0707 PD: Improve the well-being of your calves with alternative management and housing


advertisement

Latest comments

Re: Second annual Latinos in Agriculture forum deemed a success
Posted on Wednesday, 22 May 2013 by Agriculture in the Black Sea Region.
This project is for and about agriculture in countries aroung Black Sea...
Re: Mastitis prevention and control: A prevention methodology
Posted on Wednesday, 22 May 2013 by Justo Calderon.
Great article, nice explanation, easy and interesting to reading And...
Re: Documentary shows struggles of Maine co-op
Posted on Tuesday, 21 May 2013 by David Bright.
One correction. MOOMilk is not a co-op. It's an L3C corporation, a...

Feed

Reader favorites

Participate in the 2013 Flavor Faceoff!

5.0 of 5 stars from 6 votes.
‘Customer’ feedback: Make a good robotic milking facility great

5.0 of 5 stars from 4 votes.
Zoo study makes cow waterbeds available to moose

5.0 of 5 stars from 3 votes.

0707 PD: Improve the well-being of your calves with alternative management and housing

0 Votes

Archives - Past Articles

Friday, 06 July 2007 05:35

Research on dairy calves is paving the way for methods of managing and housing these animals that will facilitate calf care and improve living conditions for these young animals. In this [article], I will review research from three areas I think are important:

Calf care is arguably the most difficult job on the dairy farm. This is the group of animals most likely to experience illness and even death. For the good calf manager, the research I will describe can provide opportunities to further improve calf care and reduce labor. However, like any method, these are likely best adopted first by the best and most innovative managers, as new methods require new skills and a careful eye to ensure these are implemented in the best ways possible.

1: Calf feeding
For dairy producers and professionals, my comments on feeding calves more milk will, hopefully, be old news. The innovative work by Mike Van Amburgh and others at Cornell has shown convincingly how calves can benefit from being fed much more milk than they are typically provided. In this section, I wish to show you some of the results from my group reinforcing these findings but also showing how these larger milk meals can best be provided. I will also discuss some of the challenges involved in using these new milk-feeding methods.

In two experiments designed primarily to understand and reduce the cow and calf distress response at separation, we varied the age at separation. In both experiments we found the cows and calves separated later responded more strongly to the separation in terms of increased activity and more vocalizations. My aim here is to highlight a secondary finding from these studies – the dramatic effect on calf weight gains of prolonged contact with the cow.

For example, in one study we found calves separated from the cow at 14 days of age gained 16.5 kilograms over this period, versus just 4.5 kilograms for those separated at birth. Moreover, calves maintained this weight advantage even after separation. These and other studies have shown separating calves at later ages allows calves to grow much faster.

The difference in weight gains between calves separated at birth and those kept with the cow shows how well calves can do in terms of weight gain, or from another perspective, how much room there is for improvement in the way we typically raise calves. The question is how can we change our calf-rearing methods to begin to achieve these higher gains? One method might be to keep cow and calf together for longer periods, but more research is needed to find practical ways of achieving this.

The most obvious difference between conventional rearing and keeping the calf with the cow is how the calves consume their milk and the quantities they consume. The way in which dairy calves are offered milk after separation from their mothers can have marked effects on many aspects of their behavior, performance and welfare. The most common system is to feed them twice daily from buckets, typically with an amount equivalent to 10 percent of their bodyweight per day.

The Cornell research has shown calves are able to achieve dramatically higher weight gains when provided more milk by bucket, three times per day. Thus, feeding larger quantities would seem to have important advantages.

Our group’s work on milk feeding has focused on teat feeding, as this allows calves to drink in a more natural manner. In addition, calves fed from an artificial teat tend not to suck on each other or on objects, unlike calves fed from a bucket. Teat feeding increases overall feeding time, especially if a teat with a small orifice is used to reduce flow rate.

We have found calves fed ad libitum by nipple spend approximately 45 minutes per day drinking milk compared to just a few minutes per day for bucket-fed calves. In two experiments we have tested the effects of feeding calves ad libitum by teat. In each experiment we found the ad libitum-fed calves gained over the first few weeks of life almost 1 kilogram (2.2 pounds) per day, compared to about 0.5 kilogram (1.1 pound) per day for the conventionally fed calves. The differences in weight gain were likely due to teat-fed calves drinking approximately double the milk consumed by the conventionally fed calves.

It is commonly thought calves should be encouraged to increase their consumption of starter at an early age. We found feeding calves less milk did increase starter consumption over the first five weeks of life, but the ad libitum calves quickly caught up to the conventionally fed calves in their intake of starter after weaning. Thus, feeding restricting quantities of milk before weaning seems to have no positive effect of solid consumption of solid feed after weaning.

Much research and on-farm innovation is still required to maximize the benefits of these calf-feeding methods. Although our early work focused on providing continuous access to milk, in newer work we have found providing access to milk for four hours each day can result in similar benefits and facilitate feeding practices. Calves are able to consume as much milk, but this system makes it easier to ensure the milk feeding equipment is kept clean. The same equipment can then also be used to provide water to calves, an added advantage for some facilities.

The current recommendations for weaning age and method are specific to conventional feeding practices and the relatively low rate of gains shown by these calves. However, little is known about how best to wean rapidly growing calves fed high milk intakes. The rapid gains result in calves reaching bodyweights of approximately 70 kilograms (154.3 pounds) by 5 weeks old, two to three weeks before conventionally fed calves. Thus, weaning at younger ages than is typical for conventional rearing may be suitable for animals fed more milk, but research is required to determine if this is the case.

2: Calf housing
For the past few decades the common wisdom among North American dairy experts was that calves needed to be housed individually, in separate pens or perhaps ideally in calf hutches. This practice was considered to maximize performance and minimize the risk of disease, and individual housing also helped avoid behavioral problems such as competition and cross sucking.

The calf-feeding practices described above work well for individually housed calves, but these feeding methods can also facilitate group housing. When managed well, teat feeding can all but eliminate cross sucking, and with appropriate management competition between calves, it can be reduced to a low level. Moreover, research and practical experience are now showing that group-rearing of calves can result in considerable benefits in terms of reduced labor of cleaning pens and feeding.

One study on a commercial farm in New York State showed calves kept in groups required one-third of the labor that went into caring for the individually housed and fed calves. These advantages will, I believe, lead to a rapid increase in the number of producers using group housing for young calves. Calves are social animals, and keeping dairy calves in groups may provide a number of advantages to both producers and their calves.

However, successful adoption of group housing will mean avoiding problems such as increased disease and competition. Research provides some insights into how these risks can be minimized. The success of a group-rearing system can depend on several factors, including the feeding method and the number of animals in the group. For example, a large epidemiological survey of U.S. dairy farms found increased mortality on farms keeping calves in groups of seven or more. A more recent study in Sweden found respiratory disease was twice as high in groups of 10 to 20 calves than in groups of three to eight calves. Thus, small groups are likely a better alternative than large ones.

In one experiment we compared small groups (pairs) with singly housed calves. We fed milk ad libitum by teat and found all calves remained healthy and gained 0.8 to 0.9 kilograms (1.8 to 2 pounds) per day before weaning. Weight gains of the two treatment groups were similar except when calves were weaned. During this week gains of individually penned calves declined to just 0.5 kilogram per day, but the pair-housed calves continued to gain weight at pre-weaning levels. We observed no signs of disease except diarrhea, and the incidence of this condition was low and did not differ between the housing treatments.

The design and management of housing systems, including cleanliness and ventilation, as well as factors affecting calf immunity, likely play a more important role in disease susceptibility than group housing per se. Our work indicates housing young dairy calves in small groups is viable in terms of calf health, performance and behavior, but research is now required on management strategies that will help prevent disease, especially for group-housed calves. For now, I encourage producers to consider keeping a closed herd (i.e., no new animals entering the herd), keeping groups physically separated from one another (e.g., in super hutches) and filling group pens in an all-in-all-out basis.

Calves kept in individual pens have unrestricted access to feed and other resources, but animals kept in groups must sometimes compete with pen mates. For example, in one recent experiment we found group-housed calves can displace one another from the milk teat many times each day. However, these displacements at the teat are much reduced if each calf has access to its own teat, and this improved access to feeding positions also allows for increased feeding times and increased milk intakes.

Other research has focused on how computerized feeding stations can be best managed to reduce competitive interactions among calves. For example, Jensen and Holm found increasing the daily milk allowance for calves from 5 to 8 liters (1.3 to 2.1 gallons) per day reduced by half the number of times calves visited the feeder, reducing occupancy time and improving the efficient use of this equipment. Another study by the same Danish research group showed providing calves with four larger milk meals resulted in more effective usage of the feeder than providing the same quantity of milk divided into eight milk meals. This same study also showed the level of competitive interactions among calves was greater when 24 versus 12 calves were sharing one computerized feeding station.

3: Calf dehorning
Horn buds of young dairy calves are removed for good reasons – to reduce the risk of injuries to other cattle and farm workers that can occur once horns have developed. Although necessary, this is an unpleasant procedure to perform and causes considerable pain to the calf. In this section I will review some work showing how the pain and stress associated with dehorning can be reduced.

Hot-iron dehorning causes a pronounced behavioral response such that significant physical restraint is necessary to carry out the procedure. Increased levels of circulating “stress hormones” (corticosteroids) are commonly detected after dehorning, although administration of a local nerve block dampens this initial increase. Local anesthetic also reduces behaviors associated with the immediate pain response (e.g., tail wagging, head movements, tripping and rearing) and those indicative of postoperative pain (head rubbing, head shaking and ear flicking).

Local anesthetics are effective in reducing the immediate pain after dehorning. However, calves respond to both the pain of the procedure and to the physical restraint. Calves dehorned using a local anesthetic still require restraint, and the difference in the behavioral response between treated and untreated calves can be so subtle that it is difficult for observers to judge if nerve blockage was achieved.

Calves must also be restrained while the local block is administered, as well as during the actual dehorning. Thus, calves experience the distress associated with restraint on two occasions and still may not receive an adequate nerve block. The use of a sedative (such as xylazine) can essentially eliminate calf response to the administration of the local block and the need for physical restraint during the entire dehorning process. A sedative makes it easier to accurately deliver the nerve block, and the lack of restraint makes dehorning much easier for a single worker.

Local anesthetic alone also does not provide adequate postoperative pain relief. The most popular local anesthetic, lidocaine, is effective for only two to three hours after administration. The use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (such as ketoprofen), in addition to a local anesthetic, can keep stress hormones and behavioral responses close to baseline levels in the hours that follow dehorning. Thus, the combination of a sedative, local anesthetic and a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug can much reduce the pain of hot-iron dehorning.

However, this combination of treatments is impractical for some producers and involves several treatments for the calves. In research we have been working on more practical methods of reducing pain. In one study we have found the pain due to caustic paste dehorning can be easier to control. Specifically, we found a lidocaine nerve block provides no detectable advantage when calves are treated with the caustic paste.

Also, unlike hot-iron dehorning, the mild analgesic properties of the sedative xylazine seem effective in controlling pain due to this procedure. We found calves dehorned with caustic paste and a sedative show less pain response, including fewer head shakes than do calves hot-iron dehorned with both the sedative and a local block. Thus, the use of caustic paste combined with a sedative can provide a way of reducing the pain resulting from dehorning. Producers interested in adopting these methods should consult with their veterinarian for more information about appropriate sedatives and the correct use of the paste. PD

References omitted but are available upon request.

—From 2005 Dairy Calves and Heifers: Integrating Biology and Management Proceedings

< Prev		Next >

Archive

Most read articles

Latest comments

Re: Second annual Latinos in Agriculture forum deemed a success

Re: Mastitis prevention and control: A prevention methodology

Re: Documentary shows struggles of Maine co-op

Reader favorites

Participate in the 2013 Flavor Faceoff!

‘Customer’ feedback: Make a good robotic milking facility great

Zoo study makes cow waterbeds available to moose

0 Comments

Add Comment