The effects of acute versus chronic health challenges on the behavior of beef cattle1

Abstract

The changes in behavior associated with a (subclinical) acute and a chronic health challenge were investigated to assess their potential value for the development of an early disease detection system in beef cattle. The hypothesis was that acute challenges would lead to acute but transient changes in behavior, whereas the converse would be the case during chronic challenges, with changes taking longer to develop, but being more persistent. For this purpose, Holstein-Friesian beef bulls were challenged either with a repeated lipopolysaccharide (LPS) intravenous bolus given at 3 increasing doses over the course of 5 d, or with a single dose of the abomasal parasite Ostertagia ostertagi, acting as models of acute and chronic challenge respectively. A third unchallenged group acted as controls. Fecal and blood samples were taken regularly and analyzed for fecal egg counts (FEC), pepsinogen concentration and LPS antibodies. A sensor was fitted to the front leg of each bull to record activity and posture. Video recordings were taken to monitor drinking and feeding behavior. Antibodies to LPS were detected only after the third LPS challenge. Fecal egg counts were detected 3 wk post infection, and pepsinogen increased roughly at the same time in parasitized bulls. Body weight of parasitized animals was reduced relative to controls after 17 d post infection (P < 0.001), whereas there was no difference in performance between the LPS and control animals (P > 0.05). Effects of LPS on behavior lasted only for a few hours, presenting themselves as reduction in activity approximately 10 h after the first challenge (P = 0.057). The clearest behavioral changes due to parasitism were on posture. Parasitized animals had less frequent (P = 0.003), but longer lying episodes (P = 0.038) than controls. Once established, these changes persisted for 30 d post infection. However, there was no treatment effect on overall activity, measured by the number of steps taken or on total lying time (P > 0.05). Frequency of feeding and drinking episodes and their duration were not affected by health challenge (P > 0.05); however there was an increase in average duration of feeding (P = 0.013) for the parasitized animals. Even though the parasite challenge had significant effects on several aspects of behavior, these may be considered too subtle to be useful indicators of disease; however when used with other measurements, they may prove helpful for the early detection of disease in beef cattle.

Technological Tools for the Early Detection of Bovine Respiratory Disease in Farms

“…In 2013, Theurer et al [ 70 ] determined that calves experimentally inoculated with Mannheimia haemolytica increased resting time compared to the control group on the day the inoculation was performed. The same findings were observed in another study, where calves spent more time lying down after exposure to an experimental challenge [ 73 ]. In 2016, Pillen et al [ 55 ] determined the mean time spent standing and active, and found a significant difference between calves with a subsequent clinical diagnosis of BRD and calves that subsequently did not become ill in the time spent standing and active one day before clinical identification of the illness.…”

A Systematic Review of Automatic Health Monitoring in Calves: Glimpsing the Future From Current Practice

“…In practice, the type of diseases and the age of the animals also need to be taken into consideration as they might influence behavioral deviations. For example, in parasitized beef steers (aged between 4 and 11 months) and BRD-infected dairy calves, changes in activity (e.g., lying, standing, and step counts) enabled a better disease detection than feeding behaviors such as frequency and duration of feeding and drinking (66) and feed intake (47). In identifying NCD-infected calves and BRD-infected steers, however, feeding behaviors (e.g., the number of unrewarded visits to an automated milk dispenser, DMI, and bunk visit duration) permitted a more accurate detection of disease compared with activities such as lying and standing duration (4,72).…”

How many pigs within a group need to be sick to lead to a diagnostic change in the group’s behavior?1

“…In Trial 1, an acute health challenge was created in these pigs through controlled exposure to an inactivated pathogen via vaccination. After vaccination, we expected to see changes in key behaviors at the pen level if all pigs were experiencing acute sickness, which is a nonspecific immune response (Hart, 1988;Weary et al, 2009;Szyszka et al, 2012). Exposure of pigs to infectious agents has been shown to cause short-term behavioral and physiological changes, characteristic of acute sickness, including anorexia, adipsia, reduced activity, increased lying, decreased social interaction, and elevated body temperatures (Krsnik et al, 1999;Escobar et al, 2007;Ahmed et al, 2015).…”