SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENTS AND LEGISLATION ADDRESSING VEAL CALVES IN NORTH AMERICA

Lowell L. WILSON*, Carolyn L. STULL** and Tammy L. TEROSKY*

*Dairy and Animal Science Dept., The Pennsylvania State University, PA, United States

**School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, CA, United States

Key Words: Animal well-being, veal, food safety, behavior, legislation, veal carcass, veal nutrition.

Introduction

Recently, special-fed veal production has been the subject of public criticism in North America and in other countries. There are several reasons for these criticisms: (1) veal systems use young animals which tends to stimulate an emotional response; (2) some aspects of the system are unique (e.g., individual stalls, liquid diets, lower hemoglobin levels); (3) the North American veal industry is newer and smaller than most other animal industries; and (4) the results of research have generally been limited and in some cases contradictory.

Legislation

Public concerns, animal activists, and pending legislation have prompted several of the studies investigating veal calf welfare. Concerns include tethering practices, housing conditions, liquid diets and social deprivation of individually stalled calves (Miller, 1990; Schwartz, 1990). The federal U.S. bill entitled ««Veal Calf Protection Act» (H.R. 84) was introduced in 1989 and then reintroduced (H.R. 2346) in 1990. The second version of the bill stated that the confining of calves in «crates» and tethering is unnecessary and may impair calf health; milk replacer diets retard rumen development; and antibiotic residues may pose a human health risk. The proposed bill prohibited veal calf production unless the enclosure or tethers did not restrict the ability of the calf to turn around, lie with its legs outstretched, and groom itself. Diets must contain sufficient iron and fiber to maintain full health and the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture would establish standards for the feeding of veal calves. The passage of both bills failed due to lack of congressional support. However, the public became aware of the issues through effective media campaigns.

State legislative bills aimed at the special-fed veal calf industry were introduced in California in 1989 (Senate Bill 1110) and again in 1991 (Senate Bill 791). The language of these bills stated the length and width of an enclosure for the calf should not be less than the length of the calf measured from the tip of its nose to the base of its tail, plus 15 cm. Additionally, the calf should be capable of turning around and grooming itself. These bills would have imposed economic hardship on producers due to facility renovations and reduced calf capacity of the facilities. The legislation prompted the California Legislature to request the University of California, Davis to determine and report on the welfare of veal calves in commercial facilities. A multi-disciplinary approach was utilized to collect data in the disciplines of nutrition, environment and housing, health, and behavior (Stull, 1992). Results of the investigation and recommendations were distributed to the California Legislature in January 1992 (Stull and McMartin, 1992). The legislative bill was subsequently withdrawn without further hearings and deliberations. As of this date, no additional state or federal bills concerning the production of veal calves have been introduced.

Procurement and transport

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA, 1991) defined veal as meat from immature bovine which includes calves from several different management systems:

Bob veal -- liveweight of less than 68 kg.

Special-fed veal -- fed a special milk replacer diet and marketed at a liveweight of 68-181 kg.

Non-special-fed veal -- fed a variety of different diets and marketed at liveweights of 68-181 kg.

Calves -- liveweight of more than 181 kg, fed no special diet.

Bob veal is obtained from young dairy-type calves and is primarily used for processed meat. Non-special-fed calves are fed a variety of diets including milk replacer, grain, and forages (hay, silage or pasture). They may be of different ages at processing and several cattle types may be utilized. Special-fed veal calves (also referred to as formula-fed, fancy, or nature veal) are fed a liquid milk replacer diet in which the iron content decreases through the last half of the production cycle. The calves are raised in confinement for 16 to 20 weeks of age and are marketed at liveweights of 160 to 210 kg.

According to USDA (1991) approximately 33% of the male dairy calves marketed are used for bob veal production; 40% for special-fed veal production and the remainder for a variety of subsequent feeding systems, including beef production. However, up to 95% of the male dairy calves in some areas may be used in veal or beef feeding systems. The numbers of calves used for bob veal, special-fed veal production, and «other» calf production declined 71, 22, and 73%, respectively, in the U.S. between 1986 and 1991. However, because of increased market weights of special-fed veal calves, total tonnage of veal produced has remained fairly constant in the last few years.

The typical method for veal producers to obtain calves is through livestock auctions, although in some cases the calves may be taken directly from the dairy farm to the veal operation. Calves are usually transported three times during production. Calves are trucked from the dairy farms to the auction markets, then to the veal facility, and then again at the end of the production cycle to the packing plant. Guidelines have been developed to minimize stress during marketing, transportation, and processing (Grandin, 1988; 1991a; 1991b). However, the handling and transporting of all calves needs further research and action.

Immunocompetence of the calves for veal production is a concern of the dairy and veal industries for both economic and animal welfare reasons. Calves have low levels of circulating immunoglobulins (IgG) at birth and consumption of colostrum by the calf within 24 hours after parturition provides passive immunity and reduces subsequent mortality (White and Andrews, 1986; Aldridge et al., 1992). The percent of calves receiving adequate amounts of high-quality colostrum and thereby developing satisfactory passive immunity varies regionally. Stull and McMartin (1992) in a Western U.S. Study reported that approximately 20% of calves entering veal systems had received adequate levels of colostrum, whereas Wilson et al. (1994) in a Pennsylvania study concluded that between 60 and 80% of calves entering veal production systems had received colostrum. It is interesting to note that in the late 1970's Fallon (1978) reported that 42% of all calves purchased had inadequate IgG levels. Adequate immunity will enhance the health and well-being of the calf throughout the feeding cycle, thereby necessitating less use of antimicrobials and providing increased financial stability for veal farmers. In California, the leading milk-producing state in the U.S., colostrum is collected at the dairies and sold to facilities specializing in raising dairy heifer calves.

Animal health and veal product wholesomeness

The stress of transportation, mixing of calves from several different sources, possibility of immune compromise, and nutritional inadequacies may predispose calves to infective enteropathogens leading to clinical diarrhea. The development of diarrhea was observed in a total of 23% of calves on commercial veal facilities, with the peak number of calves with diarrhea observed the week of arrival. The most common enteric pathogens were identified as cryptosporidia, coronavirus, and rotavirus. Identified potential zoonotic pathogens included Giardia and Salmonella ssp and verotoxigenic Escherichia coli. Calves which died or had diarrhea had serum IgG concentrations which were lower than healthy calves (McDonough et al., 1994). These data are important in the utilization of effective antimicrobial agents, assist in minimizing violative residues, and address concerns on zoonotic pathogens. With regard to the use of antibiotics in veal production, Waltner-Toews et al. (1986) and Frank and Kaneene (1993) concluded that use of antibiotics in dairy calf operations may be associated with increased disease incidence; Oxender et al. (1973) and Rollin et al. (1986) reported that administration of various antibiotics to calves can increase the incidence of diarrhea and mortality.

The most predominant diseases in veal calves, as in most other young animals in either intensive or extensive systems, are enteric (e.g., diarrhea) and respiratory (e.g., pneumonia). Mortality percentage in veal calves ranged from 2.9 to 4.4% in recent research reports (Webster, 1991; Stull and McMartin, 1992; Wilson et al., 1994). This percentage is similar to or lower than non-veal production systems. For dairy heifers raised on farms as herd replacements, mortality from birth to 3 months averaged 6.5% in Virginia (James et al., 1983) and 3.7% from birth to 1 year of age in Pennsylvania (Heinrichs et al., 1987).

Stull and McMartin (1992) monitored two production cycles in each of 10 different commercial veal farms and documented the amount of antimicrobials and other animal health products used during different phases of the feeding cycle. They concluded that the use of individual treatments after the first 28 days declined to less than 5% of calves at the conclusion of the 16 week production cycle. Current recommended codes of practice for the care and handling of special-fed veal calves (Agriculture Canada, 1988; AVA, 1994) suggest that medical treatments and vaccinations must be based upon veterinary advice with particular attention given to adhering to extended withdrawal times before slaughter. Perhaps the most credible source of information with regard to the wholesomeness of the special-fed veal supply is from the U.S. Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). In the 1993 monitoring program conducted by FSIS, 0.11% of randomly sampled carcasses had violative levels of chemical residues (including antibiotics) (FSIS, 1994). The percentage of violations in both the monitoring and surveillance programs have decreased markedly since 1988 when the U.S. veal industry initiated a comprehensive quality assurance educational program.

Housing systems

The majority of North American veal farms utilize individual stalls or pens. Canadian and U.S. guidelines (Agriculture Canada, 1988; AVA, 1994) recommend stalls with a minimum width of 66 cm and length of 168 cm for 181-kg calves. Most renovated individual stalls are 66 to 76 cm wide, individual pens 76 cm wide, with length of 168 cm; these dimensions are the current industry recommendations (AVA, 1994). Floors are constructed of either wood slats or plastic-coated expanded metal; fronts and sides are of wood slats. The stall sides between calves are usually 61 cm in length. The back of the stall is usually open; calves are tethered to the front of the stall with fiber or metal tethers 61-91 cm in length.

The use of individual stalls and the practice of tethering calves has been criticized due to limited social interaction between calves, lack of total body self-grooming, and restricted movement (Schwartz, 1990). The tethered calf can stand or lie in a natural, sternal position and take several steps either forward or backward (Albright et al., 1991; Stull and McMartin, 1992). Calves can reach and groom most parts of their bodies. Proponents of individual stall systems contend it allows regulation of air temperature and humidity through heating and ventilation, effective managing and handling of waste materials, limited cross contamination of pathogens between calves, individual observation and feeding and, if necessary, examination and medical treatment with less stress from handling. Fisher et al. (1985) and Friend et al. (1985) reported similar incidences of disease in calves reared in stalls or penned calves housed indoors. Rushen (1994), in a survey of literature, concluded that the results comparing «systems» were inconclusive and advocated research to compare specific features of each system (e.g., use of tethers, bedding, floor type, group size).

With regard to lighting in veal facilities, AVA (1994) recommends that adequate levels of light be available for inspection while feeding or monitoring. In a recent study of 10 commercial veal facilities, all barns were equipped with adequate supplemental lighting; six of the 10 facilities had natural light sources through windows or doors and none of the facilities incorporated darkness as a deliberate component of the production system (Stull and McMartin, 1992).

Ventilation is an important component of all enclosed housing systems, and further research is being conducted on these systems (e.g., Hillman et al., 1992). Hanekemp et al. (1994) observed lower mortality in an open barn with natural ventilation compared to a closed barn.

Behavior

Recent research has confirmed that there are few major differences in postures and behaviors of calves kept in stalls compared to group pens (Albright et al., 1991; Stull and McMartin, 1992). Several behaviors of group-reared veal calves can be detrimental to their health, including sucking of pen mates' ears, navels, and genital sheaths which often produce inflammation.

Behavioral profiles of calves have been documented in both stalls (weeks 2, 8, and 16) and pens (weeks 8 and 16) at 10 commercial facilities by utilizing 24-hour time lapse videorecording (Stull 1992). The data demonstrated that calves in stalls spent about 25% and 75% of total time standing and lying, respectively. Calves in group pens spent 28%, 68% and 4% of time in standing, lying and ambulatory postures, respectively. The primary lying posture was sternal throughout production while younger calves also displayed a «curled» position with the head placed at or near the flank. Group-penned calves while recumbent exhibited extension of one or more hind legs 13% of the total time, while stalled calves extended legs 2% of total time. The number of lying to standing transitions was not different between stalled and penned calves, with 17 to 19 transitions within a 24-hour period.

Earlier behavioral investigations reported similar activities in stalled and penned calves (Albright et al., 1991). Whean removed from the stalls or pens, all calves moved with ease; however, penned calves exhibited more investigative behavior while stalled calves attempted to return to the stalls. Coe et al. (1991) concluded that although untethered calves in individual pens spent slightly more time facing the rear vs the front of the stall (52.4 vs 46.7%), there were minor differences in posture compared to tethered calves. These authors also alluded to the increased management time to keep the untethered animal's feed and pen clean. Tennessen and Whitney (1990) concluded that for 4-month-old-calves (135kg), 60 cm is the average width required to lie with the head turned back, although some calves require up to 70 cm. Knesel et al. (1994) compared tethered calves in a typical size veal stall with untethered calves in stalls which provided approximately 30% more floor space. No differences were reported between the treatment groups for rate of gain, blood hemoglobin levels, or carcass quality; this suggests larger enclosure size did not affect production characteristics.

Individual stalls are arranged in rows allowing calves to have visual and head-to-head contact with their immediate neighbors. This limited interaction is beneficial in minimizing disease transmission and preventing some abnormal behaviors. Conflicting and inconclusive results have been reported with regard to the effects of housing system on stress indicators (white blood cell ratios, blood cortisol concentrations, abnormal or stereotypic behavior) in group or individual housing systems (Dantzer et al., 1983; Knesel et al., 1983; Winters et al., 1984; Dellmeier et al., 1985; Friend et al., 1985; Reece and Hotchkiss, 1987; Stull and McMartin, 1992).

Nutrition

Special-fed veal calves are fed low-fiber liquid diets throughout the 16- to 20- week production cycle. The milk replacer diet is composed of surplus dairy products including skim milk powder and whey powder. Plant- and animal-derived fats, proteins, and other supplements such as minerals and vitamins are also included.

Special-fed veal calves gain 0.91 to 1.60 kg per day on milk replacer diets (Stull and McMartin, 1992; Wilson et al., 1994). This compares to an average daily gain of 68kg per day for dairy replacement heifers consuming both liquid milk replacer and forages on a limited basis (Schmidt and VanVleck, 1974). Beef-breed calves suckling their dams and consuming pasture gain .82 to 1.15 kg per day (e.g., Ansotegui et al., 1991).

Milk replacers used in veal production also influence calf well-being. Early on, milk replacers contained large amounts of skim milk that had been severely heated during the drying process (Heinrichs, 1994). With improved technology, the «severe» heated skim milk became a relatively rare commodity and calf health problems associated with the inclusion of skim milk powder in milk replacer formulations became less important (Tomkins, 1991). This change in processing technology for skim milk has enhanced growth performance and health criteria. The opinion that quality of milk protein substitutes usually is lower than that of milk protein (Khorasani et al., 1989) probably stems from the poorer quality milk replacers of the past which led to decreased performance and health status. Studies with soy protein have resulted, generally, in reduced digestibility and poorer performance than with whey protein concentrate (WPC) and dried skim milk (DSM) (Silva et al., 1986). Drawbacks of soy protein based diets include lower digestibility, nitrogen retention, absorptive capacity of digested nutrients, weight gains, and increased incidences of diarrhea (Campos and Huber, 1983; Silva et al., 1986; Dawson et al., 1988; Erickson et al., 1989; Seegraber and Morril, 1986). However, Polzin (1986) determined that at least 50% of milk proteins can be replaced by soy protein concentrates, indicating that soy may be an acceptable alternative protein source in milk replacer diets used in conjunction with other protein sources (Otterby and Linn, 1981).

Some researchers concluded that substituting protein components with others having shorter contact with the abomasal digestive secretions (due to quicker passage from lack of clotting ability) leaves little to be gained (Radostits and Bell, 1970; Guilloteau et al., 1981). Trials by Capper et al. (1992) indicated that substantial levels of whey can be included in the diets of calves at a relatively early age without affecting performance or well-being. However, prevention of coagulation resulted in decreased digestibility of dietary organic matter and protein in calves up to 3 weeks of age (Tomkins, 1991). Other researchers considered the lack of clot formation in the abomasum, due to the feeding of whey proteins or use of a clotting inhibitor, may not be detrimental to calf performance or health (e.g., Petit et al., 1989; Tomkins, 1991; Cuagant et al., 1992).

Other important considerations for comparisons of protein sources are health and the form of protein utilized. Babella et al. (1988) concluded that calf health status was not affected by dietary treatment. The form of whey and type of diet in which it is fed can influence feed intake and weight gain. For instance, a study by DePeters et al. (1986) indicated that addition of whey at 24% of a pelletd starter diet depressed feed intake and weight gain of calves. Terosky (1995) compared four dietary ratios of DSM and WPC (100, 67, 33, 0% substitutions of DSM with WPC and determined, based on the apparent digestibilities and calculated biological values, that WPC provides comparable nutrition and animal performance to DSM, Also, diet had no effect on number of days scoured and overall health of the animals.

The amount of iron in the diet of special-fed veal calves is carefully controlled to produce a pale-colored meat product desired by marketers and consumers. The priority of dietary iron usage is for blood hemoglobin rather than for muscle myoglobin. Veal producers routinely evaluate blood hematrocrit or hemoglobin levels throughout the production cycle. Commensurate with the results of these blood analyses, producers add dietary iron to maintain blood hemoglobin levels between 7.5 and 8.5 g/dl. Growers usually limit iron only during the last stages of production in an effort to decrease the myoglobin content of the muscle but not induce circulatory anemia. McFarlane et al. (1988) determined physiological and behavioral characteristics of calves on different dietary regimes. They concluded that the iron levels in the diet did influence some blood variables, but not the health or behavior traits of the calves; no calf from any of the treatments had impaired muscle coordination. In trials with commercial veal producers in the western and northeastern states, hemoglobin averages of 9.0 and 8.0 g/dl were obtained by Stull and McMartin (1992) and Egan et al. (1993), respectively. Agriculture Canada (1988) concluded that blood hemoglobin levels of 6.5 g/dl or less are unacceptable since well-being of the calf is not ensured.

No data are available suggesting enhanced calf health due to the inclusion of forage or grain in the veal calf diet (Agriculture Canada, 1988; Beauchemin et al., 1990). Pommier et al. (1992) suggested the feeding of iron-chelating agents with grain may allow grains/forages to be fed while maintaining desirable muscle color in veal. Bull et al. (1994) concluded that the current method of feeding veal calves (liquid diets) produced heavier calves and higher-quality, more desirable carcasses than diets including grain or pasture. It is a recommended practice to provide water to the calves between the twice-daily feedings of milk replacer (AVA, 1994).

Carcass characteristics and marketing

Proponents of special-fed veal production and marketing (e.g., Follenweider, 1991; Metz, 1991) maintain that carcasses with light muscle color are essential in assuring the predictability of veal product quality. Carcasses with more muscle pigmentation may result from a wide variety of different cattle types, ages and diets, thereby causing more variability in product quality. Within any group of veal calves, from 2 to 10% may be priced lower because of darker-colored muscle. The price differential between the highest and second-highest grade is 20% or more. Requirements of the marketing system, market prices, and other economic constraints may not be considered a high priority when evaluating the well-being of animals within a production system. However, financial stability of an industry should allow individual producers to make improvements in various production components that enhance the animal's well-being.

Alternative systems and components

Many of the specific components of existing special-fed veal production systems and alternative systems have been discussed in this review. Research examining integrated alternatives to special-fed veal production systems has consisted of the inclusion of solid feed to the milk-based diet, group-rearing, and use of pasture. Most of the information concerning alternative systems that utilize pasture and grain supplements have been obtained from research trials (Buege, 1989; Wilson et al., 1991) or in pilot production units (Brown, 1991). These systems involve feeding a combination of milk replacer, grain and forage to dairy-type bull calves, and although not widely practiced in the U.S., are apparently increasing in Canada. The carcasses produced under this system are similarly to the USDA non-special-fed veal classification with more muscle pigmentation than in special-fed veal carcasses. These alternative systems could, in practice, involve a rather wide range of animal ages, types, and dietary programs leading to inconsistency in the product.

Conclusions

Recently, societal concerns have been expressed regarding dietary practices, housing limitations, and health of calves raised in veal production systems. Many of these concerns have been addressed through research, and results generally support modern, commercial veal production as practiced in North America. The welfare of individual calves can be enhanced with the continuation of scientific studies and implementation of improved practices.

Acknowledgments

The authors express appreciation to private veal producers and other segments of the industry for cooperation in data collection; partially supported by research funds administered by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.

References

Ansotegui R. P., Havstad K. M. Wallace J.D., Hallford D. M., 1991. Effects of milk intake on forage intake and performance of suckling range calves. J. Anim. Sci. 69:899.

Agriculture Canada., 1988. Recommended code of practice for the care and handling of special-fed veal calves. Publication 1821/E. Ottawa, Canada.

Albright J. L., Stouffer D. K., Kenyon N.J., 1991. Behavior of veal calves in individual stalls and group pens. IN: New Trends in Veal Calf Production. EAAP Publication No. 52 J.H.M. Metz and C.M. Groenestein, editors.

Aldridge B., Garry F., Adams R., 1992. Role of cholesterol transfer in neonatal calf management: Failure of acquisition of passive immunity. Food Anim. Commpendium, N. Am. Ed. 14:265.

AVA, 1994. Guide for the Care and Production of Veal Calves. American Veal Assoc., Naperville, IL.

Babella G. Y., Novak, A., Schmidt, J., Kaszas, I., 1988. Influence of changing the casein/whey protein ratio on the feeding value of calf milk replacers. Milchwissenschaft. 43(9):551.

Beauchemin K. A., Lachance B., St-Laurent G., 1990. Effects of concentrate diets on performance and carcass characteristics of veal calves. J. Anim. Sci. 68:35.

Brown R. A., 1991. Model programme for production and marketing of free-range veal. IN: New Trends in Veal Calf Production, EAAP Publication No. 52. J.H.M. Mertz and C.M. Groenestein, editors.

Buege, D., 1989. Production and characteristics of grain-fed veal. IN: Arlington Cattle Feeder Day Proceedings. Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.

Bull R. P., Dracker J. K., Davis, C. L., McCoy, G.C., McKeith, F. K., 1994. Evaluation of growth and carcass characteristics of different types of veal. J. Anim. Sci. 72 (Suppl.): Abstr: 1380.

Campos O. F., Huber J. T., 1983. Performance and digestion by calves from limestone added to milk replacers containing soy protein concentrate. J. Dairy Sci. 66(11): 2365.

Capper, B. S., Yimegnuhal A., O'Connor C. B., 1992. Use of whey and concentrate to partially replace whole milk consumption in the rearing of Friesian X Boran calves. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 36:59.

Caugant I., Petit H. V., Charbonneau R., Savoie L., Toullec T., Thirouln S., Yvon M., 1992. In vivo gastric emptying of protein fractions of milk replacers containing whey proteins. J. Dairy Sci. 75:847.

Coe B. L., Albright J. L., Kittlekamp J. R., Ladd B. T., 1991. Resting postural differences between tethered and untethered Holstein heifer and bull calves. In: Proceedings, Beef/Dairy Day Rtp., Purdue Univ., IN.

Curtis S. E., Albright J. L., Craig J. V., Gonyou H. W., Haupt K. A., McGlone J. J., Stricklin W. R., 1988. Guide for the care and use of agricultural animals in agricultural research and teaching. Agricultural Care Guide. One Du Pont Circle, N.W. Suite 710, Washington, D.C.

Dantzer R., Mornede P., Bluntha R. M., Soissons J., 1993. The effect of different housing conditions on behavioral and adrenocortical reactions in veal calves. Repro. Nutr. Devep. 23:501.

Dawson D. P., Morril J. L., Reedy P.G., Minocha H. C., Ramsey H. A., 1988. Soy protein concentrate and heated soy flours as protein sources in milk replacer for preruminant calves. J. Dairy Sci. 71(5): 1301.

Dellmeier G. R., Friend T. H., Gbur E. E., 1985. Comparison of four methods of calf confinement. II. Behavior. J. Anim. Sci. 60:1102.

DePeters E. J., Fisher L. J., Stone J. L., 1986. Effect of adding dried whey to starter diet of early and late weaned calves. J. Dairy Sci. 69(1): 181.

Egan C. L., Wilson L. L., Drake T. R., Henning W. R., Mills E .W., Meyers S. D. 1993. Effects of different doses of zeranol on growth, hemoglobin and carcass traits in special-fed calves. J. Anim. Sci. 71: 1801.

Erickson P. S., Schauff D. J., Murphy M. R., 1989. Diet digestibility and growth of Holstein calves fed acidified milk replacers containing soy protein concentrate. J. Dairy Sci. 72(6): 1528.

Fallon R. J., 1978. The effect of immunoglobulin on calf performance and methods of artificially feeding colostrum to the newborn calf. Annales de Rec. Vet. 9:347.

Fallon R. J., Harts, F. J., 1983. The occurrence of diarrhea in calves under different management systems. Ann. Rech. Vet. 14:473.

Fisher L. J., Peterson G.B., Jones S.E., Shelford J.H., 1985. Two housing systems for calves. J. Dairy Sci. 68:368.

Follenweider A., 1991. Marketing strategies and quality control for veal in the United States. IN: New Trends in Veal Calf Production. EAAP Pub. No. 52. J. H. M. Mertz and C.M. Groenstein editors.

Frank N. A., Kaneene J. B., 1993. Management risk factors associated with calf diarrhea in Michigan dairy herds. J. Dairy Sci. 76: 1313.

Friend T. H., Dellmeier G. R., Gbur E. E., 1985. Comparison of four methods of calf confinement. I. Physiology. J. Anim. Sci. 60:1095.

FSIS., 1994. Domestic Residue Data Book: National Residue Program. FSIS, USDA, Wash., D.C.

Grandin T., 1988. Livestock Handling Guide. Livestock Conservation Instit., Madison, WI.

Grandin T., 1991a. Design of loading facilities and holding pens. Appl. Anim. Beh. Sci. 28: 187.

Grandin T., 1991b. Recommended animal handling guidelines for meat packers. Am. Meat Instit., Arlington, VA.

Guilloteau P., Toullec R., Patureau-Mirand P., Prugnaud J., 1981. Importance of the abomasum in digestion in the preruminant calf. Reprod. Nutr. Develop. 21(6):885.

Hanekemp W. J. A., Smits A. C., Wierenga H. K., 1994. Open versus closed barn and individual versus group-housing for bull calves destined for beef production. Lvst. Prod. Sci. 37:261.

Heinrichs A. J., 1994. Milk replacers for dairy calves. Part 1. Compend. Contin. Educ. Pract. Vet. 16(12):1605.

Heinrichs A. J., Kiernam N. E., Graves R.E., Hutchison L. J., 1987. Survey of calf and heifer management practices in Pennsylvania dairy herds. J. Dairy Sci. 70:896.

Hillman P., Gebremedlin K., Warner R., 1992. Ventilation system to minimize airborne bacteria, dust, humidity, and ammonia in calf nurseries. J. Dairy Sci. 75:1305.

James R. O., McGilliard M. L., Hartman D. A., 1983. Calf mortality in Virginia dairy herd improvement herds. J. Dairy Sci., 67:908.

Khorasani G. R., Ozimek L., Sauer W. C., Kennelly J. J., 1989. Substitution of milk protein with isolated soy protein in calf milk replacers. J. Anim. Sci. 67:1634.

Knesel J. A., Kelly D. T., Sutton A. L., Cunningham M. D., 1994. Effect of stall or pen size on growth and blood parameters of veal calves. Prof. Anim. Sci. 9:147.

Knesel J. A., Sutton A. L., Kelly D. T., Cunningham M.D., 1983. Effect of restraint upon veal calf performance calf performance. J. Dairy Sci. 66(Suppl. 1): 180.

McDonough S. P., Stull C. L., Osburn B. I., 1994. Enteric pathogens in intensively reared veal calves. Am. J. Vet. Res. 55(11): 1516.

McFarlane J. M. , Morris G. L., Curtis S. E., Simon J., McGlone J. J., 1988. Some indicators of welfare of crated veal calves on three dietary iron regimens. J. Anim. Sci. 66:317.

Metz S. H. M., 1991. Market-oriented production of veal: An approach from practice. IN: New Trends in Calf Production, EAAP Pub. No. 52. J.H.M. Metz and C.M. Groenestein, editors.

Miller B., 1990. Animal rights: An activist's perspective. Calif. Farmer 273(5):22.

Otterby D. E., Linn J. G., 1981. Advances in nutrition and management of calves and heifers. J. Dairy Sci. 64(6): 1365.

Oxender W. D., Newman L. E., Morrow D. A., 1973. Factors influencing diary calf mortality in Michigan. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 162:458.

Petit H. V., Ivan M., Brisson G. J., 1989. Digestibility measured by fecal and ileal collection in preruminant calves fed a clotting or a nonclotting milk replacer. J. Dairy Sci. 72(1):123.

Polzin H. W., 1986. What's in a veal formula and why? The Bovine Proceedings. 18:90

Pommier S. A., Vinet C. A., Lachance B., 1992. Effect of Ca-EDTA on performance, blood parameters and muscle color of grain-fed Holstein veal calves. Can. J. Anim.

Sci. 72:41.

Radostits O. M., Bell J. M., 1970. Nutrition of the pre-ruminant diary calf with special reference to the digestion and absorption of nutrients. A review. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 50(3):405.

Reece W. O., Hotchkiss D. K., 1987. Blood studies and performance among calves reared by different methods. J. Dairy Sci. 70: 1601.

Rollin R. E., Kendall N. M., Koziek P. B., Phillips R. W., 1986. Diarrhea and malabsorption in calves associated with therapeutic doses of antibiotics: absorptive and clinical changes. Am. J. Vet. Res. 47:987.

Rushen J., 1994. The welfare of veal calves: A review of the scientific evidence. Spec. Rpt., Center for the Study of Animal Welfare, Univ. of Guelph, Canada.

Schmidt G. H., VanVleck L. D., 1974. Principles of Dairy Science. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, CA.

Schwartz A., 1990. The politics of formula-fed veal calf production. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 196(10): 1578.

Segraber F. J., Morrill J. L., 1986. Effect of protein source in calf milk replacers on morphology and absorptive ability of small intestine. J. Dairy Sci. 69(2): 460.

Silva A. G., Huber J. T., DeGregorio R. M., 1986. Influence of substituting two types of soybean protein for milk protein on gain and utilization of milk replacers in calves. J. Dairy Sci. 69(1): 172.

Stull C., 1992. Welfare parameters in commercial veal calf facilities: Behavioral profiles Proc. Intl. Soc. of Appl. Ethol. and Am. Sco. of Anim. Sci., 84^th mtg. Pittsburgh, PA.

Stull C. L., McMartin D. A., 1992. Welfare parameters in veal calf production facilities. Univ. of CA, Davis, CA.

Tennessen T., Whitney D., 1990. Estimating animal space needs with video image analysis. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 70:1183.

Terosky T. L., 1995. Comparison of alternative protein sources in calf diets up to 8 weeks of age. M. S. Thesis. The Pennsylvania State Univ. Park, PA.

Tomkins T., 1991. Clotting (or coagulation) of milk replacers. Food Anim. Prac. 1:2

USDA., 1991. Milk: Production, disposition and income. USDA Printing Office. 1(91).

Waltner-Toews D., Martin S.N., Meek A. H., 1986. Dairy calf management, morbidity and mortality in Ontario Holstein herds. III. Association of management with morbidity. Preventative Vet. Med. 4: 137.

Webster, A. J. F., 1991. Control of infectious disease in housed veal calves. IN: New Trends in Veal Calf Production, EAAP Publication No. 52. J. H. M. Metz and C. M. Groenstein, editors.

White D. G., Andrews A. H., 1986. Adequate concentration of circulating colostral proteins for market calves. Vet. Rec. 119:112.

Wilson L. L., Egan C. L., Drake T. R., 1994. Blood, growth and other characteristics of special-fed veal calves in private cooperator herds. J. Dairy Sci. 77:2477.

Wilson L. L., McCreary C., Purcell D., Stricklin W. R. 1991. Use of cull dairy cows and calves in a multiple suckler program. J. Anim. Sci. 69(suppl. 1; Abstr.).

Winters T. A., Allrich R.D., Albright J. L., Walker S. C., Sandhage M. E., 1984. Behavior and cortisol measurement in veal calves reared under commercial conditions. J. Anim. Sci. 59(Suppl. 1): 148.