About 750,000 calves are raised for veal every year in the United States (American Veal Association, 2000). Most veal calves are unwanted males from dairy farms, who are typically slaughtered before 5 months of age (Le Neindre, 1993). Unlike calves raised by the beef industry, who usually nurse from their mothers for about 6 months, calves raised for veal are removed from mothers immediately after birth. They commonly experience the stress of minimal colostrum (first milk) intake (Reece & Hotchkiss, 1987) as well as isolation from the dam and other calves. Veal crates are "an extreme example of maximum close individual confinement with significant curtailment of a variety of natural behaviors" (Friend & Dellmeier, 1988).

Methods used to produce veal have been widely criticized as inhumane, and veal consumption in the United States has dropped significantly in recent decades. A June, 2000 poll of 1264 adults across the United States conducted by Zogby International for Farm Sanctuary found that nearly 60% of the respondents never ate veal while another 30% only ate veal a few time a year. In Europe, the use of veal crates and the anemic diet have been banned for humane reasons, and the European Commission's Scientific Veterinary Committee has recommended that calves be kept in groups, have sufficient room to lie down comfortably, and be given a properly balanced diet (Europa, 1996).

The Calf's Natural Behavior

A review of the natural behavior of calves in a suckling herd helps in our understanding of the welfare problems posed by veal production. A 1987 observational study by Le Neindre of 39 cows who were allowed to pasture with their calves for five months after calving shows what social animals cattle are. During the study, the one-day-old calf stayed close to its dam 74% of the time (Le Neindre, 1993). In the first week of life, the calf was alone only 10% of the time (Le Neindre, 1993). The calf's main social contact was its dam, and 95% of the licking periods observed were between the calf and its dam (Le Neindre, 1993). Later in the 5 month period, the calf spent most of its time around other calves (Le Neindre, 1993) while maintaining contact with its mother. Each day, the calf suckled its dam 3-6 times, and was licked by its dam for a total of about 30 minutes (Le Neindre, 1993). As the calf matures, social interaction with other herd members grows, particularly among males, who at 10 months of age licked other herd members approximately 5 times a day and their dams once a day (Le Neindre, 1993).

According to a 1984 study by Wood-Gush et al., domestic calves under natural conditions performed social play as early as 2 weeks of age (Jensen et al., 1998), and this increases as the calf matures. According to Reinhardt, locomotor play including galloping, bucking and kicking is typically performed by several calves simultaneously (Jensen et al., 1998).

Grazing, which is denied in the rigid environment of a crate, is also an important behavior for calves. A calf born outdoors starts nibbling grass at a few weeks of age (Veissier et al., 1998), and time spent grazing increases as the calf matures. Between 3 and 5 months of age, time spent grazing increased from 4.8 hours to 6 hours per day (Le Neindre, 1993).

Scientific evidence suggests that the restricted diet and the intensive confinement used to produce "white" veal impairs both the physical and psychological well-being of calves.

Physical Disorders

Calves, like other animals, need wholesome food and exercise to achieve optimal health, and when calves raised for veal are denied these basic needs, they suffer from various physical maladies including: abnormal gut development, stomach ulceration, physical discomfort, impaired locomotion, and a greater susceptibility to disease.

Abnormal Gut Development

The veal calves' all-liquid diet which is deficient in iron and fiber is a major cause of poor welfare in itself. The European Union's Scientific Veterinary Committee's 1995 Report on the Welfare of Calves cited much scientific literature and concluded that a diet deficient in roughage and iron can lead to serious maladies for the calves and cause abnormal gut development (Stevenson, 1999). In fact, it stated that calves fed a milk diet with no solid feed would die before adulthood (Stevenson, 1999). According to Wiepkema et al. (1987), the absence of roughage in the diet of the milk-fed calf "hinders the development of rumination [digestion] and associated processes."

Stomach Ulceration

The restricted diet may also cause stomach ulceration in calves. Welchman and Baust (1987) found that ulceration of the abomasum (a stomach-like organ) is common in veal calves slaughtered at three to five months of age. They suggest that lesions found in two-thirds of the calves were primarily associated with the consumption of milk replacer. It has also been hypothesized that stress can contribute to the development of stomach ulcers as discussed below.

Physical Discomfort

The limitation of space that a crate poses is a major welfare problem (Le Neindre, 1993). The standard size of veal crates is not sufficient for the calves to lie down normally, and they are forced to assume abnormal and uncomfortable positions. In a 1991 study by Le Neindre et al., calves in small pens spent more time with four legs bent and less time lying with all four legs stretched than those in large pens (Le Neindre, 1993). In de Wilt's 1985 study, calves in crates spent less time lying on their side or on their sternum with hindlegs stretched than group-housed calves and spent more time on the sternum with forelegs stretched (Le Neindre, 1993). Webster et al. (1985) found that above the age of about 10 weeks, crated calves were unable to adopt a comfortable sleeping posture.

Most crate systems have slatted floors (Le Neindre, 1993) to allow urine and feces to fall through. Webster et al. (1985) found that during the first few weeks of life, calves in commercial crates with unbedded wooden slats (with a gap width of 2 to 3 cm) experience discomfort, spending less time lying down than calves in other systems and spent nearly twice as much time standing idle. These calves frequently seemed to be standing insecurely, indicating that the uncomfortable flooring may have made them reluctant to move (Webster et al., 1985).

Impaired Locomotion

Crate-housed calves are more likely to have impaired locomotor ability than calves raised outside in groups (Dellmeier et al., 1985). In an open field, animals who had been confined in crates were observed stumbling and falling while animals who had not been confined experienced no walking problems (Dellmeier et al., 1985). According to a 1991 study by Trunkfield et al., calves housed in crates had more problems in walking and boarding the ramp during transport to slaughter than did those previously housed in groups (Le Neindre, 1993). In their 1991 study, Le Neindre et al. found that crated calves took longer to complete a race in an open field than group-housed calves (Le Neindre, 1993). Citing USDA-funded research, a veal industry publication, The Vealer, reported that calves need "some degree of exercise to prevent lameness" (FACT, 1984).

Increased Susceptibility to Disease

Calves isolated in crates have more medical problems than calves housed in other systems. Warnick et al. (1977) found that isolated calves required three times as many medical treatments as individually-reared calves who could socialize with others. Thus, being isolated from others is a stressor that causes medical problems. In 1984, a USDA funded study found "...stall and pen calves required approximately five times the amount of medication as the hutch and yard calves" (FACT, 1984).

Psychological Disorders

Cattle are gregarious herd animals whose primary food in nature is obtained by grazing. Confining calves in crates and preventing them from consuming a natural diet results in significant psychological and developmental disorders, including: frustration, food refusals, stress, boredom, social isolation, and abnormal coping behaviors.

Frustration

Confinement decreases the calf's ability to make behavioral responses to the environment (Friend et al., 1985). Jensen et al. (1998) showed that sufficient space is essential for the expression of play behavior, an indicator of good welfare, in calves. In their study, space availability influenced the occurrence of locomotor play (Jensen et al., 1998), with calves housed in small pens performing less locomotor play than calves housed in large pens (Jensen et al., 1998). Calves in the small individual pens could not gallop and rarely performed behaviors involving elevation of the hind legs (Jensen et al., 1998).

In a study of calves raised in crates, pens, outdoor hutches and yards, less locomotor play was observed in the more confined calves (Dellmeier et al., 1985). While the calves in the yard were often observed jumping or cantering, pen and hutch calves occasionally performed these behaviors and this behavior was never observed in stall-housed calves (Dellmeier et al., 1985).

It has been shown that calves housed in crates for prolonged periods of time show an increased motivation to move (Friend & Dellmeier, 1988). Warnick et al. (1977) found that when introduced to an open field, isolated calves entered more squares than did group or individually reared calves. Similarly, when given access to an open field, the more confined calves engaged in more highly active behaviors than the less confined animals, suggesting that the inability to move made them more motivated to do so (Dellmeier et al., 1985).

Crates also restrict the calf from grooming various parts of the body (Friend & Dellmeier, 1988). LeNeindre (1993) found that calves in small crates spent less time grooming than those in large ones, which was likely caused by the small crate's hindrance on turning and moving. In 1977, Heymer termed excessive licking of the forelegs "re-directed behavior," used by the calf as a substitute to licking the fore- and hindquarters (Friend & Dellmeier, 1988). In 1985, de Wilt found that calves in crates spent less time licking themselves and licking and scratching other objects than did group-housed calves (Le Neindre, 1993). In 1991, Le Neindre et al. found that 13-week-old calves in small pens spent less time scratching or licking objects and grooming than did those in large pens (Le Neindre, 1993).

Food Refusals

Restriction of movement may make calves depressed and stressed, losing interest in eating. In a study comparing calves housed in stalls that restricted their movement to those with freedom of movement in pens (all were fed the same diet), Reece and Hotchkiss (1987) found that food refusals were common among those with restricted movement and uncommon among those with freedom of movement. Nearly 30% of calves with restricted movement were found to have eaten erratically, were relatively light in weight, and weak (Reece & Hotchkiss, 1987). Warnick et al. (1977) found that group-housed calves started eating solid feed at an earlier age than calves raised individually or isolated. Isolated calves had the slowest weight gain when compared to group or individually reared animals (group-house animals had the fastest gains) (Warnick et al., 1977). In a study by Fisher et al. (1985), calves confined to 0.66 meter-wide pens with slatted floors had slower weight gains than those housed in 1.36 meter-wide pens with solid floors and straw.

Stress, Boredom, Social Isolation, and Abnormal Coping Behaviors

Physiological measurements such as blood cell counts and hormone concentrations can signal stress in animals, which has various physical and psychological effects on the individual. A 1985 behavioral study by Dellmeier et al. of calves housed under different levels of confinement, in conjunction with a companion physiological study, suggest that thwarted motivation to perform certain behaviors prevented by the crate may be accompanied by physiological indications of chronic stress. Fisher et al. (1985) found that calves housed in small pens with slatted floors had higher eosinophil counts (a blood cell measure that has been viewed to signal stress) than those in large pens with solid floors and straw. Dellmeier et al. (1985) found that among calves housed in crates, pens, hutches, and yards, calves in crates had the greatest stress hormone concentrations. These elevated hormone levels were reduced after moving the crated calves into hutches, a less space-restrictive environment (Dellmeier et al., 1985). Cummins and Brunner (1991) found that calves in indoor metal pens had about double the concentration of the stress hormone cortisol in the blood plasma than those in outdoor hutches. Crated animals have also been shown to have the greatest increase in adrenal response of calves raised in various systems, which indicates stress and may have occurred in response to motor and sensory deprivation (Friend et al., 1985). Citing USDA-funded research, The Vealer reported, "Relationships were indicated between increasing degree of constraint, increasing stress and decreased disease resistance. The results indicate that long-term chronic close confinement can have adverse effects on the overall productivity of calves by inducing physiological changes associated with stress" (FACT, 1984).

The stress associated with confinement has also been found to decrease a specific immune response in calves (Cummins & Brunner, 1991). Such physiological measurements may be the result of learned helplessness arising from the frustration of certain "drive-motivated" behaviors unique to calves (Cummins & Brunner, 1991). Further, changes in calves' white blood cell counts has indicated that a decrease in immunocompetency (ability to fight off disease) may result from keeping calves in stalls (Friend et al., 1985).

Stress in mammals is often reflected in stomach wall damage, and calves subjected to the stress of being raised for veal show damage of the abomasal (bovine stomach) wall (Wiepkema et al., 1987). Welchman and Baust (1987) found that among over 300 commercially reared veal calves at slaughter, about 87% had abomasal ulceration. In a study by Wiepkema et al. (1987) of 60 crate-housed veal calves, approximately two-thirds had visible injuries or scars on the abomasal wall. It was found that some calves performed tongue-playing behavior, which may reflect a conflict or state of stress from being denied the opportunity to pluck grass (Wiepkema et al., 1987). Those calves who developed the abnormal behavior of tongue-playing had no ulcers, while those not showing the behavior all had ulcers, pointing to the possibility that this stereotypic behavior serves as a coping mechanism (Wiepkema et al., 1987).

Another welfare problem arising from crate-housing calves is a lack of stimulation due to the barrenness of the crate environment (Le Neindre, 1993). The animals can experience difficulty in coping with such lack of stimulation (Le Neindre, 1993). Crates restrict exploratory behavior to sniffing and licking the front part of the crate (Friend & Dellmeier, 1988). De Wilt noted that crated calves are particularly responsive to minor environmental stimuli, which may be the result of a lack of sensory stimulation (Friend & Dellmeier, 1988). Citing USDA-funded research, The Vealer acknowledged that calves "have a drive for social interaction and exploration as well as for locomotion" (FACT, 1984).

Non-nutritive oral activities in veal calves are common, and some consider them stereotypies or abnormal behaviors (Veissier et al., 1997). In a 1991 study by Le Neindre et al., 13-week-old calves in small pens spent more time rolling their tongues than did those in large pens (Le Neindre, 1993). At 17 weeks of age (when calves could have social contact above the partitions), there were no differences in time spent tongue-rolling among calves in small and large pens (Le Neindre, 1993). Veissier et al. (1997) found that when compared with calves provided environmental enrichment (i.e. a piece of tire and chain), calves with no additional objects in their crate spent more time nibbling at the feeding grill, licking their lips, and tongue rolling. In a study by Dellmeier et al. (1985) of four different rearing methods for calves, direct observation of the calves indicated that the more confined (stalled and penned) calves spent more time licking or sucking the walls and other objects in their living space than did calves in hutches or yards.

Though calves are social animals, most veal calves have no contact with their dams (being isolated from them at birth) nor other calves (Le Neindre, 1993). This social isolation has a profound influence on the animal's physical and mental health and development. In a study by Le Neindre (1993) in which two breeds of calves were housed with their dams or isolated at birth, calves housed with their dams stood earlier than the isolated calves. The beef breed (Salers) ingested more colostrum (first milk of the dam) when suckling their dams than when feeding from a bottle (Le Neindre, 1993). Warnick et al. (1977) found that calves raised in isolation ranked lower in the social order than did group- or individually-reared calves postweaning. Isolated calves were more aggressive than those housed with their dams (Le Neindre, 1993).

During most observations of play and social behavior in veal calves housed singly in pens or in groups, Jensen et al. (1998) found that calves in single pens were less active than calves in groups. Calves housed in crates for prolonged periods of time show an increased motivation to socialize with others (Friend & Dellmeier, 1988). Veissier et al. (1994) showed that when individually-crated calves were released into groups, social encounters were frequent. And when mixed with others, calves crated individually longer (19 weeks as compared to 14 weeks) initiated more social contacts by rubbing their heads against other calves (Veissier et al., 1994).

Depriving calves of contact with peers also increases behavioral reactivity (Veissier et al., 1997). In a study of calves completely isolated from others and calves housed in crates with open partitions (allowing social contact with others), isolated calves were more startled when water was thrown nearby (Veissier et al., 1997). Such hyper-reactivity may be a fear reaction due to being raised in a poor environment, and indicates that social contact is an important part of environmental stimulation (Veissier et al., 1997). The presence of mates can moderate their reactions, and has been shown to reduce fear in cattle exposed to new environments (Veissier et al., 1997).

Social isolation has also been shown to play a role in the incidence of abnormal behaviors in calves. According to Webster et al. and Veissier et al., milk-fed veal calves are typically inactive during most of the day and spend most of their active time nibbling inedible objects such as walls or bars, and it is not likely that food restriction is the cause (Veissier et al., 1998). In 1997, Veissier et al. found that social deprivation enhances nonnutritive oral activities (Veissier et al., 1998).

Conclusion

The welfare of calves raised for white veal is severely impaired. The crate environment restricts the performance of key natural behaviors, such as grazing and socialization. The calves' inadequate all-liquid diet has been shown to cause medical problems and prevents healthful growth and development. Studies show that calves raised for white veal experience severe digestive maladies, physical discomfort due to extreme confinement, impaired locomotion, increased susceptibility to disease, and general poor health. Socially isolated in the barren crate, calves become chronically frustrated, stressed, and bored, often performing abnormal behaviors. Thus, the nature of the crate environment critically impairs the calves' physical and psychological well-being.

References

American Veal Association. About Veal. Available from: http://www.vealfarm.com/product.htm.

Cummins KA, Brunner CJ. Effect of calf housing on plasma aschorbate and endocrine and immune function. J Dairy Sci 1991;74(5):1582-1588.

Dellmeier GR, Friend TH, GBur EE. Comparison of four methods of calf confinement. II. Behavior. J Anim Sci 1985;60(5):1102-1109.

Europa. EUR-OP News. Directives/Initiatives, 1996. Available from: http://eur-op.eu.int/opnews/196/en/r3331.html.

FACT (Food Animal Concerns Trust). FACT SHEET. June, 1984 (56): Chicago, IL.

Fisher LJ, Peterson GB, Jones SE, et al. Two housing systems for calves. J Dairy Sci 1985;68:368-373.

Friend TH, Dellmeier GR. Common Practices and problems related to artificially rearing calves: an ethological analysis. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1988;20:47-62.

Friend TH, Dellmeier GR, Gbur EE. Coparison of four methods of calf confinement. I. Physiology. J Anim Sci 1985;60(5):1095-1111.

Jensen MB, Vestergaard KS, Krohn CC. Play behaviour in dairy calves kept in pens: the effect of social contact and space allowance. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1998;56:97-108.

Le Neindre P. Evaluating housing systems for veal calves. J Anim Sci 1993;71:1345-1354.

Reece WO, Hotchkiss DK. Blood studies and performace among calves reared by different methods. J Dairy Sci 1987;70:1601-1611.

Stevenson P. The need to prohibit the veal crate system. Compassion in World Farming report, November 1999.

Veissier I, Ramirez de la Fe AR, Pradel P. Nonnutritive oral activities and stress responses of veal calves in relation to feeding and housing conditions. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1998;57:35-49.

Veissier I, Chazal P, Pradel P et al. Providing social contacts and objects for nibbling moderates reactivity and oral behaviors in veal calves. J Anim Sci 1997;75:356-365.

Veissier I, Gesmier V, Le Neindre P et al. The effects of rearing in individual crates on subsequent social behaviour of veal calves. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1994;41:199-210.

Warnick VD, Arave CW, Mickelsen CH. Effects of group, individual, and isolated rearing of calves on weight gain and behavior. J Dairy Sci 1977;60:947-953.

Webster AJF, Saville C, Church BM. The effect of different rearing systems on the development of calf behaviour. Br Vet J 1985;141:249-265.

Welchman DdeB, Baust GN. A survey of abomasal ulceration in veal calves. Vet Record 1987;121:586-590.

Wiepkema PR, Van Hellemond KK, Roessingh P et al. Behaviour and abomasal damage in individual veal calves. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1987;18:257-268.