ICT Role in 21st Century Education & its Challenges.pptx
Feeding Systems for Group-Housed Dairy Calves- Dr. Mark Thomas
1. 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
mthomas@countryside-vet.net
mthomas@dairyhealthmanagement.com
2. 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
3. Poll: How do you currently feed
calves?
• Twice daily
• Three times daily
• Automated feeder
• Ad-lib acidified
4. Poll: What do you feed calves?
• Pasteurized whole milk
• Unpasteurized whole milk
• Milk replacer
5. Poll: Do you weigh calves and track
average daily gain?
• Yes
• No
6. High (HPN) vs. Conventional (CN) Plane of Nutrition
HPN
CN
Nydam, 2011
8. 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.
9. 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
10. 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?
11. 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
12. 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
13. 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!
33. Ad-lib & Group Housing
Research Summaries
Mark J. Thomas, DVM, DABVP-Dairy
Countryside Veterinary Clinic, LLP
Lowville, NY
mthomascow@hughes.net
Frans Vokey, MS, PAS
Cornell Cooperative Extension of Lewis County
Daryl V. Nydam, DVM, PhD
Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine
34. 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.
35. 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.
36.
37.
38. Group vs. Individual Pens
Group (n=40) Individual (n=32) p-value
ADG (lbs.) @ 50 1.51a 1.32b 0.01
days
Serum Total Protein 5.9a 5.8a 0.61
Birth weight (lbs.) 88.3a 89.4a 0.66
39. Disease Events
Event Group (n=40) Individual (n=32)
Scours 0 0
Pneumonia 1 0
Other 0 0
Total disease events 1 0
40. 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).
41. 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.
42.
43. 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.
44. Citric vs. Formic Acid
Citric acid (n=38) Formic acid p-value
(n=35)
ADG (lbs.) @ 40 0.92a 1.14b 0.03
days
Serum Total 5.54a 5.39a 0.29
Protein
Birth weight (lbs.) 88a 95b 0.01
46. 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.
49. …dilute the acid
• safe handling
• ease of mixing
1 L into 9 L = 10 L dilute acid
Dr. Neil Anderson, OMAFRA December, 2011
50. …add dilute formic acid to milk
~30 ml (1 oz) of dilute acid to 1L
whole milk or milk replacer
Important Points:
1. Aggressive agitation
2. Temperature (<75oF)
3. Rate of acid addition to milk (slow!)
59. 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.
60. Keys to Success
6. 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.
Now I’d like to step back for a quick minute and quickly review our feeding sheets and the difference between the 2 groups. To orient you: Each line on this spreadsheet represents a calf in the study. Calf #1 is in the conventional nutrition group and will be fed at the same rate (0.13 Mcal/kg MBW) for the duration of the study. Calf #2 is in the high plane of nutrition group and will be fed at a rate of 0.23mcal/kg mbw for the first 7 days of the study before getting bumped up to 0.3Mcal/kg mbw for the last 2 weeks of the study.
Calves like to eat together.
Limiting intakes can be multi-factorial (clogged tubes, flies, stocking density, delivery