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

Status of Survey

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

The Newborn Calf and Colostrum Management

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)

Selenium Deficient Soil

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

Colostrum

What has and has not changed…

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

Passive Transfer

> 10 mg/mL of IgG at 24h after birthwww.altagenetics.com

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%

Recent research on passive transfer in ON

STP of the population of calves STP by Farm

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)

Distribution of IgG Concentration

Mean = 68.84 mg/ml (SD = 32.77)

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

For more information:http://www.goldencalfcompany.com/Golden_Calf_Company/ColoQuick.html

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

QUESTIONS ?