Dec 27, 2015
Calf-ETERIA
Using CALF health and productivity as a template for an Evaluation of Translation and Extension of Research Information for Agriculture
What is Calf-ETERIA ? A University of Guelph-OMAFRA Knowledge Translation and
Transfer funded project.
Team Members:
Ken Leslie – Project Coordinator
Tom Wright – Project Co-Coordinator
Vivianne Bielmann – Project Manager Trevor DeVries Mario Mongeon Brian Lang Bill Grexton
Harold House Betty Summerhayes Ian Rumbles
Project Objectives Benchmark current dairy calf and heifer management practices
Develop approaches to undertaking KTT initiatives to improve awareness and encourage adoption of, known optimal management techniques to increase economic performance and health
Evaluate and quantify both the animal health and economic performance subsequent to their initial benchmark
Disseminate case-study based benefits of optimal management systems to demonstrate both financial and animal health improvements to all Ontario dairy producers through producer meetings and web-based media
Benefits Ontario dairy producers from two key perspectives:
Economically – through reduced costs attributed to death losses, animal morbidity and associated treatment costs and reduction in compromised lifetime milk production losses, as a result of health problems encountered as a calf
Improved welfare of dairy calves and heifers - through increased survival rates and improved health-status
Expected Benefits and Impacts
Ontario Calf and Heifer Management Survey
3,145 surveys were mailed out to dairy producers on DHI The survey was also available online
921 surveys were completed and returned by mail
43 surveys were completed online
30% response
Distribution of Herd Size
Herd Size Number of Farms0 – 50 cows 44551 – 100 cows 319101 – 150 cows 89151 – 200 cows 27201 – 250 cows 19251 – 350 cows 14400+ cows 7
Presentation Overview
Newborn calf Who is looking after calf care? Separation Calving assistance
Treatments Vitamins, Selenium, Iron Oral antibodies Navel Dipping
Colostrum feeding and management Collection Storage Quality Feeding
Calf Care – Survey Results
Who FrequencyOwner 352Spouse 86Owner/Spouse 66Family Member 90Employee 24Multiple Individuals (combination of 2 or more of the above)
330
**N=948****51.6% male, 21.5% female, 26.9% both**
Separation of Calf from Dam – Survey Results
Time from calving to separation
Morning(N=929)
Afternoon(N=924)
Evening(N=925)
Night(N=920)
0-2 hrs after calving 46% 35% 40% 11%
2-6 hrs after calving 25% 37% 19% 35%
6-12 hrs after calving 16% 13% 24% 36%
Greater than 12 hrs after calving
13% 15% 17% 18%
Separation Technique – Survey Results
Total Separation to Calf Housing 758 (81%)
Partial Separation using a tub or gate 98 (10%)
Other + Partial or Total separation 17 (2%)
Other 67 (7%) Methods Used:
Moved to box stall/calf pens Tied to corner of calving pen Cow is removed from pen Tied up alongside cows Calf stays with cow for hours/until licked dry/up to 3 days
Calving Assistance – Survey Results
On average, how often was assistance required during a calving, in the past year? Never 0.4%
Less than 10% 27%
10 – 20% 41%
More than 20% of calvings 23.6%
Exact percentage 7.4% Range: 1% - 98%
Dystocia Calf
Minimize dystocia
Use appropriate delivery methods
Identify compromised calves
Administer fluids and oxygen to calves with acidosis
Warm chilled calves
Deliver high-quality colostrum immediately after birth
Treat every dystocia calf as a compromised calf
Dystocia Calf
48-hour survival rates drop drastically for calves when deliveries require two or more persons, mechanical or surgical intervention compared to unassisted births.
There is a 120-day survival rate for calves when deliveries require two or more persons.
Mechanical or surgical interventions are 70% less than unassisted births.
Treatment rates are higher for dystocia calves (scours 17%, pneumonia 70%) compared to calves experiencing unassisted births.
Providing special care, both in the first few hours and first two weeks, can cut both death losses and treatments for scours and/or pneumonia. (Sam Leadley)
Disinfecting Navels – Survey Results
Is it routine practice to disinfect the navel of each newborn calf?
Survey results:
YES 38%
NO 62%
http://www.progressivedairy.com/features/2007/0107/0107
Disinfecting Navels
Why do it? Prevent infections – stop pathogens from going up
the cord into the calf’s body Navel infections can lead to other health problems Some studies show decreased growth associated
with navel infections
An easy, cost-effective method to help prevent disease ($0.30 per calf)
Products administered shortly after Birth – Survey Results
TreatmentNone 490 (51.5%)Vitamin E/Selenium 218 (23%)Vitamins A, D and E 97 (10%)Oral Antibody or vaccine 277 (29%)Iron 26 (3%)Intranasal Viral Vaccine 3 (0.3%)More than one of the above 152 (16%)
**N=950N.B. – Percentages do not add up to 100%
Vitamins
Vitamins A, D and E should be received in their feed Milk replacers should contain all fat and water-
soluble vitamins
Deficiency is rare
Selenium in the Ruminant
Trace mineral required by all animals
Selenium Deficiency- White Muscle Disease Mastitis and Bulk Tank SCC Reproductive Health Diarrhea Growth
Selenium
1980’s and 1990’s supplementing newborn calves with selenium and vitamin E injections was common practice
Still widely done in beef cow-calf operations,
Recent research from the University of Guelph showed calves supplemented with selenium and vitamin E injections were less likely to develop diarrhea from viral pathogens (i.e. rotavirus)
Distribution of Whole Blood Selenium Levels in Ontario Dairy Calves in the First Week of Life
(N=854)
Distribution of Whole Blood Selenium Levels in Newborn Dairy calves in Ontario Relative to the
Standard Reference
Distribution of serum selenium concentrations for calves 1-7 days old injected with placebo
24 25 28 4 8 19 29 1 14 32 22 35 7 9 6 38 10 120
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
Herd
Seru
m S
e (
ug
/mL)
Distribution of serum selenium concentrations for calves 1-7 days old injected with Dystosel
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
Herd
Seru
m S
e (
ug
/mL)
Bio-X ® - fecal test results for Cryptosporidium parvum and Rotavirus
Placebo Dystosel Total
Crypto - 194 202 396
Crypto +
138 (41.6%)
130 (39.2%)
268
332 332 664
Placebo Dystosel
Total
Rota - 291 305 596
Rota + 41 (12.3%)
27 (8.1%)
68
332 332 664
p = 0.074
p =0.527
Summary
Dystosel injection at birth significantly increases serum selenium concentrations during first week of life
Unlikely to have an effect on passive transfer or Crypto
May have a beneficial effect on Rotavirus
Does not appear to affect average daily gain
The Neonatal Calf
Hypogammaglobulinemic
3% body fat
No fat soluble vitamins
Rumen is nonfunctionalCotyledonary,
synepitheliochorial
Colostrum
Source of: Immunoglobulins (IgG) Energy Protein Vitamins/minerals Bioactive peptides Maternal cells Potential pathogens
Factors Affecting Passive Transfer
Colostral IgG concentration
Amount of colostrum fed
Time of feeding
Seasonal effects
Dystocia
Sex of the calf
Respiratory acidosis
Consequences of Not Achieving Passive Transfer
Increased risk of morbidity
Increased risk of calfhood diarrhea
Increased risk of respiratory problems
Increased risk mortality Colostrum-deprived calves 50-74 times more likely to die before 3 weeks
of age
Negative effects on future health, longevity and production parameters
(Davis & Drakley, 1998)
Why does it matter?
30-49 50-59 60-69 70-80
Risk Ratio 1.17 1.11 1 0.92
0.10.30.50.70.91.11.3
Risk Ratio of Mortality for Different Serum Total Protein Groups on Ar-
rival
Ris
k R
ati
o
Lynsay Henderson
Passive transfer over the years
1992 2004 2008 2009
Study NAHMS Trotz-Williams et al. Univ. of Guelph Beam et al.
Country USA Canada Canada USA
FPT > 40% 39.8% 20% 19%
How much colostrum to feed?
Quantity: 4 L (10-12% of body weight),
by esophageal feeder if necessary
Amount of Colostrum Fed – Survey Results
2 L or L
ess 2 L 3 L 4 L
More than 4 L
Other0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
First FeedingWithin First 12 Hours
Num
ber o
f Res
pons
es
Differences in Volume of Colostrum Fed – Survey Results
Weight 132
Calf’s Health Status 215
Sex of Calf 19
Let calf drink ‘at will’ 7
Combination of 2 or more of the above 115
Feeding Clean Colostrum Quickly
Quickness: Within 4 hours of birth, max of 6 hrs
Decreased absorption of IgG in the gut
Clean Colostrum
Cleanliness: Properly prep the udder and sanitize
milking, storage & feeding equipment Feed right away or refrigerated/frozen
within 1hr. Unpasteurized colostrum should only be stored for 2 days in a refrigerator
Frozen colostrum can be kept for 1 year
Nation-wide evaluation of quality and composition of colostrum fed to dairy calves in the U.S.A.
Kimberley Morrill, PhDSlides provided by Kimberly Morrill
Iowa State University
Objectives
Evaluate maternal colostrum available on U.S. farms IgG, bacterial contamination and nutrient
composition
Compare composition across breeds, lactation, storage method and pooling
Nutrient and Bacterial Means by Breed and Lactation
Breed Lactation
Holstein Jersey SE 1 2 3 SE
IgG (mg/ml) 74.16 65.77 8.33 42.39a 68.57b 95.87c 9.3
Fat (%) 5.33 5.25 0.50 6.55a 4.2c 5.14b 0.53
Protein (%) 12.47 12.59 0.67 12.35 12.09 13.14 0.73
Lactose (%) 2.97 2.93 0.10 2.99ab 2.78a 3.08b 0.10
Other Solids (%) 4.44 4.40 0.08 4.43a 4.24b 4.59a 0.08
Total Solids (%) 22.15 22.98 0.90 23.46a 20.83b 23.40a 0.99
SCC (*1,000) 2816.72a 1256.24b 510.00 3875.52a 1408.24b 825.68b 587.03
SCC Log 5.89a 5.33b 0.13 5.99a 5.59b 5.26c 0.15
Coliform Log 1.53a 1.16b 0.14 1.24b 1.54a 1.26b 0.13
TPC Log 4.88a 4.11b 0.14 4.49ab 4.70a 4.31b 0.14
Abc Difference between means of each group are indicated by different alphabetical superscripts (P < 0.05)
Nutrient and Bacterial Means by Storage Method
Stored
fresh fridge frozen SE
IgG (mg/ml) 69.04 74.55 66.31 7.34
Fat (%) 4.88 5.37 5.64 0.47
Protein (%) 10.92c 14.1a 12.55b 0.64
Lactose (%) 3.18a 2.75b 2.92b 0.09
Other Solids (%) 4.56a 4.31b 4.38 b 0.07
Total Solids (%) 21.21b 24.16a 22.33b 0.87
MUN 22.99c 34.02a 28.53b 2.06
SCC Log 5.79a 5.46b 5.58a 0.13
Coliform Log 1.12b 1.57a 1.34a 0.13
TPC Log 3.97c 4.99a 4.54b 0.13
Abc Difference between means of each group are indicated by different alphabetical superscripts (P < 0.05)
Nutrient and Bacterial Means of Individual and Pooled Samples
Pooled
NO YES SE
n = 734 n = 93
IgG (mg/ml) 69.65b 60.25a 3.64
Fat (%) 5.73 6.13 0.57
Protein (%) 13.21b 10.93a 0.60
Lactose (%) 2.86 2.94 0.09
Other Solids (%) 4.35 4.55 0.09
Total Solids (%) 23.24b 21.04a 1.05
SCC (*1,000) 2151.7 2864.62 640.04
SCC Log 5.74a 6.19b 0.16
TPC Log 4.92a 5.45b 0.11
Coliform Log 1.3a 1.98b 0.09
ab Differences between means are indicated by different alphabetical superscripts (P < 0.05)
How Are We Doing at Feeding Quality Colostrum?
Percentage of samples with above and below industry recommended adequate
IgG concentration
IgG (mg/ml) Samples (%) <50 243 29.38
50 - 80 303 36.64 80 - 100 156 18.86 100 - 120 75 9.07 >120 50 6.05
Total 827 100
Percentage of samples with above and below industry recommended total plate count
Samples (%) Range (CFU/ml) < 100,000 427 53.8
100,000 - 300,000 100 12.6 300,000 - 500,000 48 6.0 500,00 - 1,000,000 85 10.7 >1,000,000 134 16.9
Total 794 100
IgG > 50 mg/ml TPC < 100,000 CFU/ml
Percentage of Samples Distributed Across Adequate IgG Concentrations and
Total Plate Count
Quality Samples (%)
> 50 IgG and < 100,000 TPC 294 39.41
> 50 IgG and > 100,000 TPC 233 31.23
< 50 IgG and > 100,000 TPC 104 13.94
< 50 IgG and < 100,000 TPC 115 15.42
Total 746 100
Conclusions IgG concentration
Greater in individual vs pooled samples No difference across breed or storage method
Bacterial content Greatest in 1st lactation, refrigerated and pooled samples
Less than 40% of MC available on U.S. dairies meets both industry recommendations for quality measurements
Colostrum Quality
Quality: Quality decreases quickly after calving.
Collection should occur within 1 to 2 hours, max of 6 hrs.
The relationship between IgG concentrations and volume of colostrum is unpredictable.
Avoid feeding Johne’s positive or suspect, as well as visibly mastitic, discoloured, bloody or watery colostrum.
Assessing Colostrum Quality Currently the ColostrometerTM is the most commonly used
instrument on-farm to evaluate colostrum quality
Radial Immunodiffusion assay (RID) is the most commonly used method of evaluating the IgG content of colostrum Lab method, takes time Expensive - ~$10/samples
Brix Refractometer is a potentially useful tool for on-farm monitoring of colostrum quality. Brix refractometer is not temperature dependent
Watch a youtube video about the Brix refractometer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjuKlg8224o&list=UUCvrARCkEqyUtYzMdfifySA&index=48&feature=plcp
Colostrum Quality – Survey Results
How many producers are checking colostrum quality? 281/931 30%
How are they checking it? Colour and/or consistency 72% (265/370) Volume 19% (70/370) Colostrometer 6% (23/370) Refractometer 0.2% (1/370) Laboratory 3% (11/370)
Upcoming/New Laboratory Methods for Rapid Determination of Colostral IgG Concentration and Colostral IgG Absorption in the Neonate
Measuring Colostral IgG
In the lab, current methods are: Radial immunodiffusion assay
18 – 24 h incubation time Past the time of gut closure Expensive ($10/sample) Limited availability to producers
ELISA 3 - 4 h incubation time Limited availability to producers
Quick-Test for Rapid Colostral IgG Analysis with a Refractometer
Simplifying the protocol and altering the acid concentrations of CA and acetic acid led to a strong relationship between refractive index (nD) and actual IgG concentration
r = 0.96
On-Farm Evaluation of Two Rapid Methods to Estimate IgG Concentration in Bovine Maternal Colostrum
Caprylic acid quick-test Binds all non-IgG proteins which causes separation of the
colostrum into 2 layers 1 clear layer that only contains IgG 1 layer containing all other substances
Goal is to be able to measure IgG layer with a refractometer
Whole colostrum refractive index Use a drop of colostrum on a digital refractometer to measure
IgG content
Diagnostics Test Characteristics
Breed comparisons Whole MC provides best results No breed differences
Parity results Whole MC provides best results No parity differences
Storage method Fresh colostrum run through the CA Quick-test provides
the greatest combination of characteristics
Conclusions
The caprylic acid Quick-test is a rapid and accurate method to determine MC quality on fresh samples
Relationship between nD * RID for both CA quick-test and whole refractometry is greatest for fresh samples
Huge opportunities to improve calf and heifer management and profitability
Thawing Colostrum How?
Use a warm water bath to thaw frozen colostrum with water no hotter than 50°C
Microwave – possible if done correctly – at low power for short periods of time
Do not want to damage the Ig in the colostrum by thawing the colostrum at too high a temperature/power or using very hot water
Thawing Colostrum New equipment/techniques
Colo-Quick Quick thawing of frozen colostrum Collect colostrum into bags, put into plastic
container and freeze until use at a later time. Thaw colostrum in water bath and feed to calf
Take Home Messages
Selenium may be beneficial effect in protecting the calf from Rotavirus
Navel dipping An easy, cost-effective method for preventing infections
Colostrum – quality Measuring colostrum quality is easy and worthwhile