
calves to suck milk from an artificial teat (13). A
rubber teat (20 × 100 mm; wall thickness, 4 mm) was
linked to a plastic container by 70 cm of clear tubing
(1.6-cm diameter). The delivery tube was attached to
the milk source by a connector that was equipped
with a shut-off valve that was closed at the end of the
meal. Resistance to milk flow was altered by changing
the orifice size of a washer inserted within the milk
supply tube. The teat was affixed to the pen 70 cm
from the floor, and the milk source was positioned at
the same height at an angle to facilitate complete
drainage of the container. At this height, the milk
flow under the force of gravity through each of orifice
sizes tested was 0.55-cm diameter, 1.40 L/min;
0.39-cm diameter, 0.70 L/min; 0.27-cm diameter, 0.30
L/min; and 0.16-cm diameter, 0.13 L/min. Milk flow
under the force of gravity was approximately doubled
for each successive diameter of the orifice. Regular
meals were fed using the 0.39-cm orifice, which cor-
responded with the diameter of the tubing supplied
by a commercially available teat feeding system
(Group C.A.L.F. Supersuckler; Milk Specialties Co.,
Dundee, IL). For regular feedings, teats were re-
moved 10 to 15 min after the calf finished the milk.
Behavioral Observations
Video cameras (Panasonic WV-BL200; Panasonic
Canada Inc., Mississauga, ON, Canada) were posi-
tioned to record a close, side view of each calf as it
sucked the teat. Output from the 12 cameras was
taped simultaneously, each at a rate of 15 frames/s
using three time-lapse video cassette recorders
(Panasonic AG-6730; Panasonic Canada Inc.) and
three, four-way video splitters (Uniplex Sprite Video
Multiplexer; Dedicated Microcomputers Ltd., Reston,
VA). Videotape recording began just before feeding
and ended 25 min after the calf finished the milk. All
tests were performed during the morning feeding
period. As each calf finished the milk, the attending
technician made a signal in view of the camera to
indicate the end of the meal. The shut-off valve was
subsequently closed to prevent calves from sucking
air or tasting any droplets of milk left in the supply
tube. For experimental meals, the teats were left in
place for 25 min after the milk was consumed.
 NONNUTRITIVE SUCKING BY DAIRY CALVES
Videotapes were analyzed by continuous observa-
tion. The behavior of each calf was observed from the
beginning of the meal until 20 min after the meal
ended. Most nonnutritive sucking occurs during the
10 min following a milk meal ( 5 ) .
The following behavior patterns were recorded.
Nutritive sucking. Nutritive sucking was
recorded during the meal when the calf was sucking
on the teat and ingesting the milk. Nutritive sucking
was operationally defined as the rhythmic opening
and closing movements of the mouth; the tongue was
cupped around the bottom portion of the teat. The
teat had to be straight and oriented along its length
within the mouth of the calf (i.e., not folded or bent
over). Sucking had to last at least 2 s to be recorded.
Nonnutritive sucking. Nonnutritive sucking was
based on the same criteria as nutritive sucking but
was scored after the meal ended, when calves were no
longer sucking for milk.
Manipulate. Any other oral behavior directed at
the teat (e.g., chewing or licking the teat) that was
not classified as sucking behavior was categorized as
manipulative behavior.
Recumbent. Recumbent behavior was recorded
when a calf was in any lying position.
Jaw movements. For the purpose of examining
sucking rate, jaw movements were recorded. A com-
plete open and close cycle of the mouth of the calf was
scored as one jaw movement.
Experiments 1 and 2: Meal Duration
and Nonnutritive Sucking
Two experiments were designed to test the effects
of resistance to milk flow on the duration of nutritive
and nonnutritive sucking.
In Experiment 1, 12 calves were tested at a mean
age of 8 ± 0.4 wk. Calves were blocked by weight and
were fed 3.4 L of whole milk from rubber teats with a
0.16-cm or 0.55-cm diameter. Using a crossover de-
sign, calves randomly received milk from both
orifices, one per day on 2 consecutive d.
In Experiment 2, we tested four orifice sizes to
examine the effects of very slight differences in milk
flow resistance. The same 12 calves from Experiment
1 were tested at a mean age of 13 wk and were fed 5.0
L of milk from four orifice sizes: 0.55, 0.39, 0.27, and
0.16 cm. A repeated Latin square design was used,
and calves randomly received milk from each orifice
size, a different size each morning over 4 consecutive
d. Calves were blocked by BW, generating three 4 × 4
Latin squares.
2167
Figure 1. Mean flow rate of milk during sucking by calves ( ⁄)
compared with the flow rate through the same orifice size at
gravity ( ◊) . Flow rate during sucking by calves is also expressed as
a percentage of gravity flow rate (13). Dimensions of orifice sizes:
large, 0.55-cm diameter; medium, 0.39-cm diameter; small,
0.27-cm diameter; and very small, 0.16-cm diameter.
Experiment 3: Effects of Resistance to Milk Flow
on the Sucking Rate of Calves
Results from preliminary studies ( 1 3 ) showed
that, to some degree, calves could adjust their rate of
milk intake to compensate for resistance to milk flow
(Figure 1). The objective of this experiment was to
determine whether differences in the rate of milk
intake with two different orifice sizes were due to
changes in the sucking rate of the calves as measured
by the frequency of jaw movements.
For this experiment, the standard feeding system
was modified by replacing the simple connector piece
at the base of the milk container with a Y-shaped
connector. Tubes exiting the Y-shaped connector
merged into one common tube to which the teat was
attached (Figure 2). Washers with different orifice
sizes were inserted on either side of the Y-shaped
connector. Resistance to milk flow was increased or
decreased by directing the flow of milk during the
meal through one side of the Y connector and then the
other. The total length of tubing remained 70 cm.
Ten calves were blocked by weight and tested at a
mean age of 15 wk. At 30-s intervals during the meal,
milk flow was alternated back and forth through
orifices with 0.55 and 0.39-cm diameter, which con-
stituted a 30% change in orifice size. Resistance to
milk flow was manipulated during the first 5 min of
the meal, and calves always began the meal by suck-
ing milk through the 0.55-cm orifice. Sucking rates
were calculated by counting the number of jaw move-
ments during each 30-s interval. Sucking rates during
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 81, No. 8, 1998
2168
Figure 2. Diagram showing the modified feeding system used to manipulate milk flow rate during the meal.
periods of different resistance were compared. For
practical purposes, jaw movements were only counted
during periods of continuous sucking for 10 s or
longer. To maximize the quality of the videotaped
image, each calf was recorded at 60 frames/s. Be-
havior following the meal was not examined in this
experiment.
Experiment 4: Effects of the Provision of Hay
on Nonnutritive Sucking
The objective of this experiment was to test
whether the provision of hay after the milk meal
affected the amount of nonnutritive sucking.
The mean age of the 12 calves during this experi-
ment was 14.5 wk. On 2 consecutive d, calves sucked
6.2 L of milk (11% of group mean BW) through the
0.39-cm orifice. Treatments were administered as
calves finished their milk. Treatments were 1 ) ap-
proximately 50 g of hay placed inside the feeder and
immediately removed (sham fed) or 2 ) approxi-
mately 50 g of hay placed in the feeder and left for the
calf to consume (hay fed). Using a crossover design
and blocking by BW, all calves randomly received
both treatments, one each day on consecutive days.
All calves were sham fed the evening before the test
to provide some experience with the general ex-
perimental procedure.
Statistical Analysis
Statistical analyses were performed using the SAS/
STAT for Windows software package (25). Normality
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 81, No. 8, 1998
HALEY ET AL.
of the data was examined by the univariate proce-
dure, and data were log-transformed. Untransformed
data are presented in the results section and in the
figures as means ( ±SE). Effects of milk flow
resistance and the provision of hay on the duration of
various behavior patterns were analyzed by ANOVA
using the general linear models procedure with the
following factors: treatment, block, day, calf within
block, and the interaction of treatment and block.
Following the meal, more than 90% of the nonnutri-
tive sucking occurred during the first half of the
20-min observation period. Statistical results were
the same for all behavior patterns considered,
whether 10 or 20 min were analyzed; therefore, we
have only reported results from the initial 10 min
following the meal.
The mean sucking rate of calves during consecutive
30-s periods was analyzed by ANOVA using a
repeated measures design with the following factors:
flow rate, block, calf within block, and the interaction
of flow rate and block.
Multiple mean comparisons were made using
Tukey’s test.
RESULTS
Experiments 1 and 2: Meal Duration
and Nonnutritive Sucking
All sucking was directed at the teat, and little, if
any, obvious sucking of objects or other calves oc-
curred. In Experiment 1, there was an overall effect of
 NONNUTRITIVE SUCKING BY DAIRY CALVES
orifice size on the duration of both nutritive sucking
for milk ( P < 0.001) and nonnutritive sucking of the
teat after the meal ( P < 0.01). Compared with the
time necessary to finish the milk when the
0.55-cm orifice was used (3.23 ± 0.28 min), calves fed
from the 0.16-cm orifice took longer to finish the milk
(9.84 ± 0.89 min), and the duration of nonnutritive
sucking from the 0.16-cm orifice (3.44 ± 0.40 min)
was shorter than that from the 0.55-cm orifice (5.08 ±
0.49 min). When calves sucked from the 0.16-cm
orifice, the duration of sucking to finish the meal
(13.28 min) surpassed the combined total sucking
time (nutritive plus nonnutritive) when calves
sucked from the 0.55-cm orifice (8.31 min). Orifice
size did not affect the amount of time calves spent
manipulating the teat following the meal (0.55-cm
orifice = 2.52 ± 0.53 min; 0.16-cm orifice = 2.58 ± 0.44
min; P > 0.10).
In Experiment 2, there was an overall effect of milk
flow resistance on meal duration ( P < 0.0001). Dura-
tion of nutritive sucking was significantly longer
when calves were fed from the 0.16-cm orifice than
when calves were fed from the 0.27-, 0.39-, and
0.55-cm orifices (Figure 3). Milk flow resistance had
an overall effect on nonnutritive sucking of the teat
after the meal ( P < 0.0001). Less nonnutritive suck-
ing was recorded following meals fed from the
0.16-cm orifice than that following meals fed from the
other three orifice sizes (Figure 4). No other signifi-
Figure 3. Mean ( ±SE) duration of nutritive sucking of milk by
calves fed from the large (0.55-cm diameter), medium (0.39-cm
diameter), small (0.27-cm diameter), and very small (0.16-cm
diameter) orifice sizes. Bars with different superscripts (a, b )
differ ( P < 0.05) according to Tukey’s test.
2169
Figure 4. Mean duration of nonnutritive sucking (i.e., sucking of
the teat following the meal when no milk was available) by calves
fed from the large (0.55-cm diameter), medium (0.39-cm di-
ameter), small (0.27-cm diameter), and very small (0.16-cm di-
ameter) orifice sizes. Bars with different superscripts (a, b ) differ
( P < 0.05) according to Tukey’s test.
cant differences in nonnutritive sucking among the
orifice sizes were detected. As in Experiment 1, when
calves were fed from the 0.16-cm orifice, the duration
of nutritive sucking (14.45 min) surpassed the total
sucking time (nutritive plus nonnutritive) recorded
for calves fed from each of the other orifice sizes
(10.12, 9.90, and 10.44 min for the 0.55-, 0.39-, and
0.27-cm orifices, respectively). Orifice size had no
effect on the amount of time calves spent manipulat-
ing the teat following the meal (0.55-cm diameter =
2.71 ± 0.64 min, 0.39-cm diameter = 2.56 ± 0.67 min,
0.27-cm diameter = 2.81 ± 0.54 min, and 0.16-cm
diameter = 2.18 ± 0.48 min; P > 0.10). Calves spent
more time ( P < 0.05) recumbent following meals fed
from the 0.16-cm orifice (1.27 ± 0.39 min) compared
with the time spent lying following meals fed from the
0.55-cm orifice ( 0 min). Size of the orifice used for
feeding had no effect on other behavior patterns.
Experiment 3: Effects of Resistance
to Milk Flow on Sucking Rate
A significant overall difference was detected in the
sucking rate of calves when milk was fed through two
different orifice sizes ( P < 0.01). When there was less
resistance to milk flow with the 0.55-cm orifice, the
sucking rate of the calves was higher (2.30 ± 0.03 jaw
movements/s) than that when milk was fed through
the 0.37-cm orifice (2.27 ± 0.03 jaw movements/s).
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 81, No. 8, 1998
2170 HALEY ET AL.
Experiment 4: Effects of the Provision of Hay
on Nonnutritive Sucking
Provision of hay to calves following the meal had
an overall effect on nonnutritive sucking ( P < 0.01);
nonnutritive sucking was reduced when hay was fed
(0.51 ± 0.15 min) compared with that when hay was
sham fed (1.88 ± 0.04 min). No differences in the
amount of time that calves spent performing other
behavior patterns were observed ( P > 0.10).
DISCUSSION
A longer duration of sucking during the meal
resulted in a reduction in subsequent nonnutritive
sucking, but nonnutritive sucking was not eliminated.
Calves compensated for resistance to milk flow, in
part, by changing their sucking rate. In addition,
calves performed less nonnutritive sucking when hay
was fed following the meal.
Reduced nonnutritive sucking following longer
periods of nutritive sucking provided evidence in sup-
port of the hypothesis that nonnutritive sucking is
performed to compensate for a lack of nutritive suck-
ing (7, 16, 31, 33). Rushen and De Passillé ( 2 3 ) have
found that prior nonnutritive sucking reduced subse-
quent nonnutritive sucking more than the ingestion
of milk.
The reduction in nonnutritive sucking may be due
in part to the physiological consequences of sucking
behavior. Wise and LaMaster ( 3 ) suggested that
sucking enhances some physiological processes as-
sociated with the digestion of milk. Calves allowed to
suck a dry teat after drinking their milk from a
bucket have higher concentrations of insulin and
cholecystokinin in their blood ( 5 ) . These metabolic
hormones are thought to be important in satiety in
addition to other factors such as stomach distension
or absorption of digested nutrients (23). Prolonging
the period of nutritive sucking may allow these hor-
mones to reach higher concentrations in the blood
before the calf stops ingesting milk. Digestion of the
milk may reduce sucking motivation by acting as
negative feedback via stomach distension or circulat-
ing hormone concentrations, or both. If the amount of
time for the digestion of milk or the concentration of
blood hormones is important in regulating nonnutri-
tive sucking, an increase in the duration of the meal,
regardless of feeding method, may be useful in reduc-
ing nonnutritive sucking.
It could be argued that, following meals fed from
the 0.16-cm orifice, the sucking muscles of the calves
were too fatigued to allow for much nonnutritive
sucking. However, only actual sucking of the teat
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 81, No. 8, 1998
showed a consistent reduction; oral manipulation of
the teat following the meal was the same for different
meal durations. Nonetheless, calves spent signifi-
cantly more time in a recumbent position when fed
from the 0.16-cm orifice, and the same muscles may
not be used for sucking and manipulation of the teat.
Calves were sensitive to changes in milk flow rate
and were able, in part, to compensate for increased
resistance to milk flow to maintain similar rates of
milk intake. During preliminary studies (13), the
shortest meal duration was achieved with the
0.39-cm orifice, and a further increase in orifice size
did not reduce meal duration. When a very large
orifice was used (1.02-cm diameter), calves sucked
the milk at a speed equal to only 29% of the natural
flow rate through the same orifice at gravity. The
calves were clearly slowing down the speed of milk
flow. Rate of milk intake by the calves appeared to
reach a plateau at approximately 1 L/min, which may
reflect a limit on the amount of milk that calves can
swallow. When further resistance to milk flow was
applied using an orifice size of 0.08 cm, calves some-
times stopped sucking completely although milk was
still available.
Wolff ( 3 4 ) found that calves had the same sucking
rate on an artificial teat whether or not they were
receiving milk (2.1 to 2.5 sucks/s). We found similar
sucking rates, and, although analysis showed a
higher sucking rate with the 0.55-cm orifice, such a
small difference may not be of much biological sig-
nificance. The small difference in sucking rate ob-
served in the present study ( 1 % ) probably cannot
alone explain the difference in the rate of milk con-
sumption (20%) between the two orifice sizes. Two
other factors that might affect the rate of milk intake
include the degree of pressure within the oral cavity
and the position or movement of the tongue. With
greater resistance to milk flow, calves may reduce
their sucking rate, applying more force in the same
amount of time to overcome resistance to milk flow.
Calves might have been sucking harder and perhaps
using different muscles in the mouth.
Although nonnutritive sucking after the meal was
reduced, it was not eliminated. When calves were fed
from the 0.16-cm orifice, the duration of nutritive
sucking surpassed the total sucking duration (nutri-
tive plus nonnutritive) for calves fed from each of the
other three orifice sizes. These results suggest that
calves may be motivated to perform some nonnutri-
tive sucking at the end of a milk meal, regardless of
meal duration. De Passillé et al. ( 6 ) found that the
ingestion of milk stimulates sucking by calves. The
ingestion of milk during the meal might have continu-
 NONNUTRITIVE SUCKING BY DAIRY CALVES
ally stimulated the calves to suck even at the end of
the longest nutritive period. Most milk-fed calves are
likely motivated to perform some nonnutritive suck-
ing, including calves raised with their dam. However,
performance of nonnutritive sucking for calves housed
with the dam may be directed at the teats instead of
at other calves or pen fixtures. Nonnutritive sucking
may help reduce the amount of milk left in the mam-
mary gland, which has important consequences for
the maintenance of lactation ( 4 ) . In a natural situa-
tion, cessation of sucking when milk flow stops may
result in lost milk to the young and residual milk in
the udder, which may contribute to involution of the
mammary gland.
The provision of hay after the milk meal reduced
the amount of nonnutritive sucking. The general
limited amount of nonnutritive sucking by calves on
the sham treatment might have been due to anticipa-
tion by the calves of actual feeding. All calves were
fed a limited quantity of hay each day, which might
have enhanced their motivation to consume rough-
ages by initiating development of the rumen (29).
Motivation to consume the roughage might have over-
come the motivation to perform nonnutritive sucking.
The provision of hay immediately after the milk meal
may be effective in reducing nonnutritive sucking,
especially when calves are fed a limited quantity of
roughage. Such a technique may be dependent, to
some degree, on the age of the calves because very
young calves may not consume much roughage. Provi-
sion of grain immediately after a milk meal may also
be useful in the reduction of nonnutritive sucking.
The results of our experiments suggest that non-
nutritive sucking can be significantly reduced by
modifying resistance to milk flow for calves fed from
an artificial teat. The design of teat feeders should
incorporate resistance to milk flow or a finite flow
rate that prolongs the nutritive period while allowing
calves to finish the entire meal. Milk flow should be
considered in the design of teat feeders to reduce
nonnutritive sucking and the incidence of cross-
sucking when calves are housed in groups. Further-
more, the provision of hay immediately after a milk
meal may also be effective in the reduction of non-
nutritive sucking, especially when calves are fed a
limited quantity of roughage.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by a grant from the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
of Canada to A. M. de Passillé (Lennoxville, PQ,
Canada). The authors thank Keith Carter, Denis
2171
Thibeault, Richard Lanctôt, and other staff at the
Dairy Centre for their cooperation and for looking
after the calves. Essential technical assistance was
provided by Dominique Lévesque, Sylvie Provencher,
and Marjolaine St-Louis.
REFERENCES
1 Agriculture Canada. 1988. Recommended Codes of Practice for
the Care and Handling of Special-fed Veal Calves. Publ. No.
1821-E, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
2 Alexander, G. I. 1954. Rearing dairy calves. Aust. Vet. J. 30:
68–77.
3 Blass, E. M., W. G. Hall, and M. H. Teicher. 1979. Ontogeny of
sucking and ingestive behaviors. Pages 243–299 in Progress in
Psychobiology and Physiological Psychology. J. M. Sprague and
A. N. Epstein, ed. Acad. Press, New York, NY.
4 Cross, B. A. 1977. Comparative physiology of milk removal.
Pages 193–210 in Comparative Aspects of Lactation. M. Peaker,
ed. Acad. Press, New York, NY.
5 De Passillé, A.M.B., R. Christopherson, and J. Rushen. 1993.
Nonnutritive sucking by the calf and postprandial secretion of
insulin, CCK, and gastrin. Physiol. Behav. 54:1069–1073.
6 De Passillé, A.M.B., J.H.M. Metz, P. Mekking, and P. R.
Wiepkema. 1992. Does drinking milk stimulate sucking in
young calves? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 34:23–36.
7 De Passillé, A.M.B., and J. Rushen. 1997. Motivational and
physiological analysis of the causes and consequences of non-
nutritive sucking by calves. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 53:15–31.
8 De Wilt, J. G. 1985. Behaviour and Welfare of Veal Calves in
Relation to Husbandry Systems. Publ. Inst. voor Mechanisatie,
Arbeid en Gebouwen, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Inst.
Agric. Eng., Wageningen, The Netherlands.
9 Friend, T. H., and G. R. Dellmeier. 1988. Common practices and
problems related to artificially rearing calves; an ethological
analysis. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 20:47–62.
10 Geddes, H. J. 1954. Calf-rearing. Aust. Vet. J. 30:77–79.
11 Graf, B., N. Verhagen, and H. H. Sambraus. 1989. Reduzierung
des Ersatzsaugens bei Künstlich aufgezogenen Kälbern durch
Fixerung nach dem Tränken oder Verlängerung der Saugzeit.
Züchtungskunde 61:384–400.
12 Hafez, E.S.E., and J. A. Lineweaver. 1968. Sucking behaviour in
natural and artificially fed neonate calves. Z. Tierpsychol. 25:
287–298.
13 Haley, D. B. 1996. Sucking and butting behaviour of the domes-
tic calf: effects of milk flow rate. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Guelph,
Guelph, ON, Canada.
14 Hammel, K. L., J.H.M. Metz, and P. Mekking. 1988. Sucking
behaviour of dairy calves fed milk ad libitum by bucket or teat.
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 20:275–285.
15 Hoyer, N., and R. M. Larkin. 1954. Bucket and nipple feeding of
calves. Queensl. Agric. J. 79:46–50.
16 Hughes, B. O., and I.J.H. Duncan. 1988. The notion of ethologi-
cal ‘need’, models of motivation, and animal welfare. Anim.
Behav. 36:1696–1707.
17 Kesler, E. M., R. D. McCarthy, and C. B. Knodt. 1956. Nipple
versus pail feeding of milk to Holstein calves. J. Dairy Sci. 39:
542–546.
18 Kilgour, R., and C. Dalton. 1983. Livestock Behaviour A Practi-
cal Guide. Granada Publ., London, England.
19 Lidfors, L. 1993. Cross-sucking in group-housed dairy calves
before and after weaning off milk. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 38:
15–24.
20 Metz, J.H.M. 1984. Regulation of sucking behaviour in calves.
Pages 70–73 in Proc. Int. Cong. Appl. Ethol. Farm Anim., Kiel,
Germany. J. Unshelm, G. van Putten, and K. Zeeb, ed. Kurato-
rium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft, Darm-
stadt, Germany.
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 81, No. 8, 1998
2172 HALEY ET AL.
21 Morrow-Tesch, J. 1996. Environmental enrichment for dairy
calves and pigs. Anim. Welfare Inform. Ctr. Newsl. 7:3–8.
22 Rushen, J. 1994. The Welfare of Veal Calves: a Review of the
Scientific Evidence. Ctr. Study Anim. Welfare, Univ. Guelph,
Guelph, ON, Canada.
23 Rushen, J., and A.M.B. de Passillé. 1995. The motivation of
nonnutritive sucking in calves ( Bos taurus) . Anim. Behav. 49:
1503–1510.
24 Sambraus, H. H. 1980. Human considerations in calf rearing.
Anim. Regul. Stud. 3:19–22.
25 SAS User’s Guide: Statistics, Version 6.08 Edition. 1988. SAS
Inst., Inc., Cary, NC.
26 Stephens, D. B. 1974. Studies on the effect of social environ-
ment on the behaviour and growth rates of artificially-reared
British Friesian male calves. Anim. Prod. 18:23–34.
27 Szücs, E., I. Molnár, Á. Wéber-Forgony, I. Szöllősi, and
L. Kishonti. 1983. Effects of feeding milk from nipple-pails or
buckets in calf rearing. Acta Agron. Acad. Sci. Hung. 32:
273–284.
28 Unshelm, J., U. Andreae, and D. Schmidt. 1982. Behavioural
and physiological studies on rearing calves and veal calves.
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 81, No. 8, 1998
Pages 70–78 in Welfare and Husbandry of Calves. J. P. Sig-
noret, ed. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hauge, The Netherlands.
29 Van Soest, P. J. 1982. Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant.
Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, NY.
30 Wells, S. J., and A. J. Heinrichs. 1994. Housing practices for
preweaned dairy heifer calves in the United States. Pages
490–495 in Dairy Systems for the 21st Century: Proc. 3rd Int.
Dairy Housing Conf., Orlando, FL. R. Buckland, ed. Am. Soc.
Agric. Eng., St. Joseph, MI.
31 Wiepkema, P. R. 1985. Abnormal behaviour in farm animals:
ethological implications. Neth. J. Zool. 35:279–299.
32 Wiepkema, P. R., D. M. Broom, I.J.H. Duncan, and G. van
Putten. 1983. Abnormal behaviour in farm animals. CEC
Report. Rep. Commiss. Eur. Commun., Brussels, Belgium.
33 Wise, G. H., and J. P. LaMaster. 1968. Responses of calves to
open-pail and nipple-pail systems of milk feeding. J. Dairy Sci.
51:452–456.
34 Wolff, P. H. 1968. Sucking patterns of infant mammals. Brain
Behav. Evol. 1:354–367.
35 Wood, P.D.P., G. F. Smith, and M. F. Lisle. 1967. A survey of
intersucking in dairy herds in England and Wales. Vet. Rec. 81:
396–398.