Maternal behavior in cattle

We provide a critical summary of the literature on maternal behavior in cattle. The studies we review increase our basic understanding of this behavior and provide insights into practical problems in cattle production. When domesticated cattle are permitted to rear their young, the behaviors associated with maternal care are for the most part similar to those observed in wild ungulates. These behaviors allow the cow to bond with her calf, protect and provide it with nourishment and ultimately break down this bond at weaning. Different commercial production systems have emphasized different maternal behaviors, some being viewed as advantageous while others are considered a hindrance. Extensive production systems (most beef cattle production) place the responsibility of rearing the newborn largely on the cow and risk factors that affect the maternal bonding process (e.g. cross licking) remain important practical challenges. Most dairy cattle production discourages all aspects of maternal behavior with the exception of milk production, but changing consumer demand (e.g. increases in organic production) will make an understanding of maternal behavior in this system a priority in years to come.     

Preventing physical interactions between parturient ewes and their neonate differentially impairs the development of maternal responsiveness and selectivity depending on maternal experience

The present study investigated whether deprivation of nursing or of any physical interaction with the lamb impairs the onset of maternal responsiveness and the establishment of selectivity in primiparous and multiparous ewes. Just after parturition, ewes could interact freely with their lamb, or could only lick their lamb but not nurse them, or could neither lick nor nurse them for the first 4 h. At 4 h, mothers were successively observed for 3 min with an alien lamb and then with their own lamb. Only 5/14 primiparous mothers accepted their own lamb following deprivation of all physical contact whereas all multiparous mothers did so (19/19). Also, deprivation of all physical contact resulted in a significantly higher proportion of multiparous mothers accepting an alien lamb (6/18) than following deprivation of nursing only (0/19) indicating an impairment in selectivity. Finally, there was no indication that preventing only nursing led to a deficit either in maternal responsiveness or selectivity, neither in primiparous nor in multiparous ewes. These findings underline the importance of perception of olfactory cues from amniotic fluids through licking and/or physical contact and interacting with the lamb for the development of maternal responsiveness and selectivity.     

Endectocide exchanges between grazing cattle after pour-on administration of doramectin, ivermectin and moxidectin

Self-licking behaviour in cattle has recently been identified as a determinant of the kinetic disposition of topically-administered ivermectin. In the present study, we document the occurrence and extent of transfer between cattle of three topically-administered endectocides, as a consequence of allo-licking. Four groups of two Holstein cows each received one pour-on formulation of doramectin, ivermectin, or moxidectin, or no treatment. The cows were then kept together in a paddock. Systemic exposure to each topically-administered endectocide was observed in at least five of six non-treated cattle. Plasma and faecal drug concentration profiles in non-treated animals were highly variable between animals and within an animal, and sometimes attained those observed in treated animals. Drug exchanges were quantified by measuring plasma and faecal clearances after simultaneous i.v. administration of the three drugs as a cocktail. Plasma clearances were 185+/-43, 347+/-77 and 636+/-130ml/kg/day, faecal clearances representing 75+/-26, 28+/-13, and 39+/-30% of the plasma clearance for doramectin, ivermectin and moxidectin, respectively. The amount of drug ingested by non-treated cattle attained 1.3-21.3% (doramectin), 1.3-16.1% (ivermectin), 2.4-10.6% (moxidectin) of a pour-on dose (500 microg/kg). The total amount of drug ingested by all non-treated cattle represented 29% (doramectin), 19% (ivermectin), and 8.6% (moxidectin) of the total amount of each drug poured on the backs of treated animals. The cumulative amounts of endectocide ingested by each non-treated cow ranged from 1.3 to 27.4% of a pour-on dose. Oral bioavailability after drug ingestion due to allo-licking was 13.5+/-9.4, 17.5+/-3.5 and 26.1+/-11.1% for doramectin, ivermectin and moxidectin, respectively. The extent of drug exchange demonstrated here raises concerns for drug efficacy and safety, emergence of drug resistance, presence of unexpectedly high residue levels in treated and/or untreated animals and high environmental burdens. Moreover, scientific and regulatory aspects of clinical and bioequivalence trials for topical drug administration in cattle should be explored.     

Cross-sucking and other oral behaviours in calves, and their relation to cow suckling and food provision

Abnormal oral behaviour in calves is believed to develop when there is a lack of opportunity to suckle, but it is unclear whether they need access to their mother or whether a multiple suckling system will suffice to prevent this behaviour from developing. Therefore, in an initial experiment, the behaviour of calves that suckled their own mother or another cow for 15 min each day was compared with that of artificially-reared calves which had no opportunity to suckle. Cows were mechanically milked twice daily, after which they were either suckled for 15 min by their own calf (Treatment O), multiple-suckled by other cows’ calves (Treatment M) or unsuckled with the calves reared artificially (Treatment A). There was no difference between treatments in the time that calves spent consuming milk, but suckling calves consumed less milk than those reared artificially. The incidence of cross-sucking was greater for non-suckled calves (1.8 events/day) than for suckled calves (0.33 events/day, with no difference between Treatments O and M). In the non-suckled calves, cross-sucking was at its highest frequency 1 min after the end of milk-feeding and declined linearly to negligible levels at 13 min post-milk feeding. For calves in this treatment, most (78%) of the cross-sucking was directed at the inguinal region (especially the udder or scrotum) of other calves, whereas in suckled calves, most of the cross-sucking (81%) was directed at the mouths of other calves. The time spent consuming concentrate feed, and the amount of feed consumed, was greater for artificially-reared calves, compared with suckled calves, suggesting that food ingestion could provide a replacement stimulus. In a second experiment, it was observed that before weaning, the time that calves spent licking their pen or bucket increased until feed intake was sufficient to stimulate significant amounts of rumination, after which it declined. It is concluded that cross-sucking of artificially-reared calves, which is derived from motivation to perform sucking in the inguinal region, can be prevented by providing short access to either the calf’s dam or another cow for two short periods each day. In the absence of a cow to suckle, the calves lick inanimate objects repeatedly until the consumption of solid food stimulates rumination.     

Licking behaviour and environmental contamination arising from pour-on ivermectin for cattle

Pour-on formulations of endectocides are extensively used to treat and control systemic parasitic diseases in cattle, worldwide. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the influence of the natural licking behaviour of cattle on the plasma and faecal disposition of topically administered ivermectin. Twelve Holstein cattle were given one single intravenous (i.v.) (200 μg/kg) and topical (500 μg/kg) administration of ivermectin at a 5-month interval. For the pour-on administration, the animals were allocated into two groups (n=6): one control group (lickers) and one group where licking was prevented (non-lickers). Ivermectin plasma (total) clearance (270±57.4 ml/kg/day) was very homogeneous among the 12 cattle. In contrast, major differences between lickers and non-lickers were observed following pour-on administration. Prevention of licking resulted in an extended terminal plasma half-life (363±16.2 vs. 154±7.4 h in lickers) and in a lower and less variable systemic availability of ivermectin (19±4.9 vs. 33±18.5% in lickers). More importantly, nearly 70% of the pour-on dose was recovered as parent drug in the faeces of lickers vs. only 6.6% in non-lickers. Altogether, these results are consistent with an oral rather than percutaneous absorption of topical ivermectin in control animals, the non-systemically available fraction of ingested ivermectin providing a major contribution (80%) to the drug faecal output. The consequences of licking on the disposition of pour-on ivermectin are discussed in terms of environment, given the known ecotoxicity of this drug, and of cross-contamination. Animals licking themselves and each other could result in unexpected residues in edible tissues of untreated animals and in possible subtherapeutic drug concentrations, a factor in drug resistance. According to the Precautionary Principle, these considerations elicit concern over the use of topical drug formulations in cattle.