Automatic milk feeders (AMF) for young dairy calves are widely used in the dairy industry. These feeders are thought to have benefits for calf health and welfare and may reduce labor required for feeding; however, little is known about how calves adapt to feeding with AMF. The objective of this study was to observe the effects of feeding stall design on calves learning to use the AMF. The hypothesis was that solid side stalls, compared with steel bar stalls, would result in a longer latency to approach and feed from the AMF without assistance. A total of 147 Holstein calves (80 male and 67 female) were enrolled at 4 d of age, introduced to a group pen, and, at the same time, trained on an AMF. For training, calves were allowed to suck on the trainer's fingers and guided to the teat. Calves were allocated to 1 of 2 stall designs at the pen level, depending on which treatment cohort they were born into, either with steel bar stall walls (n = 46 male, 34 female calves) or with solid side stall walls (n = 34 male, 33 female calves). For 72 h after introductory training on the AMF, data from the feeders were collected and calf behavior was monitored by video. Outcomes measured included latency to first voluntary visit to the feeder and to first feeding, time spent in the feeder, amount of milk consumed over 72 h, number of retraining sessions required (retrained if <2 L was consumed every 12 h), and exploratory behavior, such as sniffing and licking of the feeder. Data were analyzed using mixed effects linear regression models or a Poisson model for the outcome of retraining. For certain outcomes the effects of stall design interacted with difficulty of training (willingness to enter feeder and drink); for the 38% of calves that were scored as moderately difficult to train on a scale of easy, moderate, or difficult, treatment (stall design) differences were detected. These calves took 2Ã longer to lick or bite toward the nipple, 2Ã longer to first voluntarily feeding, and consumed less milk over 72 h following training when trained on the steel bar stall design. These results suggest simple features of a stall may influence how quickly calves learn to use an AMF, but that the influence of stall wall design was affected by how easy calves were to train on the feeder upon initial introduction, which may depend in part on certain aspects of calf temperament. For many calves, solid side stalls at an AMF resulted faster in adaption than the steel bar stalls.
