Calf Nutrition –What’s New? › sites › default › files...6/27/2012 1 Calf Nutrition –What’s New? David B. Carlson, PhD Milk Products June 2012

6/27/2012

1

Calf Nutrition – What’s New?

David B. Carlson, PhD

Milk Products

June 2012

6/27/2012

2

Heifer Growth Benchmarks

• Birth to 60 days = 2X birth weight– 90 lbs→ 180 lbs = 1.5 lbs/day

– 60 lbs→ 120 lbs = 1.0 lbs/day

• 61 to 120 days = 2.2 lbs/day

• 121 to 180 days = 2.0 lbs/day

6/27/2012

What Influences Calf Growth?

Growth

Genetics

Environment

Health

Nutrition

GENETICS• Holstein vs. Jersey

ENVIRONMENT• Air quality• Cold & heat stress

HEALTH• Colostrum status• Pathogen load• Vaccination program

NUTRITION• Specific to situation

MILK YIELD AS A COW

6/27/2012

3

Cornell Trial

• Study design– Determine preweaning factors that affect lactation performance

– Fed an intensified milk replacer program– 1244 calves with completed 1st lactation records

• Parameters analyzed– Preweaning ADG– Birth & weaning weight– Age at 1st calving– Birth month, year, & season

Soberon et al., 2012, J. Dairy Sci. 95:783

Cornell Trial

• Preweaning ADG

– Positively correlated with 1st lactation milk yield

– Average ADG = 1.80 lbs/day

• Temperature at birth

– Colder temperatures at birth negatively correlated with milk production


6/27/2012

4

Cornell Trial

‐1000

‐500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

Test‐Day M

ilk Residuals, lbs

Preweaning Average Daily Gain, lbs

Every 0.50 lbs of ADG = 424 lbs of milk


Cornell Trial


6/27/2012

5

Outline

• Colostrum Management

• Liquid Feeding Programs

• Evaluating and selecting the right program for to achieve the goals of your operation

Disease on the Calf Operation

IMMUNITY

(Calf’s ability to

fight off disease)

PATHOGEN LOAD

(Number of disease‐

causing bacteria and viruses presented to the calf)

vs.

COLOSTRUMVACCINATIONSNUTRITION

BIOSECURITY SANITATIONHOUSING

6/27/2012

6

Colostrum Program Monitoring

• Passive Transfer of Immunity– Serum IgG ≥ 10 mg/mL

• Prevalence of FPT among healthy heifer calves– 19.2% (Beam et al., 2009)

Why is Successful Passive Transfer Important?

• Reduced treatment and mortality rates– NAHMS, Wells, 1996

• Improved growth rates and feed efficiency– Fowler, 1999; Faber et al., 2005; Nocek et al., 1984; Robison et al., 1988; Faber,

2005

• Decreased age at 1st calving– Faber et al., 2005

• Increased 1st and 2nd lactation milk production– DeNise, 1989; Faber, 2005

Slide recreated from Godden, 2011, AABP Pre‐Conference

6/27/2012

7

Recent results: University of Illinois

• Purchased male calves were fed either intensified early nutrition (28-20) or conventional (22-20) milk replacer.

• Average daily gain (ADG) through 5 wk compared in calves with adequate (Good; >10.0 mg/mL) vs. inadequate (Poor; <10.0 mg/mL) blood IgG concentration

Osorio and Drackley, 2009 (unpublished)

Control Intensified

Variable Poor Good Poor Good

n 21 20 17 25

IgG, mg/mL 5.58 17.93 6.09 20.36

ADG, lb/d 1.17 1.09 1.39a 1.63b

a,b P < 0.05. Interaction, P < 0.07

Results

ADG (d 1‐52), lbs/d2 0.78a 1.21b 0.78a 1.72c

Post‐weaning DMI, lbs/d 4.85a 6.17b

128% CP, 15% fat, all‐milk protein2Values with unlike superscripts are significantly different (P < 0.05)

Colostrum Intake and Growth

Low Colostrum Intake High Colostrum Intake

Low Nutrition

High Nutrition

Low Nutrition

High Nutrition

Study design

Colostrum fed within 1 hr, L 2 2 4 4

Colostrum fed at 12 hr, L ‐‐ ‐‐ 2 2

Milk replacer1 fed, L/d 4 Up to 12 4 Up to 12

Soberon et al., 2011, J. Dairy Sci. 94:E‐Suppl. 1. Abstr M180

6/27/2012

8

Colostrum Management Goals

• Quality (IgG concentration)– Immunoglobulin concentration – 50 g/L IgG is “good”

Measuring Colostrum Quality

• Colostrometer

– Measures specific gravity

– Not durable

– Temperature sensitive

• Brix Refractometer

– Durable

– Not temperature dependent

– Brix% ≥ 22

6/27/2012

9



• Quantity (amount fed)– 10% of birthweight– 3 quarts if fed by bottle (if good quality ~150 g IgG intake)– 4 quarts if fed by tube (if good quality ~200 g IgG intake)

Colostrum Feeding Method

100 g IgG

1.6 quarts

Bottle Tube

200 g IgG

3.2 quarts

Bottle Tube

Godden et al., 2009. J. Dairy Sci. 92:1758‐1764.

6/27/2012

10

Colostrum Feeding Method

• Guidelines for Colostrum Feeding

– If feeding 3 quarts or less – Attempt to bottle feed 1st

– If feeding 4 quarts at once – Ok to tube feed

– Bottle feeding critical if feeding colostrum replacer

Parameter 1.6 quartsBottle

1.6 quartsTube

3.2 quartsBottle

3.2 quartsTube

Calves, n 24 24 24 25IgG fed, g 100 100 200 20024‐hr serum IgG, mg/mL 12.50a 9.85b 19.65c 18.65c

Failure of passive transfer, % 0a 58.3b 0a 0a

Godden et al., 2009. J. Dairy Sci. 92:1758‐1764.




• Quickness (of milking and feeding)– Milk cow & feed colostrum ASAP, but within 6 hours of birth

6/27/2012

11

Cows Milked ≥ 6 hrs Post‐calving

• IgG concentration

– Goes down due to IgGreabsorption or dilution

– 20‐40% decrease in 6 hours

• Goal = Milk within 4 hours

100

83.272.6

67.3

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Hours Post‐Calving

Colostral IgG

, % of Control

Control (2 hr) 6 hr 10 hr 14 hr

Figure 1. Effect of delayed colostrum collection relative tocalving on colostral IgG concentration (% of control) inHolstein cows (Moore et al., 2005).

Colostrum Absorption(before gut closure)

Blood vessel

Intestinal tract

IgG

6/27/2012

12

Colostrum Absorption(after gut closure)

Blood vessel

Intestinal tract

IgG

Localized gut effect

Systemic effect




• Quickness (of milking and feeding)– Milk cow & feed colostrum ASAP, but within 6 hours of birth

• Cleanliness (bacteria counts of colostrum fed)– Standard plate count = <100,000 CFU/mL

6/27/2012

13

Colostrum Cleanliness

• High Bacterial Load in Colostrum– Can introduce disease to the calves

• Source of E. coli, Rotavirus, Coronavirus, Salmonella, Mycoplasma, etc.

– Can interfere with IgG absorption• Block absorption sites

• Secrete enzymes that destroy IgG

• Goals– Total Plate Count < 100,000 CFU/mL


ItemIowa State Study1

Cal State‐Fresno Study2

No. of samples collected 892 546

Avg. total plate count (TPC), CFU/mL 550,000 ‐‐

Minimum TPC, CFU/mL ‐‐ 13,420

Maximum TPC, CFU/mL ‐‐ 2,171,835

Percent of samples with TPC > 100,000 CFU/mL 45.9% 40.29%

Percent of samples with TPC > 500,000 CFU/mL 27.2% ‐‐

Percent of samples with TPC > 1,000,000 CFU/mL 16.6% ‐‐

Avg. time elapsed – harvest to feeding or storage 48 minutes ‐‐

Percent of samples let sit for > 60 min 54.3% ‐‐

1Conrad et al. 2011. J. Dairy Sci. 94(E‐Suppl. 1):Abstract T260.2Zhelev et al. 2011. J. Dairy Sci. 94(E‐Suppl. 1):Abstract T254.

6/27/2012

14



6/27/2012

15


Take‐Home Messages ‐ Colostrum

• Colostrum intake/IgG status

– Increases response to high plane of nutrition

• Management is critical!

– Quality

– Quantity

– Quickness

– Cleanliness

6/27/2012

16

Calf Nutrition Program

• Liquid feed– Milk or milk replacer

– Major source of nutrition for first 3 weeks of life

• Calf starter– Stimulates rumen growth and

development

• WATER!!!– Promotes calf starter intake

and rumen development

Whole Milk vs. Milk Replacer

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

CP, % Fat, %

Whole Milk 20‐20 MR

6/27/2012

17

Milk Replacer Selection

• Protein source– Milk proteins

– Animal plasma

– Plant proteins

• Protein & Fat → feeding rate

• Medication– Antibiotics

– Coccidiostats

• Additives

Milk Replacer Protein Sources

Ideal

Milk Proteins

Animal Plasma

Acceptable

Soy Protein Isolate

Soy Protein Concentrate

Modified Soy Flour

Wheat Gluten

Marginal

Soy Flour

Egg Protein

6/27/2012

18

6/27/2012

UMN Waseca Research Study

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

ADG, lbs/day Starter intake, lbs/day

Calf Performance, d 1‐56All‐Milk 50% SPC 50% Wheat

Trt #1

20‐20 all‐milk

Trt #2

20‐20 soy protein concentrate (SPC)

Trt #320‐20 wheat gluten

a

b b

~90% of Control

Hayes et al., 2007, J. Dairy Sci. 90 (Suppl. 1):114. Abstr M348

APC - Functional Protein Fractionation

Raw Material

Red Cells

Plasma Used in

Calf Milk Replacers

• Highly‐digestible protein source• Supports equivalent growth performance versus all‐milk milk replacers

• Considered a “functional protein”• Proteins resist digestion, can serve other functions• Approx. 15% immunoglobulin G (IgG)• Also contains growth factors

6/27/2012

19

E. coli Challenge Study

• 36 Holstein bull calves

– Purchased at sale barn

• Treatments

– Control – 20‐20; nonmedicated

– NT – 20‐20; 1600/800 g/ton NT

– Plasma – 20‐20; 3.3% plasma

Day 3: All calves challenged with 1×108 CFU of enterotoxigenic E. coli

Quigley and Drew, 2000, Food and Agric. Immun. 12:311

E. coli Challenge Results

25.023.0

8.3

28.6

0

30.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

Mortality, % BW Gain, lbs, d 1‐21

Control Neo‐Oxy Plasma

Control vs. Neo‐Oxy+Plasma, P = 0.06

Control vs. Neo‐Oxy+Plasma, P = 0.02


6/27/2012

20

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0 7 14 21

Hydration score

Day of study

Control Neo‐Oxy Plasma

E. coli Challenge Results

Hydration 0 = no skin tenting to 2 = 5‐10 secondsControl vs. Neo‐Oxy+Plasma; P = 0.004


Take‐Home Messages –Protein Source in Milk Replacer

• Milk & plasma protein

– Support at least equivalent performance

– Plasma can improve performance in stressed calves

– Milk & plasma protein quality can vary by manufacturer

• Modified soy protein & wheat gluten

– Typically deliver about 85‐90% performance

– Can have a place, economics must dictate

6/27/2012

21

Milk Replacer Feeding Programs

• Conventional– 20‐22% CP, 18‐20% fat

– 1.0‐1.50 lbs/calf/day

• Moderate– 22‐26% CP, 16‐20% fat


• Intensive– 26‐30% CP, 16‐20% fat


Minimal milk replacerMaximize starter intake

Moderate milk replacerModerate starter intake

Maximize milk replacerMinimal starter intake

MR Feeding Rate and Predicted Gain20‐20 MR, 100 lb calf, 68°F

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25

ADG, lbs/d

Feeding Rate, lbs/d as‐fed

Energy Allowable Gain, lbs/d Protein Allowable Gain, lbs/d

6/27/2012

22


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25

ADG, lbs/d



Feeding More Powder – 20‐20

• Treatments– 20‐20 @ 1.25 lbs/day

– 20‐20 @ 1.50 lbs/day

– Each group fed 1X for d 36‐42, then weaned at d 42

• Conclusions– Feeding 1.5 lbs/calf/d

increases ADG but doesn’t decrease starter intake

1.38

2.04

3.47

1.55

2.02

4.14

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

Average DailyGain, lbs/d

Starter Intake,lbs/d

Hip HeightGain, inches

Calf Performance, d 1‐56

1.25 lbs/d 1.50 lbs/d

+9 lbs@ d 56

P < 0.10

P > 0.10

P < 0.05

Carlson et al., 2011, J. Dairy Sci. 94 (Suppl. 1):Abstr. M334

6/27/2012

23


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25

ADG, lbs/d




0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25

ADG, lbs/d



6/27/2012

24

Calf ADG – Nursery Period

1.41.6

1.8

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

d 1-56A

DG

, lb

s/d

CON MOD ACC• CON

– 20‐20, 1.25 lbs/day

• MOD

– 28‐16, 1.50 lbs/day

• ACC

– 28‐16, 1.50 →2.25 lbs/day

Raeth‐Knight et al., 2009, JDS 92:799

Calf ADG – Nursery Period

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

d 1-14 d 15-28 d 29-42 d 43-49 d 50-56

AD

G,

lbs/

d

CON MOD ACC


6/27/2012

25

Calf Starter Intake – Nursery Period

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

d 1-14 d 15-28 d 29-42 d 43-49 d 49-56

Sta

rter

In

take

, lb

s/d

CON MOD ACC


Starter Intake Required to Maintain BW Gain (NRC, 2001)

BW, lbs Desired Gain, lbs/d Starter Intake, lbs/d

132 1.32 3.37

132 1.76 4.19

176 1.32 3.97

176 1.76 4.81

Drackley, ADSA, 2009; Used 1.41 Mcal/lb ME for calf starter

6/27/2012

26

Take‐Home Messages:Milk Replacer CP/Fat & Feeding Rate

• Feeding rate will dictate:

– Expected gain

– Desired crude protein in order to opitmize lean gain

– Starter intake patterns, especially near weaning

6/27/2012

Effect of Organic Trace Minerals on Calf Average Daily Gain

Treatments1. Conventional MR program w/

inorganic trace minerals (CI)

2. Conventional MR program w/ organic trace minerals (CZPM)

3. Accelerated MR program w/ inorganic trace minerals (AI)

4. Accelerated MR program w/ organic trace minerals (AZPM)

Figure 1. Effect of plane of nutrition and trace mineral source on week 1-9 average daily gain (Osorio et al., 2008).z Plane of nutrition × trace mineral source interaction, P ≤ 0.05

Osorio et al. 2008. J. Dairy Sci. 91(Suppl. 1):562. Abstr. 667.Figure supplied by Zinpro Corporation, Eden Prairie, MN

6/27/2012

27

6/27/2012

Effect of Organic Trace Minerals on Calf Frame Growth

Treatments1. Conventional MR program w/

inorganic trace minerals (CI)

2. Conventional MR program w/ organic trace minerals (CZPM)

3. Accelerated MR program w/ inorganic trace minerals (AI)

4. Accelerated MR program w/ organic trace minerals (AZPM)

Osorio et al. 2008. J. Dairy Sci. 91(Suppl. 1):562. Abstr. 667.Figure supplied by Zinpro Corporation, Eden Prairie, MN

Figure 2. Effect of plane of nutrition and trace mineral source on hip height (Osorio et al., 2008).x ZPM vs. inorganic; P ≤ 0.05, wk 5; P = 0.063, wk 8y Plane of nutrition, P ≤ 0.05z Plane of nutrition × trace mineral source interaction; P < 0.05, wk 5 and 8; P = 0.078, wk 12

Amino Acids in Milk Replacers

• Amino acids = building blocks of protein

• Some manufacturers add amino acids, some don’t

• Requirements not well defined for replacements

• Recent research has further defined guidelines– Lysine

– Methionine

6/27/2012

28

Effect of Lysine & Methionine

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1

1.25

1.5

24‐17 26‐17

Day 1‐28 ADG, lbs/d

Without AA With AA

1Linear effect of CP: P < 0.052CP × AA: P < 0.05

+4.3 lbs BW1,2+4.4 lbs BW1,2

Hill et al. 2008, J. Dairy Sci. 91:2433

Amino Acid Guidelines

• Formulation guidelines

– CP:Lys – 11.1

– Met:Lys – 0.31

• Economics

– $1.50/bag for each % CP increase

– Additional Lys & Met = cost savings

Hill et al. 2008, J. Dairy Sci. 91:2433

6/27/2012

29

Take‐Home Messages:Trace Minerals & Amino Acids

• Trace minerals

– Organic trace minerals should be considered if feeding an intensified growth program

• Amino acids

– Should be balanced in milk replacer

– Very inexpensive way to improve gain

Medications in Milk Replacers

• Neomycin & Oxytetracycline– Treatment of bacterial scours and bacterial pneumonia– Fed for 7‐14 continuous days only

• Deccox (decoquinate)– Prevention of coccidiosis– Fed continuously

• Bovatec (lasalocid)– Control of coccidiosis– Fed continuously

6/27/2012

30

Common Milk Replacer Additives

• Yeast cell wall extracts (MOS, Β‐glucan)– Binds to pathogenic bacteria, reducing colonization in gut– May enhance gut immune function

• Direct‐fed microbials (probiotics)– Beneficial bacteria that help populate the gut– Compete/inhibit pathogenic bacteria

• Essential oils/botanical extracts– Natural additives with antimicrobial properties– Active against pathogenic bacteria

Positioning Medications/Additives

Prevention

• Nonmedicated, Bovatec, or Deccox

Moderate immune stress

• Plasma‐based milk replacer

• Health additive add‐pack

High immune stress

• Plasma‐based milk replacer

• Health additive add‐pack

• NT milk replacer or add‐pack

6/27/2012

31

6/27/2012

What Influences Calf Growth?

Growth

Genetics

Environment

Health

Nutrition

GENETICS• Holstein vs. Jersey

ENVIRONMENT• Air quality• Cold & heat stress

HEALTH• Colostrum status• Pathogen load• Vaccination program

NUTRITION• Specific to situation

Investing in Calf Nutrition & Health = More Productive Cows

Thank You!

Documents

Calf Nutrition –What’s New? › sites › default › files...6/27/2012 1 Calf Nutrition –What’s New? David B. Carlson, PhD Milk Products June 2012