Feeding Systems for Group-Housed Dairy Calves- Dr. Mark Thomas
61
Grouped-Housed Feeding Systems How To Get It Right! DAIReXNET Webinar 12/7/2012 Mark Thomas, DVM, DABVP-Dairy Countryside Veterinary Clinic, LLP Dairy Health & Management Services, LLC 315-376-6563 [email protected] [email protected]
description
Dr. Thomas presented this information on December 7th, 2012 for DAIReXNET's webinar on Feeding Systems for Group-Housed Dairy Calves
Transcript of Feeding Systems for Group-Housed Dairy Calves- Dr. Mark Thomas
Grouped-Housed Feeding SystemsHow To Get It Right!
DAIReXNET Webinar12/7/2012
Mark Thomas, DVM, DABVP-Dairy
Countryside Veterinary Clinic, LLP
Dairy Health & Management Services, LLC
315-376-6563
Outline
• Benefits of optimal nutrition & growth• Practical systems for ad-lib feeding• Acidified, ad-lib feeding systems• Research summaries• Practical aspects of feeding acidified milk• Summary
Poll: How do you currently feed calves?
• Twice daily• Three times daily• Automated feeder• Ad-lib acidified
Poll: What do you feed calves?
• Pasteurized whole milk• Unpasteurized whole milk• Milk replacer
Poll: Do you weigh calves and track average daily gain?
• Yes• No
HPN
CN
Nydam, 2011
High (HPN) vs. Conventional (CN) Plane of Nutrition
AD
G (
kg
/d)
0.6
0
-0.2
-0.4
0.2
0.4
HPN CN
Average Daily Gain
P<0.001
Conclusions
High plane of nutrition (HPN) reduces the effect of disease due to Cryptosporidium parvum in neonatal dairy calves.
HPN improves ADG and feed efficiency.
What about future milk production?
• Miner Institute, Chazy, NY • 1.25 v. 2.2 lb of MR powder per day• Cows which were fed 2.2lb/d as calves produced
+1,543 lbs 1st lactation– JDS, 2005
Cornell T&R Herd- Mike VanAmburgh
• 1998, started feeding for 2lb ADG• >1000 weaning weights• >725 1st lactations• Any relationship between calf performance and
1st lactation performance?
Cornell T&R Herd- Mike VanAmburgh
• Range in ADG to weaning: 0.52 to 2.67 lb/d
Milk yield increased by 900 lb (1st lactation) for every 1lb gain above 0.5lb/d
Summary of Data:Doubling birth weight w/ liquid feed by weaning
Study Response (kg)
Bar-Peled et al., ’98 +452
Foldager and Krohn, ’94 1,403
Foldager et al., ’97 519
Miner Inst., ’05 700
MSU ’06 500
Drackley et al., ’07 836
U. Minn ’08 998
Cornell U., ’09 792
Average Response +840
Summary of Early Nutrition Effects
• Nutrient intake early in life impacts lactation performance• All data is positive or neutral – no negative effects• Mechanisms are not completely understood• Bottom Line: There is future milk in early life colostrum
and nutritional management!
Group Housing Facilities
• New designs• Remodeled facilities• Outdoors
Group Housing Challenges
• Ventilation• Bedding• Space availability• Feeding systems
Group Housing & FeedingHow do we deliver milk?
• Gang feeders• Automated feeders• Ad-lib acidified
Gang Feeders
• Inexpensive• Hygiene issues• Not ad-lib
Automatic Feeders
• Computerized-data• Greater investment• Maintenance• Not always ad-lib
Acidified Ad-lib Systems
• Basic or sophisticated.
• Milk replacer• Whole milk
(pasteurized or not)• Chemical
pasteurization (acid)
pH 2.5
pH 4.2pH
4.2
CitricFormic
Courtesy of Neil Anderson
Social aspects?
Group housing & feeding
Source: N. Anderson
Group housing & ad-lib feeding
Group housing & ad-lib feedingA seasonal set-up for acidified whole milk
Group housing & ad-lib feedingFacility designed for grouped housing
High Line System
Midline System
Weaning System
Ad-lib & Group Housing Research Summaries
Mark J. Thomas, DVM, DABVP-Dairy
Countryside Veterinary Clinic, LLP
Lowville, NY
Frans Vokey, MS, PAS
Cornell Cooperative Extension of Lewis County
Daryl V. Nydam, DVM, PhD
Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine
Overview• Late spring/summer 2011• Three collaborating dairy farms (Lewis &
Jefferson Counties)• Objectives:
1. Group vs. individual housing with ad-lib feeding.
2. Citric vs. formic acid as a preservative for milk replacer.
Group vs. Individual• Pasteurized/formic acid acidified whole milk• Ad-lib feeding• Group housing (8 calves/pen, 3 nipples/pen)• Individual housing (clusters of 8- 4x8 pens
with solid sides, 1 nipple/calf)• Alternating group and individual pen clusters
within same barn.
Group vs. Individual Pens
Group (n=40) Individual (n=32) p-value
ADG (lbs.) @ 50 days
1.51a 1.32b 0.01
Serum Total Protein 5.9a 5.8a 0.61
Birth weight (lbs.) 88.3a 89.4a 0.66
Disease Events
Event Group (n=40) Individual (n=32)
Scours 0 0
Pneumonia 1 0
Other 0 0
Total disease events 1 0
Conclusions• No apparent detrimental effects of group
housing as compared to individual pens given similar nutrition.
• Disease events (scours, pneumonia) were negligible throughout study (1 case of pneumonia).
Citric vs. Formic Acid
• 24/17 Citric acid acidified (commercial) milk replacer vs. 24/17 milk replacer acidified (on-farm) with formic acid.
• pH of 4.2 (Some issues with product pH for ~2 weeks)
• Two facilities.• Identical feeding management within each
farm.
pH is Important!
• A two week period of high milk pH (~5) had significant effects on disease incidence and weight gain.
• Important to consider this issue in regards to data analysis and conclusions.
Citric vs. Formic Acid
Citric acid (n=38) Formic acid (n=35) p-value
ADG (lbs.) @ 40 days
0.92a 1.14b 0.03
Serum Total Protein
5.54a 5.39a 0.29
Birth weight (lbs.) 88a 95b 0.01
Disease Events
Event Citric acid (n=43) Formic acid (n=36)
Scours 3 (7%) 0 (0%)
Pneumonia 7 (16.6%) 4 (11%)
Other 4 (9.5%) 0 (0%)
Death 5 (11.6%) 0 (0%)
Total disease/death events 19 (39.6%) 5 (13.8%)
Conclusions• Statistically higher ADG in formic vs. citric
groups. • Subjectively, no apparent negative effects
of citric vs. formic acid for the acidification of milk replacer. (Currently in wide use)
• Two week period of high pH and following disease make data analysis difficult for citric group.
How to acidify?Formic vs. Citric (others?)
Formic Acid 85%must be diluted before use
Not approved in the USA
…dilute the acid
• safe handling• ease of mixing
• safe handling• ease of mixing
1 L into 9 L = 10 L dilute acid
1 L into 9 L = 10 L dilute acid
Dr. Neil Anderson, OMAFRA December, 2011
…add dilute formic acid to milk
~30 ml (1 oz) of dilute acid to 1L whole milk or milk replacer
Important Points:1. Aggressive agitation2. Temperature (<75oF)3. Rate of acid addition to milk (slow!)
pH Goal= 4.0-4.2
Aggressive agitation
Feeding Temperature is very important!
• At least 75 degrees F• Preference of 90+ degrees• How do we keep it warm?
Whatabout
intersuckling?
Keys to Success 1. Stocking density- at least 30 sq ft (3 m2) lying area per
calf. Dry, dry bedding.
2. Excellent ventilation using positive pressure ventilation tubes. Most barns just don’t have it right! Be aggressive. Remember air exchanges/hour.
3. True ad-lib (don’t limit intakes)
4. Age range- try and fill a pen in 7-10 days.
5. Cold milk (<75F) really discourages intakes. Cold milk (<75F) really discourages intakes. Offer milk at 85-90+ degrees F.
Keys to Success6. Proper pH is very important. Ideal range=4.0-4.2. Too
low discourages intakes, too high allows for bacterial growth.
7. Maintain consistent total solids. Monitor with Brix refractometer.
8. Acidify cool milk (<75 degrees) to prevent curdling. Add diluted acid slowly while agitating.
9. Concentrated acid is dangerous! Be careful.
Questions?
![Experiments with Hand-fed Calves. · May 1904.]Experiments with Hand-fed Calves. 165 FEEDING MILK AND SKIM-MILK. BREAKING THE CALF TO DRINK.It is well to leave the calf by itself](https://static.fdocuments.in/doc/165x107/5f0d6fb77e708231d43a58cb/experiments-with-hand-fed-may-1904experiments-with-hand-fed-calves-165-feeding.jpg)
