Data from: Measuring motivation for alfalfa hay in feedlot cattle using voluntary interaction with an aversive stimulus
Data files
Jan 22, 2024 version files 3.30 MB
Abstract
Typical diets for finishing cattle are concentrate-rich and low in roughage, which may limit species-specific feeding behaviours and increase the risk of digestive disorder. Our objective was to measure how motivated finishing steers are to access alfalfa hay compared with nothing or more of the finishing ration through their willingness to interact voluntarily with an electrified barrier. Twenty-four 13-mo-old steers, fed a high concentrate finishing ration ad-libitum, had access to one of three treatments (n=8 steers/treatment) behind the barrier: 1) 1.5 L (200 g) of alfalfa hay (AF), 2) 1.5 L (~600 g) of the finishing ration (TMR), or 3) an empty bin (E). The primary diet (finishing ration) was fed 2x/d while the treatments (AF and TMR) were delivered only in the morning. The steer voluntarily pushed his muzzle against a barrier which rose out of his way, allowing free access to the treatment. The electrical current on the barrier increased exponentially every 48 h (0, 156, 312, 625, 1250, 2500, 5000 μA) until the animal ceased accessing the bin. Visits to the bin were video recorded 24 h/d. The final sample size was five AF, eight TMR, and four E, largely because animals did not continue to participate in the study, particularly in the AF and E treatments. Of those that remained in the study, animals with access to an empty bin were less likely to advance to the next current than AF and TMR animals (P<0.01).
They also stopped accessing the treatment rapidly while AF and TMR animals continued to interact with the electrified barrier, up to likely aversive maximum currents (195±39, 1000±153 and 977±138 μA, respectively; P=0.01). Animals with access to alfalfa ate more of it as a percentage of the amount offered (P=0.03) and visited more (P<0.02) than TMR animals as they approached the highest current they were willing to touch. We found no evidence of differences in latency to approach either the TMR or AF, except 48 h before their highest current pushed, when AF animals tended to be quicker (P=0.07). The electrified barrier distinguished differences in motivation for food resources versus access to an empty feeder, indicating that finishing cattle are motivated to access alfalfa and additional offerings of TMR. Despite the limitations of a small sample size, this is the strongest evidence to date that these cattle are motivated to contrafreeload. The rationale behind these results, be it exploration or other benefits associated with each feed type, remain unclear, as forage was not clearly preferred over TMR as predicted.
README: Data from: Measuring motivation for alfalfa hay in feedlot cattle using voluntary interaction with an aversive stimulus
https://doi.org/10.25338/B8HW7R
Description of the data and file structure
The corresponding publication references the supplemental materials in this document. The means, standard errors, and confidence intervals are reported in the RMarkdown for all data. Missing data has been denoted in the raw data files with “NA”. The treatments were applied to the 48-h period, but some variables such as daily intake and latency to approach to the treatments each day were refreshed on a 24-h basis and thus modelled at that level to show the resolution of data collection.
Tables and captions (see “Supplemental Tables 230915.pdf”)
Supplemental Table S1. Effect of interacting with an aversive electrified barrier to access 1.5 L of either AF, TMR, or E on behaviours in finishing cattle fed a high-concentrate diet for current period -1 and 0.
Supplemental Table S2. Back-transformed means and SE for models analyzing the effect of interacting with an aversive electrified barrier to access 1.5 L of either AF, TMR, or E on behaviours in finishing cattle fed a high-concentrate diet for current periods -1 and 0.
Supplemental Table S3. Effect of interacting with an aversive electrified barrier to access 1.5 L of either AF or TMR on behaviours in finishing cattle fed a high-concentrate diet for current periods -4 and 0.
Supplemental Table S4. Back-transformed means and SE for models analyzing the effect of interacting with an aversive electrified barrier to access 1.5 L of either AF or TMR on behaviours in finishing cattle fed a high-concentrate diet for current periods -4 to 0.
Graphs (see “Supplemental Figures 231219.pdf”)
- Figures S1-S5. Scatter plots of behaviours (Confident Visits, Unsuccessful Attempts, RIC Registered Visits, % Intake of the treatment diets, and Latency to approach the electrified barrier) and Current (mA). Reference Guides
- “Supplementary Materials – Description of electrified barrier 230915.pdf” – Reference guide for building electrified barrier.
- “Supplementary Materials – Instructions for daily electrified barrier assessment 221128.pdf” – Reference guide for daily assessment of electrified barrier’s functionality.
Videos
- “Confident visit.mp4” – Example of a confident visit to the treatment bin.
- “Unsuccessful attempt.mp4” – Example of an unsuccessful attempt to access the treatment bin.
Data
All data in this section were collected from 24 steers fed a high-concentrate finishing ration for at least 30 days before the start of the experiment. Six animals (4 E and 2 AF) were removed from data analyses because they did not visit the treatments during the 24 h before the start of the experiment. Another AF animal was removed from analyses because of sustained technological failure. The resulting sample size was 17 animals (4 E, 5 AF, and 8 TMR). Ten 48-h periods from 7 different animals’ data were also removed from analyses due to technological failure.
- Visit Data 230119.xlsx; The behaviours “Confident_visit”, “Unsucc_attempt”, and “RIC_visit” were counted each time the animal was observed performing them and then summed by 48-h period.
- MPP_210419.xlsx; The maximum current animals willingly touched the electrified barrier at was recorded as the maximum price paid (MPP) in mA. There were no animals that continued to access the treatments at the maximum current produced by the device (5000 mA) and thus all animals received a “1” in the “Censored” column.
- Latency Data 221213.xlsx; The latency to access the treatment behind the electrified barrier following morning feed delivery (0830 h) in min/24 h were calculated by averaging the two latencies from each 48-h current period. The average duration of this behaviour is recorded as “Latency”.
- Intake Data 221213.xlsx; “Percent_Intake_by_Current_Period” is the mean percent intake of either TMR or AF consumed during the two 24-h periods within a 48-h current period.
- Descriptive RIC Data 221214.xlsx; The behaviour “Visit_PB” (visits to the primary bin) was summed for each 24-h period (“Day_Relative_to_MPP”) for every animal, while “Intake_PB” (intake (kg) from the primary bin) was summed as continuous data for each 24-h period for every animal. The behaviours “Visit_No_Intake” (visits to the treatment bin with no intake), “Time_Spent_Eating” (time spent eating from both bins in min/24 h), and “Intake_TB” (intake (g) from the treatment bin) were only summarized for AF and TMR animals. The behaviour “Visit_No_Intake” was summed by each 24-h period as count data for each animal. The behaviours “Time_Spent_Eating” and “Intake_TB” were summed as continuous data for each 24-h period for each animal.
- Rumination 221116.xlsx; The behaviour “Rumination” is recorded as either “1” if it occurred during the 1 min period, or “0” if it did not happen. Spreadsheet includes the data for 6 animals.
Code/Software
Annotated versions of the Rmarkdown files in .rmd and .pdf can be downloaded in and run in R, or viewed in the pdf format.
- Models and figures for RIC registered visits, confident visits, and unsuccessful attempts 230719 (pdf and .Rmd)
- Models and figures for MPP and survival analyses 230719 (pdf and .Rmd)
- Models and figures for latency 230718 (pdf and .Rmd)
- Models and figures for intake 230718 (pdf and .Rmd)
Methods
Please see the associated publication for details about how these data were collected.
Usage notes
Please see the associated publication and README file about how these data were handled.