| INTRODUCTION | DISCUSSION |
SPECIAL-FED VEAL
Lowell L. Wilson
Department of Dairy and Animal Science
324 W. L. Henning Building
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pennsylvania 16802-3503
Carolyn L. Stull
School of Veterinary Medicine
University of California
Davis, California 95616
and
Richard G. Warner
Animal Science Department
Room 118 Morrison Hall
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York 14853-4801
Production of special-fed veal has received widespread public criticism for several reasons: (1) the use of young animals tends to stimulate an emotional response, (2) some people object to some of the system's production techniques (e.g., individual stalls, liquid diets, low hemoglobin levels), (3) the U.S. veal industry is newer and smaller than most other animal industries, and (4) the results of research on the controversial techniques have generally been limited and in some cases contradictory.
DISCUSSION
USDA (1995) defines veal as meat from immature bovine animals. This broad definition encompasses four specific types of veal:
Bob veal, from young dairy-type calves, is used primarily for processed meat. Special-fed veal calves (also referred to as formula-fed, fancy, or nature veal) usually are fed a milk-based liquid replacer diet in which the iron content decreases through the last half of the production cycle. This relatively low dietary iron concentration helps to retain the lighter muscle color that is considered typical for special-fed veal. Special-fed calves are raised in enclosed housing for 18-20 weeks; currently most special-fed veal calves weigh over 400 pounds when marketed. 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 breeds and types are utilized. Calves are raised in a variety of systems, are of essentially any breed, and are marketed at weights usually over 500 pounds.
Special-fed systems, which are the most frequently criticized, are the primary focus of this fact sheet. Non-special-fed systems are discussed briefly under "alternative systems."
Source and Procurement of Calves
Approximately 800,000 calves enter U.S. special-fed veal systems annually (AMI 1995). According to USDA (1995), about 33 percent of male dairy calves are used for bob veal production, about 40 percent for special-fed veal production, and the remainder for other feeding systems, including beef production. In some veal-producing areas, however, up to 95 percent of the male dairy calves are used in veal or beef feeding systems. The numbers of calves used for bob veal, special-fed veal, and "other" calf production declined 71, 22, and 73 percent between 1986 and 1991, respectively (USDA 1995). However, during the period 1994-97, the use of male dairy calves for beef decreased because of low beef prices. Since market weights of special-fed veal calves have increased, total veal production (in pounds) has remained fairly constant.
Dairy producers generally have little use for newborn male calves. Calves usually are separated from dairy cows at 1 to 4 days of age to allow the dairy producer to harvest milk; this separation is subject to criticism (e.g., Harrison 1972). However, the maternal-filial bond becomes more established as the cow and calf remain together; thus the stress of cow-calf separation becomes greater. Veal producers typically obtain calves through livestock auctions, although in some cases the calves are taken directly from the dairy farm to the veal farm.
Immunocompetence of calves that are intended 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 at birth. Consumption of colostrum (first milk after calving) by the calf within 12 hours after calving 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 may vary regionally. In a study in the Western United States, Stull and McMartin (1992) reported that approximately 20 percent of calves entering veal systems had received adequate levels of colostrum. In a Pennsylvania study, however, Wilson et al. (1994) concluded that between 60 and 80 percent of calves entering veal production systems had received sufficient colostrum. Adequate immunity enhances the health and well-being of the calf throughout the feeding cycle, thereby necessitating less use of animal health products and increasing financial stability for veal farmers.
Handling of the calves from the dairy farm to the auction market and/or the veal or dairy-beef farm has been addressed (Grandin 1989). Guidelines have been developed to minimize stress during marketing, transportation, and processing (Grandin 1988, 1991a); there is unpublished evidence that these guidelines are being used by industry.
Most U.S. veal farms use individual stalls or pens. Both Canadian and U.S. guidelines (Agriculture Canada 1988; Curtis et al. 1988) recommend stalls at least 24 inches wide and 65 inches long. Most veal barns being constructed or renovated have stalls that meet the current industry recommendations of 26 to 30 inches wide and 72 inches long (AVA 1993). Floors are constructed of either wood slats or plastic over metal; fronts (through which calves may put their heads) and sides are made of wood slats. The stall partitions between calves are usually 24 inches long. The stall is open at the back and top; calves are tethered to the front of the stall with 2 to 3 feet of plastic or metal tethers.
The use of individual stalls and the tethering of calves have been criticized because these practices limit social interaction among calves, prevent total body grooming, and restrict movement (Harrison 1972; Robbins 1987). The 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 more effective regulation of air temperature and humidity through heating and ventilation, effective managing and handling of waste materials, limited transmittal of pathogens between calves, individual observation and feeding, and, if necessary, examination and medical treatment with less stress from handling. The design of the contemporary veal production system, e.g., ventilation, is being further researched (van 't Ooster 1991; Hillman et al. 1992; Wheeler et al. 1996).
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 and individual housing systems (Dantzer et al. 1983; Knesel et al. 1983; Winters et al. 1984; Dellemeier et al. 1985; Friend et al. 1985; Reece and Hotchkiss 1987; Stull and McMartin 1992; Terosky et al. 1996). 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 produces inflammation and infection. Urine drinking, which can affect digestion and health, has been documented in group-reared calves (Stephens 1982).
In a study comparing individual stalls with pens containing up to 50 calves, more health-related problems were observed in the group-rearing situations (Steenkamer 1982). A significantly higher morbidity was experienced in calves housed in group pens, with enteric and respiratory diseases as the most common causes (Webster 1991). Individual stalls resulted in lower incidence of salmonellosis than group housing (Linton et al. 1974). Treatment of sick calves was more difficult in group-reared situations due to problems in tracing and examining sick calves, administering medical treatment, and evaluating individual dietary intake. Another study also observed higher mortality in group-reared calves (9.4 percent) than in individually stalled calves (2.2 percent) (de Wilt 1985).
It was once thought that veal calves should be raised in darkness to produce a pale-colored meat. In a recent study of 10 commercial veal facilities, all barns were equipped with adequate supplemental lighting; 6 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). The American Veal Association (AVA 1993) recommends that adequate levels of light be available for inspection, feeding, and monitoring.
Special-fed veal calves are fed liquid low-fiber diets throughout the 18- to 20-week production cycle. The milk replacer diet is composed of surplus dairy products including skim milk, whey, and sweet buttermilk cream added to water. Plant- and animal-derived fats, proteins, and other supplements such as minerals and vitamins are also included. The milk replacer diet fed to veal calves contains known essential nutrients to ensure normal growth and health. It is a recommended practice to provide water to the calves between the twice-daily feedings of milk (AVA 1996). Special-fed veal calves gained 2.0 to 3.5 pounds per day on milk replacer diets (Stull and McMartin 1992; Wilson et al. 1994). This compares to an average daily gain of 1.5 pounds 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 averaged 1.8 to 2.5 pounds of weight gain per day (e.g., Ansotegui et al. 1991).
The amount of iron in the diet of special-fed veal calves is carefully controlled to produce the pale-colored meat product preferred by marketers and consumers. The priority of dietary iron usage is for blood hemoglobin rather than for muscle myoglobin. Veal producers routinely evaluate blood hematocrit or hemoglobin levels throughout the production cycle and use the results in determining dietary levels of iron. Dietary iron is regulated to maintain blood hemoglobin levels between 7.5 and 8.5 grams per decaliter (g/dl). However, Webster (1989) claims that it is impossible to ensure "white" veal without creating clinical anemia in some calves. Anemic calves exhibit a loss of appetite (Bremner et al. 1976; Roy 1980), which is detrimental to calf growth rate and feed efficiency, and therefore uneconomical. Thus, 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 harmful circulatory anemia.
McFarlane et al. (1988) studied the physiological and behavioral characteristics of calves raised on various dietary regimens comparable to actual industry practices. They concluded that dietary iron levels 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, hemoglobin averages of 9.0, 8.0, and 7.8 g/dl were obtained by Stull and McDonough (1994), Egan et al. (1993), and Wilson et al. (1994), respectively. Agriculture Canada (1988) concluded that blood hemoglobin levels of 6.5 g/dl or less are unacceptable since the well-being of the calf is not ensured.
Most of the available data suggest that veal calf health is not enhanced by the inclusion of forage or grain in the diet (Agriculture Canada 1988). Welchman et al. (1988) added straw to diets of milk-fed veal calves kept in either stalls or loose housing. The results confirmed earlier studies; the addition of straw did not prevent iron-deficiency anemia, but it did improve behavior of the calves. However, straw has also increased the incidence of abomasal ulcers in veal calves (Van Putten 1982; Welchman and Baust 1987).
Carcass Characteristics and Marketing
Proponents of special-fed veal production and marketing (e.g., Follenweider 1991; Metz 1991) maintained that carcasses with light muscle color are essential in assuring the predictability of veal product quality. Carcasses with more muscle pigmentation may have resulted from a wide variety of different cattle types, ages, and diets, thereby causing more variability in product quality. The pale color of meat products is the major indicator to the consumer of special-fed veal. Within any group of veal calves, from 2 to 10 percent may be priced lower because of darker colored muscle. The price differential between the highest two grades is 20 percent 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. If the industry is financially stable, however, producers should be better able to make improvements in various production components that enhance the well-being of the animals.
Handling of animals at the processing plant has also been criticized. Handling methods that reduce animal excitation, anxiety, and suffering during this final production step have been developed (Grandin 1991b) and applied by industry.
Animal Health and Product Wholesomeness
The 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) (Fallon and Harts 1983; Peters 1986; Roy and Smith 1987; McDonough and Stull 1994). Average mortality rates in veal calves ranged from 2.9 to 4.4 percent in recent research reports (Webster 1991; Stull and McMartin 1992; Wilson et al. 1994). This percentage is similar to or lower than that of other calf production systems. For dairy heifers raised on farms as herd replacements, mortality from birth to 3 months averaged 6.5 percent in Virginia (James et al. 1983) and 3.7 percent 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 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 percent 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 1996) maintained that medical treatments and vaccinations must be based upon veterinary advice, with particular attention given to adhering to safe withdrawal times before slaughter. Perhaps the most credible source of information with regard to the wholesomeness of the special-fed veal supply is the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service. In the 1994 monitoring program conducted by FSIS, 0.075 percent of randomly sampled carcasses had violative levels of chemical residues (FSIS, USDA 1996). The percentages of violations in both the monitoring and surveillance programs have decreased markedly since 1989 when the violative residue frequency was 0.89 percent and a comprehensive quality assurance program was initiated.
Research examining alternatives to special-fed veal production systems has focused on the inclusion of solid feed to the liquid milk-based diet, group rearing of older calves, and use of pasture. Most of the information concerning alternative systems that use pasture and/or grain supplements has been obtained from research trials (e.g., Buege 1989; Wilson et al. 1991) or from pilot veal production units (e.g., Brown 1991). These systems are not currently widely practiced. The carcass produced under this system is similar to the USDA non-special-fed veal (calf) classification with more muscle pigmentation than in special-fed veal carcasses.
Critics of the U.S. veal industry refer to the changes in veal production methods in England, as well as those contemplated in Holland (a major veal-producing country). Stalls are not used for veal production in England, and group-rearing is the only accepted method. Since the cessation of the use of individual stalls, veal production in England has declined abruptly. Individual stalls are still used in Holland throughout the 24- to 26-week veal production cycle. Pending legislation in Holland may allow use of individual stalls only during the first 8 weeks of the production cycle, with group rearing in small groups from 8 weeks to market. In evaluating changes that have occurred in Great Britain and European countries, it must be remembered that some of these policies have been brought about by political, trade, or societal issues, and not necessarily by science-based studies. The U.S. veal industry continues to encourage research that will enhance animal well-being, food safety, and consumer confidence, while recognizing societal concerns about production methods.
1. Agriculture Canada. 1988. Recommended code of practice for the care and handling of special-fed veal calves. Publication 1821/E. Ottawa.
2. Albright, J.L., D.K. Stouffer, and N.J. Kenyon. 1991. Behavior of veal calves in individual stalls and group pens. In New Trends in Veal Calf Production, ed. J.H.M. Metz and C.M. Groenestein. EAAP Publication No. 52. 44 pp.
3 Aldridge, G., F. Garry, and R. Adams. 1992. Role of colostral transfer in neonatal calf management: Failure of acquisition of passive immunity. Food Animal Compendium, N. Am. Ed. 14:265.
4. AMI. 1995. Meat Facts. Am. Meat Instit., Washington, DC.
5. AVA. 1993. Guide for the care and production of veal calves. Am. Veal Assoc., Harrisburg, PA.
6. AVA. 1996. Veal quality assurance program. Am. Veal Assoc., Harrisburg, PA.
7. Ansotegui, R.P., K.M. Havstad, J.D. Wallace, and D.M. Hallford. 1991. Effects of milk intake on forage intake and performance of suckling range calves. J. Anim. Sci. 69:899.
8. Bremner, I., J.M. Brockway, H.T. Donnelly, and A.J.F. Webster. 1976. Anemia and veal calf production. Vet. Rec. 99:203.
9. Brown, R.A. 1991. Model programme for production and marketing of free-range veal. In New Trends in Veal Calf Production, ed. J.H.M. Metz and C.M. Groenestein. EAAP Publication No. 52. 162 pp.
10 Buege, D. 1989. Production and characteristics of grain-fed veal. In Arlington Cattle Feeder Day Proceedings. Univ. of WI, Madison, WI. 37 pp.
11. Curtis, S.E., J.L. Albright, J.V. Craig, H.W. Gonyou, K.A. Haupt, J.J. McGlone, and W.R. Stricklin. 1988. Guide for the care and use of agricultural animals in agricultural research and teaching. Agricultural Care Guide. One DuPont Circle, N.W., Suite 710, Washington, DC. 55 pp.
12. Dantzer, R., P. Mornede, R.M. Bluthe, and J. Soissons. 1983. The effect of different housing conditions on behavioral and adrenocortical reactions in veal calves. Reprod. Nutr. Develop. 23:501.
13. Dellmeier, G.R., T.H. Friend, and E.E. Gbur. 1985. Comparison of four methods of calf confinement. II. Behavior. J. Anim. Sci. 60:1102.
14. de Wilt, J.G. 1985. Behavior and welfare of veal calves in relation to husbandry systems. Prefschrif Institute of Ag. Engineering. Wageningen, Netherlands.
15. Egan, C.L., L.L. Wilson, T.R. Drake, W.R. Henning, E.W. Mills, and S. D. Meyer. 1993. Effects of different doses of zeranol on growth, hemoglobin and carcass traits in special-fed calves. J. Anim. Sci. 71:1081.
16. Fallon, R.J. and F.J. Harts. 1983. The occurrence of diarrhea in calves under different management systems. Ann. Rech. Vet. 14:473.
17. Follenweider, A. 1991. Marketing strategies and quality control for veal in the United States. In New Trends in Veal Calf Production, ed. J. H. M. Metz and C. M. Groenestein. EAAP Publication No. 52. 150 pp.
18. FSIS, USDA. 1996. Domestic Residue Data Book: National Residue Program. USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service, Washington, DC.
19. Friend, T.H., G.R. Dellmeier, and E.E. Gbur. 1985. Comparison of four methods of calf confinement. I. Physiology. J. Anim. Sci. 60:1095.
20. Grandin, T. 1988. Livestock handling guide. Livestock Conservation Instit., Bowling Green, KY.
21. Grandin, T. 1989. Where reform is needed: Bob calf handling and veal calf slaughter. Large Anim. Vet. 44:39.
22. Grandin, T. 1991a. Design of loading facilities and holding pens. Applied Anim. Behavior Sci. 28:187.
23. Grandin, T. 1991b. Recommended animal handling guidelines for meat packers. Am. Meat Instit., Arlington, VA.
24. Harrison, R. 1972. On factory farming. In Animals, Men, and Morals: An Enquiry Into the Maltreatment of Non-humans, ed. S. and R. Godlovitch and J. Harris. Toplinger Publishing Co., N.Y.
25. Heinrichs, A. J., N. E. Kiernam, R. E. Graves, and L. J. Hutchinson. 1987. Survey of calf and heifer management practices in Pennsylvania dairy herds. J. Dairy Sci. 70:896.
26. Hillman, P., K. Gebremedin, and R.G. Warner. 1992. Ventilation system to minimize airborne bacteria, dust, humidity, and ammonia in calf nurseries. J. Dairy Sci. 75:1305.
27. James, R. O., M.L. McGilliard, and D.A. Hartman. 1983. Calf mortality in Virginia dairy herd improvement herds. J. Dairy Sci. 67:908.
28. Knesel, J.A., A.L. Sutton, D.T. Kelly, and M.D. Cunningham. 1983. Effect of restraint upon veal calf performance. J. Dairy Sci. 66(Suppl. 1):180.
29. Linton, A.H., K. Howe, S. Pethiyagoda, and A.D. Osborn. 1974. Epidemiology of salmonella infection in calves (I): Its relation to their husbandry and management. Vet. Rec. 94:581.
30. McDonough, S.P., and C.L. Stull. 1994. Enteric pathogens in intensively reared calves. Am. J. Vet. Res. 55(11):1516.
31. McFarlane, J.M., G.L. Morris, S.E. Curtis, J. Simon, and J.J. McGlone. 1988. Some indicators of welfare of crated veal calves on three dietary iron regimens. J. Anim. Sci. 66:317.
32. Metz, J.H.M. 1991. Market-oriented production of veal: An approach from practice. In New Trends in Veal Calf Production, ed. J.H.M. Metz and C.M. Groenestein. EAAP Publication No. 52. 154 pp.
33. Peters, A.R. 1986. Studies on mortality, morbidity and performance in intensive calf-rearing. World Rev. Anim. Prod. 22(3):83.
34. Reece, W.O. and D.K. Hotchkiss. 1987. Blood studies and performance among calves reared by different methods. J. Dairy Sci. 70:1601.
35. Robbins, J. 1987. Diet for a New America. Stillpoint Publishing, Wapole, NH.
36. Roy, J.H.B. and T. Smith. 1987. Rearing calves and heifers. In Dairy Cattle Production in World Animal Science (Series C), ed. H. O. Gravet. Elsevier Science Publishing, N.Y. 251 pp.
37. Roy, J.H.B. 1980. The Calf. 4th ed. Buttersworth, London, U.K.
38. Schmidt, G.H. and L.D. VanVleck. 1974. Principles of Dairy Science. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco. 489 pp.
39. Steenkamer, N. 1982. Alternative housing systems for veal calves, their effect on welfare and performance and their economic feasibility. In Welfare and Husbandry in Calves. Topics in Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science. Vol. 19, ed. J.P. Signoret. Martinus Nijhoff, Publishers. 226 pp.
40. Stephens, D.B. 1982. A review of some behavioral and physiological studies which are relevant to the welfare of young calves. In Welfare and Husbandry of Calves. Topics in Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, ed. J.P. Signoret. Martinus Nijhoff, Publishers. p.47.
41. Stull, C.L. and S.P. McDonough. 1994. Multidisciplinary approach to evaluating welfare of veal calves in commercial facilities. J. Anim. Sci. 72:2518.
42. Stull, C.L. and D.A. McMartin. 1992. Welfare parameters in veal calf production facilities. Univ. of CA, Davis, CA.
43. Terosky, T.L., L.L. Wilson, C.L. Stull, and W.R. Stricklin. 1996. Effects of housing design and stall/pen width on veal calf growth, physiological blood indicators and carcass characteristics. J. Anim. Sci. 74:94 (abstr.).
44. USDA. 1995. Milk production, dispositions and income/Livestock Statistics. U.S. Dept. of Agri., Wash., DC.
45. Van Putten, G. 1982. Welfare in veal calf units. Vet. Rec. 111:437.
46. van 't Ooster, A. 1991. Applicability of natural ventilation in veal-calf houses: A theoretical approach. In New Trends in Veal Calf Production, ed. J.H.M. Metz and C.M. Groenestein. EAAP Publication No. 52. 85 pp.
47. Welchman, D. deB and G.N. Baust. 1987. A survey of abomasal ulceration in veal calves. Vet. Rec. 121:586.
48. Welchman, D. deB, O.P. Whelehan, and A.J.F. Webster. 1988. Hematology of veal calves reared in different husbandry systems and the assessment of iron deficiency. Vet. Rec. 123:505.
49. Webster, A.J.F. 1989. New techniques in calf production. In New Techniques in Cattle Production, ed. C.J.C. Phillips. Buttersworth, London, U.K. 175 pp.
50. Webster, A.J.F. 1991. Control of infectious disease in housed veal calves. In New Trends in Veal Calf Production, ed. J.H.M. Metz and C.M. Groenestein. EAAP Publication No. 52. 103 pp.
51. Wheeler, Eileen Fabian, L.L. Wilson, and T.L. Terosky. 1996. Characterizations of veal calf environmental control. ASAE Fifth Lvst. Environ. Symposium, Minneapolis, MN.
52. White, D.G. and A.H. Andrews. 1986. Adequate concentration of circulating colostral proteins for market calves. Vet. Rec. 119:112.
53. Wilson, L.L., C.L. Egan, and T.R. Drake. 1994. Blood, growth and other characteristics of special-fed veal calves in private cooperator herds. J. Dairy Sci. 72:2477.
54. Wilson, L.L., C. McCreary, D. Purcell, and W.R. Stricklin. 1991. Use of cull dairy cows and calves in a multiple suckler program. J. Anim. Sci. 69(Suppl. 1; Abstr.).
55. Winters, T.A., R.D. Allrich, J.L. Albright, S.C. Walker, and M.E. Sandhage. 1984. Behavior and cortisol measurement in veal calves reared under commercial conditions. J. Animal Sci. 59(Suppl. 1):148.
| Return to Animal Welfare Issues Main Page | Return to Top |
Last Modified: October 19, 2004