Review: Behaviour and its role in the nutritional

management of the growing dairy heifer

T. J. DeVries
Department of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Guelph, Kemptville Campus, 830 Prescott Street,
Kemptville, Ontario, Canada K0G 1J0 (e-mail: tdevries@kemptvillec.uoguelph.ca).
Received 17 December 2009, accepted 4 May 2010.
De Vries, T. J. 2010. Review: Behaviour and its role in the nutritional management of the growing dairy heifer. Can. J. Anim.
Can. J. Anim. Sci. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 105.104.230.235 on 05/17/20

Sci. 90: 295
302. There has recently been a significant increase in the amount of scientific research relating dairy cattle
behaviour to nutritional management, particularly with respect to the interaction with health. Much of this research has
been focused on using information on the natural behavioural patterns of dairy cattle to improve management practices.
As with calves and mature dairy cattle, the behaviour of growing replacement dairy heifers interacts with various
nutritional management practices. For replacement dairy heifers, much of the research in this area has been focused on
how these interactions relate to different feed delivery methods, the amount of feed provided, and stocking density at the
feed bunk. This review describes empirical work focused on understanding how nutritional management practices affect
heifer behaviour, and how these practices may affect the health, productivity, and welfare of these animals. In particular,
evidence will be provided for those practices (such as total mixed ration feeding, feeding for ad libitum intake, and reducing
feed bunk competition) that promote feeding behaviour patterns related to more consistent nutrient intake and improved
rumen health. Even though the behavioural effects of these nutritional practices are known, additional research is still
needed to further demonstrate the possible physiological consequences (e.g., rumen pH, growth rate) of these changes in
behaviour. This information is needed so that further recommendations can be made on these practices so these animals
may be raised for maximum production potential, while maintaining their behavioural needs, health and overall welfare.

Key words: Behaviour, nutritional management, replacement dairy heifer

For personal use only.

De Vries, T. J. 2010. Le comportement et son rôle dans la gestion de la nutrition des génisses laitières en croissance. Can. J.
Anim. Sci. 90: 295
302. On a assiste depuis peu à une intensification importante des recherches scientifiques sur les liens
entre le comportement des bovins laitiers et la prise en charge de leur nutrition, surtout sur le plan de la santé. Une bonne
partie de ces travaux font appel à l’information sur le comportement naturel des animaux pour améliorer les pratiques
d’élevage. Comme c’est le cas avec les veaux et les bovins laitiers adultes, le comportement des génisses de remplacement en
croissance influe sur diverses pratiques en matière de nutrition. La recherche correspondante sur les génisses laitières de
remplacement se concentre dans une large mesure sur les interactions du comportement avec les méthodes de distribution
des aliments, la quantité d’aliments fournie et la densité de peuplement aux mangeoires. Cet article décrit les travaux
empiriques visant à élucider la manière dont les techniques de prise en charge de l’alimentation influent sur le comportement
des génisses, et sur la façon dont pareilles pratiques influent sur la santé, le rendement et le bien-être des animaux. Plus
précisément, l’auteur présente des preuves sur les pratiques (distribution d’une ration complète mélangée, alimentation à
satiété et réduction de la compétition aux mangeoires) qui encouragent des habitudes alimentaires associées à une ingestion
plus uniforme d’aliments et à une meilleure santé du rumen. Bien qu’on connaisse l’incidence de ces pratiques
nutritionnelles, il faudrait entreprendre d’autres recherches pour mieux illustrer les conséquences physiologiques éventuelles
(à savoir, pH du rumen, taux de croissance) de tels changements de comportement. On a besoin de ce genre d’information
pour formuler d’autres recommandations sur ces pratiques, afin que les animaux puissent être élevés jusqu’à leur potentiel
de production maximal, sans que leurs besoins comportementaux, leur santé et leur bien-être général en souffrent.

Mots clés: Comportement, gestion de la nutrition, génisse laitière de remplacement

Dairy producers replace 25 to 35% of their herd each
year with 2-yr-old heifers (Lehenbauer 1998). Overall
herd improvement is only possible if these replacements
are healthy, productive, and genetically superior to those
being culled. This is achieved through a replacement
Presented at the Joint Annual Meeting of the Canadian
Society of Animal Science, the American Dairy
Science Association, and the American Society of
Animal Science, held in Montreal in July 2009.
295
heifer rearing program in which sound feeding, breeding,
and management decisions are made. Feeding programs
must be designed to allow replacement heifers to be bred
efficiently, calve out by 24 mo of age, and produce to
their maximum potential. To achieve this, heifers must
be fed to grow at a high rate, while not becoming over-
conditioned, as well as to remain healthy. The costs
Abbreviations: DMI, dry matter intake; TMR,
total mixed ration
 296 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE
associated with replacement dairy heifer rearing are
second only to the feed costs of lactating cows, repre-
senting 15 to 20% of total farm expenses (Heinrichs
1993). Of these costs, feed represents the single greatest
expense in heifer rearing costs (Gabler et al. 2000).
It follows, therefore, that the primary nutritional goals of
a successful dairy replacement rearing program are to
feed heifers for maximal production potential, at a low
economic and environmental cost, without compromis-
ing health or welfare.
We have seen much advancement, particularly in the
past 10 years, in replacement heifer nutritional research
Can. J. Anim. Sci. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 105.104.230.235 on 05/17/20
directed to these goals. Concurrently, we have also seen
a significant rise in the amount of scientific research
relating behaviour to the management of dairy cattle,
particularly with respect to the interaction with health
(Weary et al. 2009). Much of this research has been
focused on using information on the natural beha-
vioural patterns of dairy cattle to make management
decisions that are beneficial for the health, productivity,
and welfare of these animals (von Keyserlingk et al.
2009). Although most of the research in this area has
focused on calves and mature dairy cattle, there is a
growing body of literature in which the interactions of
replacement dairy heifer behaviour and nutritional
management are considered. This review describes those
For personal use only.
primary areas where researchers have considered the
interaction of behaviour and nutritional management in
replacement dairy heifer rearing. Specifically, I will
review the work on different feed delivery methods,
controlling the amount of feed provided, and varying
stocking density at the feed bunk. As the amount of
literature in this area is limited, this review also identifies
aspects of these, and other, nutritional management
practices that require further research.
FEED DELIVERY METHODS
Total mixed rations (TMR) are designed as a homo-
genous mixture with the goal to help minimize the
selective consumption of individual feed components
and ingredients by dairy cattle, promote a steady-state
condition conducive to continuous rumen function and
ingesta flow, and ensure adequate intakes of fibre
(Coppock et al. 1981). Total mixed rations are believed
to be the optimal way to provide the balance of nutrients
(including protein and structural and non-structural
carbohydrates) that ruminants need to maintain a stable
and efficient microbial population (Nocek and Braund
1985). It is for this reason that providing feed as a TMR,
rather than separately feeding the grain concentrate and
forage components, is the most common method of feed
delivery used on commercial dairy farms for nearly all
classes of animals over 6 mo of age. Following milk
weaning, replacement heifers are typically fed a diet
consisting of grain concentrate and forage (hay or
silage) until approximately 6 mo of age (Quigley 1997;
Hutjens 2004; Murphy 2004). Under commercial man-
agement settings, the grain concentrate is provided in
different ways, typically separate from the roughage, on
top of the roughage (‘‘top dressing’’), or mixed in with
the roughage.
DeVries and von Keyserlingk (2009a) recently demon-
strated, in a short-term behavioural study, that replace-
ment dairy heifers, when given a choice of ration
components, or when provided grain concentrate top
dressed on hay, exhibit a greater peak in dry matter
intake (DMI) following feed delivery than when fed a
TMR (Fig. 1). This greater peak in DMI comes as a
result of the consumption of the grain concentrate
portion of the ration in one or two large meals prior
to consuming the hay portion of the ration (Fig. 2). In a
follow-up, longer-term study (over a period of 13 wk),
Greter et al. (2010a) found similar feeding patterns in
replacement dairy heifers provided with concentrate
top-dressed on haylage. Rapid consumption of the
concentrate portion of the ration in few, very large
meals, as observed in these studies, may cause large
post-prandial drops in rumen pH, as demonstrated in
young (Quigley et al. 1992; González et al. 2008) and
mature (Østergaard and Grohn 2000; Beauchemin et al.
2002) dairy cattle. Even though Greter et al. (2010a) did
not measure rumen pH, they did observe more liquid
fecal consistency in heifers fed the top-dressed ration
suggesting that these heifers experienced some level of
sub-acute ruminal acidosis (Plaizier et al. 2008). In both
previous studies on feeding methods for heifers (DeVries
and von Keyserlingk 2009a; Greter et al. 2010a), con-
centrate was provided only one time per day. It could be
hypothesized that more frequent provision of concen-
trate within a day would, as in mature dairy cattle
(French and Kennelly 1990), prevent large post-prandial
drops in rumen pH; more research is needed to test
this hypothesis. Interestingly, feeding concentrate, in a
3.00
Choice
2.50
Top dressed
2.00
TMR
DMI (kg)
Feed
1.50 delivery
1.00
0.50
0.00
0:00 3:00 6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00
Time (h)
Fig. 1. Hourly DMI (kg) of growing dairy heifers (5 mo
old, weighing 170 kg) fed grain concentrate (restricted to
2.0 kg d1 DM) separately from (choice), top-dressed on
(top dressed), or mixed with (TMR) grass hay fed ad libitum
(n 6/treatment). Daily DMI averaged 5.1, 5.3, and 5.4 kg
d 1 (SE0.5) for the choice, top dressed, and TMR
treatments, respectively. [Modified from DeVries and von
Keyserlingk (2009a). Reproduced with the permission of
Journal of Dairy Science.]

3.00
2.50
2.00
DMI (kg)
1.50
Feed
delivery
1.00
0.50
0.00
0:00 3:00 6:00 9:00 12:00
Time (h)
Can. J. Anim. Sci. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 105.104.230.235 on 05/17/20
Fig. 2. Hourly DMI (kg) of growing dairy heifers (n 6; 5 mo
old, weighing 170 kg) fed the choice of grain concentrate
(restricted to 2.0 kg d 1 DM) and grass hay (fed ad libitum;
consumed at 3.1 kg d1). [Modified from DeVries and von
Keyserlingk (2009a). Reproduced with the permission of
Journal of Dairy Science.]
limited (Greter et al. 2010a) or ad litbitum (González
et al. 2008) amount, apart from forage also appears to
create more competition for feed (i.e., aggression while
feeding resulting in displacements from the feed bunk) in
young dairy heifers. Such competition is likely attrib-
uted to the desire to consume the concentrate, and thus
contributes to the rapid consumption of this feed soon
For personal use only.
after feed delivery.
Providing feed components as a TMR, as opposed to
providing them separately, to replacement dairy heifers
appears to increase the distribution of DMI over the
course of the day (Fig. 1), increase feeding time, and
reduce feeding rate (DeVries and von Keyserlingk
2009a). Longer feeding times, and thus slower feeding
rates, when consuming a TMR should promote in-
creased daily salivary secretion and thus promote
greater rumen buffering and help stabilize rumen pH
(Beauchemin et al. 2008). Feeding a TMR also reduces,
as compared with providing feed components separately
or top-dressed, the amount of sorting against forage and
for concentrate in replacement dairy heifers (DeVries
and von Keyserlingk 2009a; Greter et al. 2010a). Decre-
ased sorting against long forage particles would also
promote greater rumen pH (DeVries et al. 2008). Thus,
the consumption patterns of heifers consuming a TMR
should, as in mature cows, result in consumption of a
more balanced diet, greater rumen buffering, and thus
contribute to improved rumen health (Coppock 1977;
Borland and Kesler 1979). Even though these benefits
are well documented for mature cows, heifers and
mature cows have different rates of rumen passage,
digestion, and absorption due to differences in con-
sumption levels and energy requirements. Thus, further
research is required to determine if the rumen physio-
logical benefits of feeding a TMR are also applicable to
young, growing dairy heifers.
There are data to suggest that feeding a TMR to
heifers from a young age not only has immediate
DE VRIES * DAIRY HEIFER NUTRITIONAL BEHAVIOUR 297
behavioural effects, but may also have longer-term
benefits to these animals. Greter et al. (2010b) found
Concentrate that heifers previously fed a top dressed ration main-
tained similar feeding patterns after they were switched
Grass hay
to a novel TMR (for a period of 7 wk). Moreover, the
increased competition for feed observed in heifers fed
a top-dressed ration, compared with those fed a TMR,
was also maintained after they were all switched to the
novel TMR. These heifers previously fed the top dressed
treatment also maintained looser fecal consistency.
15:00 18:00 21:00 Interestingly, the feeding and competitive behaviour
patterns persisted throughout the 7 wk of that experi-
ment, suggesting that the animals had not only learned
these behavioural patterns, but that these patterns
became habitual and may be difficult to extinguish
over time. Overall these findings are of concern as they
provide some evidence that early life feed delivery
methods may impact the development (and mainte-
nance) of behavioural patterns in dairy cattle. Further
research is warranted to assess how early in life this
learning may occur, and whether such learned feeding
patterns persist throughout the life of the animal. The
persistence of such behaviour is of particular interest,
because diurnal feeding patterns, meal patterning, and
feeding competition may all have significant impacts
on the health, production, and welfare of adult dairy
cattle.
AMOUNT OF FEED PROVIDED
To meet the objectives of rearing replacement dairy
heifers, feeding strategies utilized are variable. Heifers
have traditionally been provided diets that contain
high-fibre, economically priced forages (MidWest Plan
Service 2003), which adequately meet their energy
requirements (National Research Council 2001). Feed-
ing replacement heifers a high-forage, low-energy diet
has the potential to control caloric intake and allow
producers to target the growth rate of the heifers. Such
diets are commonly fed in an ad libitum amount.
Unfortunately, given the propensity of dairy cattle to
selectively consume (sort) their diets, it is not uncom-
mon to see dairy heifers that are fed for ad libitum
intake engaging in feed sorting behaviour (Hoffman
et al. 2006; Greter et al. 2008, DeVries and von
Keyserlingk 2009a, b). Sorting for highly fermentable,
high-energy small particles, and against the long forage
particles of the diet puts heifers at increased risk for
consuming an unbalanced diet (i.e., they consume more
energy than predicted), and may also increase their risk
of sub-acute ruminal acidosis (DeVries et al. 2008). As
result, it may be difficult to effectively target growth
rates in these heifers, it may decrease feed efficiency, and
it may increase the risk of further health disorders (i.e.,
lameness). Future research is needed to validate these
hypothesized effects of feed sorting in heifers fed high-
forage diets ad libitum.
Researchers have recently investigated how caloric
intake can be controlled through the provision of a
 298 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE

nutrient dense diet fed in a limited amount (Hoffman
et al. 2007; Zanton and Heinrichs 2007). Limit feeding
allows for the effective control of average daily gain in
replacement heifers, and also effectively decreases fecal
excretion, increases feed efficiency, and reduces feed
costs in some cases. Unfortunately, limit feeding does
pose behavioural concerns for dairy heifers. Hoffman
et al. (2007) found that limit feeding reduced eating and
lying time, resulting in animals spending more time
standing while not eating, a known risk factor for
lameness (Greenough and Vermunt 1991). These re-
searchers also found that limit feeding increased voca-
Can. J. Anim. Sci. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 105.104.230.235 on 05/17/20
in the diet while feeding time and meal duration
increased (Table 1). This suggests that the addition of
straw might help meet the natural foraging behaviour
patterns of these heifers. Interestingly, DMI also de-
creased with the addition of the straw to the ration.
Based on these intakes, these researchers found that all
requirements for maintenance and growth of 1.0 kg d1
could be sufficiently met with 10% straw in the diet.
Further, they found that sufficient nutrients were
consumed with 20% straw in the diet to meet the
requirements to achieve a 0.9 kg d1 growth rate.
Overall, these findings suggest that, if a ration is

lization levels in heifers (Hoffman et al. 2007), as well as
increased the amount of aggressive ‘reaching’ to acquire
feed (Hoffman 2007). Limit feeding dairy cattle has also
been associated with increased levels of oral stereo-
typies, including tongue rolling, constant head nodding,
and bar biting/licking (Redbo et al. 1996; Redbo and
Nordblad 1997; Lindström and Redbo 2000). The
changes in behaviour associated with limit feeding may
be attributed to hunger and frustration as a result of
lack of satiety (Watts and Stookey 2000; Valizadeh et al.
2008). The lack of satiety observed in limit-fed heifers
results from not only having feed available in a limited
amount, but also for a very short duration. The 1 to
2 h of feeding duration observed in limit-fed heifers
For personal use only.
balanced properly, the addition of an inexpensive, low-
nutritive feedstuff may help reduce DMI and enable
producers to target caloric intake for desirable weight
gain and development while allowing heifers to engage
in more natural foraging behaviour. As the Greter et al.
(2008) study was not designed to evaluate the long-term
effects on growth rate, it is recommended that further
research be conducted to validate these potential effects.
This research should also consider whether the cost of
gain changes with such a feeding strategy. Further
research is also needed to determine if the increased
feed efficiency and reduced feed cost gained from a
limit-fed diet could be maintained if such a diet were
supplemented with a low-nutritive feedstuff to help

(Hoffman et al. 2007) is a stark contrast from the 4
9 h satisfy the natural foraging needs of replacement dairy
that dairy cattle, under natural grazing conditions, heifers.
would engage in foraging behaviour throughout the Another possible way to reduce the behavioural effects
day (Hafez and Bouissou 1975). Moreover, there is of limit feeding would be to feed smaller portions of the
potential for some of these behavioural effects to result
ration more frequently throughout the day. Providing
in negative health implications. For example, increased
fresh feed more frequently has been shown to cause
time spent standing, particularly on hard flooring
mature dairy cattle to distribute feeding behaviour more
surfaces, may increase the risk of hoof pathologies
(Cook et al. 2004; Vanegas et al. 2006). Further, the
consumption of a highly fermentable ration, when eaten Table 1. Dry matter intake, energy intake and measures of feeding
rapidly and ruminated less, may cause greater within- behaviour of growing dairy heifers fed a diet with added straw. [Adapted
and modified from Greter et al. (2008). Reproduced with the permission
day bouts of sub-acute ruminal acidosis (Moody et al. of Journal of Dairy Science]
2007), which are known to be detrimental to health and
feed efficiency. Experimental dietsz Effects
An alternative to limiting the amount of feed pro-
vided would be to limit the nutrient density of a feed 10% 20%
Item Control straw straw SE Linear Quadratic
offered ad libitum (Hoffman et al. 1996). One possible
1
method is to add a low-nutritive, low-value feedstuff to DMI (kg d ) 8.1 7.1 6.2 0.28 B0.001 NSy
the diet that would satisfy the natural feeding behaviour ME 21.0 17.2 14.6 0.86 B0.001 NS
(Mcal d 1)
patterns of limit-fed animals, as feeding duration would Feeding time 180 193 199 13 0.05 NSy
be increased. In addition to achieving satiety, this (min d 1)
feeding method may also reduce the risk of sub-acute Feeding rate 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.004 0.002 0.12
ruminal acidosis. A low-nutritive feedstuff will decrease (kg min1)
Meal frequency 9.6 8.4 8.7 0.92 0.03 0.03
passage rate and increase rumination time, thus increase (no. d 1)
saliva production and rumen buffering. Dietary dilution Meal duration 38.5 42.0 43.4 3.45 0.03 NS
will also reduce volatile fatty acid production through (min meal 1)
reduced concentration of rapidly fermentable carbohy- Meal size 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.09 0.04 NS
drates in the ration. In a recent study by Greter et al. (kg meal1)
(2008), straw was added (by 10 and 20% of DM) to a z
Control17.0% corn silage, 52.1% grass silage, 30.9% concentrate;
TMR fed ad libitum to replacement dairy heifers. These 10% strawcontrol diet with 10% rye straw; 20% strawcontrol diet
researchers found that daily DMI, feeding rate, meal with 20% rye straw.
y
size, and meal frequency decreased with increased straw NSP0.15.
 DE VRIES * DAIRY HEIFER NUTRITIONAL BEHAVIOUR 299

equally throughout the day (DeVries et al. 2005).
Spreading feed intake throughout the day through
multiple feedings may not only help satisfy the natural
feeding behaviour patterns heifers need during their day,
thus diminishing hunger-related behaviour, but also have
positive effects on feed efficiency (Rakes et al. 1957;
Nocek and Braund 1985; Shabi et al. 1999). Further
research is encouraged to address this hypothesis.
STOCKING DENSITY AT THE FEED BUNK
The intensification of the dairy industry, along with
rapid growth in herd sizes, has resulted in housing dairy
Can. J. Anim. Sci. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 105.104.230.235 on 05/17/20
down to 15 cm per heifer), resulted in heifers spending
25 to 50% less time eating. González et al. (2008) also
demonstrated that high levels of feed bunk competition
(when comparing two, four, or eight heifers per feeding
bin) reduced feeding time for heifers that were fed a high
concentrate diet ad libitum. Interestingly, despite the
reduction in feeding time, researchers have not reported
any effect of competition for feed on the DMI of
replacement dairy heifers fed ad libitum (González
et al. 2008; DeVries and von Keyserlingk 2009b) or,
less surprisingly, those that are limit fed (Keys et al.
1978; Longenbach et al. 1999).

cattle, including young stock, at higher densities (i.e.,
over stocking). This management practice is often
justified, as it can be argued that heifers spend only a
small fraction of their day consuming feed (3 to 3.5
h d1; Greter et al. 2008) and, thus, it could be assumed
that the provision of a feeding place for each individual
heifer within a pen is not necessary. However, cattle tend
to synchronize their behavior, that is, many animals in
the group will feed, ruminate, and rest at the same times
(Miller and Wood-Gush 1991; Rook and Huckle 1995).
When cattle are fed in groups, the initiation to feed by
one animal will often stimulate the other animals,
regardless of whether they show signs of hunger (Curtis
and Houpt 1983). Further, synchronized peaks in
For personal use only.
To maintain similar DMI in situations of high
competition, heifers compensate by eating faster
throughout the day, particularly during periods of peak
feeding activity, and by shifting their intake patterns
such that a greater proportion of their DMI occurs in the
later hours after feed delivery (Fig. 3; González et al.
2008; DeVries and von Keyserlingk 2009b). Competition
for feed access also appears to change the meal pattern-
ing of heifers, resulting in consumption of fewer meals
per day, which are larger and longer in duration (DeVries
and von Keyserlingk 2009b). Given that within-day
rumen pH declines increase with meal size (Allen 1997),
large and long meals may have significant impact on
rumen fermentation. Results from González et al. (2008)

feeding activity occur at certain times of the day, such

as at sunrise and sunset (Hafez and Bouissou 1975), support this hypothesis; these researchers found that
after milking, and when fresh feed is delivered (DeVries
et al. 2003). As a result, provision of fewer feeding places (a) 1.50
noncompetitive
than animals may result in high levels of competition for 1.20 competitive
feed, particularly during these peak periods of feeding
DMI (kg)

Feed Feed
activity. Alternatively, the synchrony between animals 0.90
delivery delivery
has the potential to break down in such situations of 0.60
high competition, and may lead to animals feeding at
different times to avoid excessive aggression (Miller and 0.30
Wood-Gush 1991). These effects of feed competition, 0.00
with their associated affects on behaviour, growth, and 0:00 3:00 6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00
health of replacement dairy heifers fed under various
feeding strategies, are documented in a growing body of (b) 0.08
Feeding rate (kg/min)

literature.
0.06
Competition for feed appears to have similar effects,
across feeding strategies, on the feeding behaviour of 0.04
replacement dairy heifers. DeVries and von Keyserlingk
(2009b) recently found that ad libitum fed heifers 0.02
exposed to high feed bunk competition (two heifers
per feed bin) tended to have 10% shorter daily feeding 0.00
times (192 vs. 213 min d1) than heifers with no feed 0:00 3:00 6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00
bunk competition (one heifer per feed bin). Similarly, Time (h)
decreases in feeding time have also been reported in
studies on limit-fed heifers. Keys et al. (1978) found that Fig. 3. Hourly averages for (a) DMI (kg) and (b) feeding
increasing pen stocking density and, thus, decreasing rate (kg min 1) for growing dairy heifers (8 mo old, weighing
235 kg) fed a TMR ad libitum noncompetitively (one heifer
feed bunk space (from 0.81 to 0.20 m per heifer) for per feed bin; n 12) or competitively (two heifers per feed bin;
yearling heifers linearly decreased their time spent eating n 12). Daily DMI averaged 6.2 and 6.3 kg d 1 (SE0.3)
by 26%. In a series of experiments on feed bunk space, and feed rate averaged 0.038 and 0.047 kg min 1 (SE0.004)
Longenbach et al. (1999) reported that heifers (ranging for the noncompetitive and competitive treatments, respec-
from 4 to 21 mo of age) subjected to increasing com- tively. [Modified from DeVries and von Keyserlingk (2009b).
petition (by reducing feed bunk space from up to 47 Reproduced with the permission of Journal of Dairy Science.]
 300 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE
greater feed bunk competition for concentrate in heifers,
fed roughage ad libitum separately, resulted in lower
rumen pH, greater lactate concentration, increased
serum haptoglobin levels, and increased proportion of
abscessed livers. For heifers fed a higher forage ration ad
libitum, these rumen effects are likely far less extreme
with the exception of situations where excessive sorting
of the ration is observed. Sorting against long fiber
particles by heifers (Hoffman et al. 2006, Greter et al.
2008; DeVries and von Keyserlingk 2009a, b), could
exacerbate any reductions in rumen pH caused by
changes in meal pattern. Alternatively, increased daily
Can. J. Anim. Sci. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 105.104.230.235 on 05/17/20
time spent eating through reduced competition for feed
may increase total salivary secretion (Beauchemin et al.
2008) and thus be beneficial for rumen fermentation and
fibre degradation (Owens et al. 1998). Unfortunately,
there are no data to date to support these hypotheses on
the effects of feed competition on rumen fermentation
for replacement heifers that are fed higher forage rations
ad libitum or limit fed lower forage rations, and thus
further research in this area is required.
Another concern when feed bunk competition is high
for replacement dairy heifers is the variable effect it
has on individual animals kept in groups. Recent work
has demonstrated that competition for feed in dairy
heifers increases the day-to-day variation in meal
For personal use only.
duration, feeding time and meal size (DeVries and von
Keyserlingk 2009b), resulting in inconsistent feeding
behaviour patterns. González et al. (2008) also found
that the variability in feeding time and body weight
tended to increase in groups of heifers fed competitively,
suggesting disparity between group members in their
ability to access feed and maintain DMI. Similarly,
Longenbach et al. (1999) reported that competition
increased the variability in live weight gain within pens
of replacement dairy heifers. It has been demonstrated
in heifers that competition for feed is most intense
during the first hour after feed delivery, with these
effects greatest in situations where competition for feed
bunk access is increased as the number of animals able
to feed simultaneously decreases (Keys et al. 1978). The
variability in feeding behaviour and weight gain ob-
served in these studies may be explained, in part, by
certain animals dominating the feed bunk after feed
delivery and consuming excess DM. At the same time,
this likely increases the risk that subordinate animals
show reduced DMI; further research is warranted to
substantiate this explanation. Further, sorting of an ad
libitum fed ration could also contribute to this varia-
bility. Excessive sorting by dominant animals can reduce
the nutritive quality of the feed that is available to those
subordinate animals that must wait for access to feed
(DeVries et al. 2005; Hosseinkhani et al. 2008). As a
result, these subordinate animals may not be able to
maintain adequate nutrient intake to meet their energy
and essential nutrient requirements, while the dominant
heifers that preferentially consume the concentrate
portion may consume a ration that increases their risk
of sub-acute ruminal acidosis. Future research should
address how moderate overstocking and social status
interact to affect feed access and maintenance of
nutrient intake in ad libitum and group-fed replacement
dairy heifers.
CONCLUSIONS
There is a growing body of literature on dairy cattle
behaviour and how this field of science can aid in
making science-based recommendations for best man-
agement practices. For replacement dairy heifers, much
of this research has been focused on the interactions
between nutritional management and behaviour, parti-
cularly how these relate to different feed delivery
methods, the amount of feed provided, and stocking
density at the feed bunk. This research has provided us
with a basic understanding of how nutritional manage-
ment practices may affect heifer behaviour, and how
these practices may affect the health, productivity, and
welfare of these animals. Future research is needed to
further demonstrate the physiological consequences of
changes in behaviour that may result from these
nutritional management practices. This information is
needed so that further recommendations can be made
on these practices so these animals may be raised for
maximum production potential, while maintaining their
behavioural needs, health and overall welfare.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The paper reviews concepts and data largely generated
in collaboration with colleagues, particularly Marina
von Keyserlingk, at the University of British Columbia
Animal Welfare Program. The research was funded, in
part, by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council of Canada (NSERC, Ottawa, ON, Canada)
Discovery Grant awarded to T. J. DeVries and through
a NSERC Collaborative Research Development Grant
with the Dairy Farmers of Canada (Ottawa, ON,
Canada).
Allen, M. S. 1997. Relationship between fermentation acid
production in the rumen and the requirement for physically
effective fiber. J. Dairy Sci. 80: 1447
1462.
Beauchemin, K. A., Maekawa, M. and Christensen, D. A. 2002.
Effect of diet and parity on meal patterns of lactating dairy
cows. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 82: 215
223.
Beauchemin, K. A., Eriksen, L., Norgaard, P. and Rode, L. M.
2008. Short communication: Salivary secretion during meals in
lactating dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 91: 2077
2081.
Borland, K. and Kesler, E. M. 1979. Complete rations for
Holstein calves 8 to 18 weeks of age. J. Dairy Sci. 62: 304
309.
Cook, N. B., Nordlund, K. V. and Oetzel, G. R. 2004.
Environmental influences on claw horn lesions associated
with laminitis and subacute ruminal acidosis in dairy cows.
J. Dairy Sci. 87: E36
E46.
Coppock, C. E. 1977. Feeding methods and grouping systems.
J. Dairy Sci. 60: 1327
1336.
Coppock, C. E., Bath, D. L. and Harris, B. 1981. From feeding
to feeding systems. J. Dairy Sci. 64: 1230
1249.
 DE VRIES * DAIRY HEIFER NUTRITIONAL BEHAVIOUR
Curtis, S. E. and Houpt, K. A. 1983. Animal ethology: its
emergence in animal science. J. Anim. Sci. 57 (Suppl. 2):
234
247.
DeVries, T. J., von Keyserlingk, M. A. G. and Beauchemin,
K. A. 2003. Short communication: Diurnal feeding pattern of
lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 86: 4079
4082.
DeVries, T. J., von Keyserlingk, M. A. G. and Beauchemin,
K. A. 2005. Frequency of feed delivery affects the behavior of
lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 88: 3553
3562.
DeVries, T. J., Dohme, F. and Beauchemin, K. A. 2008.
Repeated ruminal acidosis challenges in lactating dairy cows
at high and low risk for developing acidosis: Feed sorting.
J. Dairy Sci. 91: 3958
3967.
Can. J. Anim. Sci. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 105.104.230.235 on 05/17/20
DeVries, T. J. and von Keyserlingk, M. A. G. 2009a. Short
communication: Feeding method affects the feeding behavior
of growing dairy heifers. J. Dairy Sci. 92: 1161
1168.
DeVries, T. J. and von Keyserlingk, M. A. G. 2009b. Competi-
tion for feed affects the feeding behavior of growing dairy
heifers. J. Dairy Sci. 92: 3922
3929.
French, N. and Kennelly, J. J. 1990. Effects of feeding fre-
quency on ruminal parameters, plasma insulin, milk yield, and
milk composition in Holstein cows. J. Dairy Sci. 73: 1857
1863.
Gabler, M. T., Tozer, P. R. and Heinrichs, A. J. 2000.
Development of a cost analysis spreadsheet for calculating
the costs to raise a replacement dairy heifer. J. Dairy Sci. 83:
1104
1109.
González, L. A., Ferret, A., Mantec, X., Ruı́z-de-la-Torre, J. L.,
Calsamiglia, S., Devant, M. and Bach, A. 2008. Performance,
For personal use only.
behavior, and welfare of Friesian heifers housed in pens with
two, four, and eight individuals per concentrate feeding place.
J. Anim. Sci. 86: 1446
1458.
Greenough, P. R. and Vermunt, J. J. 1991. Evaluation of
subclinical laminitis in a dairy herd and observations on
associated nutritional and management factors. Vet. Rec.
128: 11
17.
Greter, A. M., DeVries, T. J. and von Keyserlingk, M. A. G.
2008. Nutrient intake and feeding behavior of growing dairy
heifers: Effects of dietary dilution. J. Dairy Sci. 91: 2786
2795.
Greter, A. M., Leslie, K. E., Mason, G. J., McBride, B. W. and
DeVries, T. J. 2010a. Effect of feed delivery method on the
behavior and growth of dairy heifers. J. Dairy Sci. 93:
1668
1676.
Greter, A. M., Leslie, K. E., Mason, G. J., McBride, B. W. and
DeVries, T. J. 2010b. Feed delivery method affects the learning
of feeding and competitive behavior in dairy heifers. J. Dairy
Sci. 93: 3730
3737.
Hafez, E. S. E. and Bouissou, M. F. 1975. The behaviour of
cattle. Pages 203
245 in The behaviour of domestic animals.
3rd ed. E. S. E. Hafez, ed. Bailliere Tindall, London, UK.
Heinrichs, A. J. 1993. Raising dairy replacements to meet the
needs of the 21st century. J. Dairy Sci. 76: 3179
3187.
Hoffman, P. C., Brehm, N. P., Price, S. G. and Prill-Adams, A.
1996. Effect of accelerated postpubertal growth and early
calving on lactation performance of primiparous Holstein
heifers. J. Dairy Sci. 79: 2024
2031.
Hoffman, P. C., Simson, C. R. and Shinners, K. J. 2006.
Evaluation of hay feeding strategies on feed sorting behavior
of dairy heifers fed mock lactation diets. Prof. Anim. Sci. 22:
71
79.
Hoffman, P. C., Simson, C. R. and Wattiaux, M. 2007. Limit
feeding of gravid Holstein heifers: Effect on growth, manure
nutrient excretion, and subsequent early lactation perfor-
mance. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 946
954.
301
Hoffman, P. C. 2007. The potential to limit feed dairy
replacement heifers. Pages 186
192 in Proceedings of the
68th Minnesota Nutrition Conference, Minneapolis, MN.
Hosseinkhani, A., DeVries, T. J., Proudfoot, K. L., Valizadeh,
R., Veira, D. M. and von Keyserlingk, M. A. G. 2008. The
effects of feed bunk competition on the feed sorting behavior
of close-up dry cows. J. Dairy Sci. 91: 1115
1121.
Hutjens, M. F. 2004. Accelerated replacement heifer feeding
programs. Adv. Dairy Technol. 16: 145
152.
Keys, J. E., Pearson, R. E. and Thompson, P. D. 1978. Effect of
feedbunk stocking density on weight gains and feeding-
behaviour of yearling Holstein heifers. J. Dairy Sci. 61:
448
454.
Lehenbauer, T. W. 1998. Dairy cow culling decisions. Com-
pend. Contin. Educ. Pract. Vet. 20: 1362
1371.
Lindström, T. and Redbo, I. 2000. Effect of duration and
rumen fill on behaviour in dairy cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
70: 83
97.
Longenbach, J. I., Heinrichs, A. J. and Graves, R. E. 1999.
Feed bunk length requirements for Holstein dairy heifers.
J. Dairy Sci. 82: 99
109.
MidWest Plan Service. 2003. Raising dairy replacements.
MidWest Plan Service, Ames, IA.
Miller, K. and Wood-Gush, D. G. M. 1991. Some effects of
housing on the social behaviour of dairy cows. Anim. Prod.
53: 271
278.
Moody, M. L., Zanton, G. I., Daubert, J. M. and
Heinrichs, A. J. 2007. Nutrient utilization of differing forage-
to-concentrate ratios by growing Holstein heifers. J. Dairy Sci.
90: 5580
5586.
Murphy, M. R. 2004. From birth to puberty. Adv. Dairy
Technol. 16: 153
160.
National Research Council. 2001. Nutrient requirements of
dairy cattle. 7th rev. ed. National Academy of Science,
Washington, DC.
Nocek, J. E. and Braund, D. G. 1985. Effect of feeding
frequency on diurnal dry matter and water consumption,
liquid dilution rate, and milk yield in first lactation. J. Dairy
Sci. 68: 2238
2247.
Østergaard, S. and Grohn, Y. T. 2000. Concentrate feeding, dry
matter intake, and metabolic disorders in Danish dairy cows.
Livest. Prod. Sci. 65: 107
118.
Owens, F. N., Secrist, D. S., Hill, W. J. and Gill, D. R. 1998.
Acidosis in cattle: A review. J. Anim. Sci. 76: 275
286.
Plaizier, J. C., Krause, D. O., Gozho, G. N. and McBridem,
B. W. 2008. Subacute ruminal acidosis in dairy cows: The
physiological causes, incidence and consequences. Vet. J. 176:
21
31.
Quigley, J. D., Steen, T. M. and Boehms, S. I. 1992.
Posprandial changes of selected blood and ruminal metabolites
in ruminating calves fed diets with or without hay. J. Dairy Sci.
75: 228
235.
Quigley, J. D. 1997. Management of diary replacement calves
from weaning to calving. Adv. Dairy Technol. 9: 7
22.
Rakes, A. H., Hardison, W. A., Albert, J., Moore, W. E. C. and
Graf, G. C. 1957. Response of growing dairy heifers to
frequency of feeding. J. Dairy Sci. 40: 1621
1627.
Redbo, I., Emanuelson, M., Lundberg, K. and Oredsson, N.
1996. Feeding level and oral stereotypies in dairy cows. Anim.
Sci. 62: 199
206.
Redbo, I. and Nordblad, A. 1997. Stereotypies in heifers are
affected by feeding regime. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 53:
193
202.
 302 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE
Rook, A. J. and Huckle, C. A. 1995. Synchronization of
ingestive behaviour by grazing dairy cows. Anim. Sci. 60:
25
30.
Shabi, Z., Bruckental, I., Zamwell, S., Tagari, H. and Arieli, A.
1999. Effects of extrusion of grain and feeding frequency on
rumen fermentation, nutrient digestibility, and milk yield and
composition in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 82: 1252
1260.
Valizadeh, R., Veira, D. M. and von Keyserlingk, M. A. G.
2008. Behavioural responses by dairy cows provided two hays
of contrasting quality at dry-off. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 109:
190
200.
Vanegas, J., Overton, Berry, S. L. and Sischo, W. M. 2006.
Effect of rubber flooring on claw health in lactation dairy cows
Can. J. Anim. Sci. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 105.104.230.235 on 05/17/20
housed in free-stall barns. J. Dairy Sci. 89: 4251
4258.
For personal use only.
von Keyserlingk, M. A. G., Rushen, J., de Passille, A. M. and
Weary, D M. 2009. The welfare of dairy cattle
Key concepts
and the role of science. J. Dairy Sci. 92: 4101
4111.
Watts, J. M. and Stookey, J. M. 2000. Vocal behaviour in
cattle: the animal’s commentary on its biological processes and
welfare. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 67: 15
33.
Weary, D. M., Huzzey, J. H. and von Keyserlingk, M. A. G.
2009. Using behavior to predict and identify ill health in
animals. J. Anim. Sci. 87: 770
777.
Zanton, G. I. and Heinrichs, A. J. 2007. The effects of
controlled feeding of a high-forage or high-concentrate ration
on heifer growth and first-lactation milk production. J. Dairy
Sci. 90: 3388
3396.
 This article has been cited by:

1. C. Fiol, M. Aguerre, M. Carriquiry, R. Ungerfeld. 2019. Social dominance affects intake rate and behavioral time budget in pre-
pubertal dairy heifers allocated in continuous competitive situations. animal 13:06, 1297-1303. [Crossref]
2. C. Fiol, M. Carriquiry, R. Ungerfeld. 2017. Social dominance in prepubertal dairy heifers allocated in continuous competitive
dyads: Effects on body growth, metabolic status, and reproductive development. Journal of Dairy Science 100:3, 2351-2359.
[Crossref]
3. G. B. Bond, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, N. Chapinal, E. A. Pajor, D. M. Weary. 2015. Among farm variation in heifer BW gains.
Animal 9:11, 1884-1887. [Crossref]
4. M.J. Groen, M.A. Steele, T.J. DeVries. 2015. Short communication: Effect of straw inclusion rate in a dry total mixed ration on
the behavior of weaned dairy calves. Journal of Dairy Science 98:4, 2693-2700. [Crossref]
Can. J. Anim. Sci. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 105.104.230.235 on 05/17/20

5. A.M. Brzozowska, K. Słoniewski, J. Oprządek, P. Sobiech, Z.M. Kowalski. 2013. Why are dairy cows not able to cope with the
subacute ruminal acidosis?. Polish Journal of Veterinary Sciences 16:4. . [Crossref]
6. Angela M. Greter, Marina A.G. von Keyserlingk, Trevor J. DeVries. 2012. Ration composition affects short-term diurnal feeding
patterns of dairy heifers. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 140:1-2, 16-24. [Crossref]
For personal use only.