

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 SizeNumber of Farms 0 – 50 cows – 100 cows – 150 cows – 200 cows – 250 cows – 350 cows cows7

 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 WhoFrequency Owner352 Spouse86 Owner/Spouse66 Family Member90 Employee24 Multiple 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 calving46%35%40%11% 2-6 hrs after calving25%37%19%35% 6-12 hrs after calving16%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%

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)

Navel Dipping  Costs:  Navel dip. The recommended dip is 7 percent tincture of iodine solution. This is a brown, alcohol solution that both dries the tissue and kills germs. Assuming about 50 ml (1.7 ounces) of dip is used for each calf, then the cost per calf is about $0.30. That comes to about $14 per 100 cows.  Labor for dipping – Assuming $10/hour and 5 minutes to dip each calf, then the cost per calf is about $0.83. That comes to about $38 per 100 cows.  Total cost per 100 cows = $52 If a heifer calf is worth $500, then profit is $2,492 per 100 cows (Sam Leadley 2011)

Products administered shortly after Birth – Survey Results Treatment None490 (51.5%) Vitamin E/Selenium218 (23%) Vitamins A, D and E97 (10%) Oral Antibody or vaccine277 (29%) Iron26 (3%) Intranasal Viral Vaccine3 (0.3%) More than one of the above152 (16%) **N=950 N.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 - NRC Dairy Cattle 2001  All classes of dairy cattle require 0.3 mg Se/kg DM (0.3 ppm)  On a daily basis:  Dry cows require ~3 mg of Se  Lactating Cows require ~6mg of Se  Current FDA and CFIA regulations limit the inclusion of Se supplements to 0.3 mg/kg of the diet.  These recommendations are ~16 times lower than the lowest dietary level that has been related to chronic toxicity

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

Distribution of serum selenium concentrations for calves 1-7 days old injected with Dystosel

Bio-X ® - fecal test results for Cryptosporidium parvum and Rotavirus PlaceboDystoselTotal Crypto Crypto +138 (41.6%)130 (39.2%) PlaceboDystoselTotal Rota Rota +41 (12.3%)27 (8.1%) p = 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 nonfunctional Cotyledonary, 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 birth

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 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? Lynsay Henderson

Passive transfer over the years StudyNAHMSTrotz-Williams et al.Univ. of GuelphBeam et al. CountryUSACanada 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

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, PhD Slides 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 Nutrient and Bacterial Means by Breed and Lactation BreedLactation HolsteinJerseySE123 IgG (mg/ml) a b c 9.3 Fat (%) a 4.2 c 5.14 b 0.53 Protein (%) Lactose (%) ab 2.78 a 3.08 b 0.10 Other Solids (%) a 4.24 b 4.59 a 0.08 Total Solids (%) a b a 0.99 SCC (*1,000) a b a b b SCC Log5.89 a 5.33 b a 5.59 b 5.26 c 0.15 Coliform Log1.53 a 1.16 b b 1.54 a 1.26 b 0.13 TPC Log4.88 a 4.11 b ab 4.70 a 4.31 b 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 freshfridgefrozenSE IgG (mg/ml) Fat (%) Protein (%)10.92 c 14.1 a b 0.64 Lactose (%)3.18 a 2.75 b 2.92 b 0.09 Other Solids (%)4.56 a 4.31 b 4.38 b 0.07 Total Solids (%)21.21 b a b 0.87 MUN22.99 c a b 2.06 SCC Log5.79 a 5.46 b 5.58 a 0.13 Coliform Log1.12 b 1.57 a 1.34 a 0.13 TPC Log3.97 c 4.99 a 4.54 b 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 NOYESSE n = 734n = 93 IgG (mg/ml)69.65 b a 3.64 Fat (%) Protein (%)13.21 b a 0.60 Lactose (%) Other Solids (%) Total Solids (%)23.24 b a 1.05 SCC (*1,000) SCC Log5.74 a 6.19 b 0.16 TPC Log4.92 a 5.45 b 0.11 Coliform Log 1.3 a 1.98 b 0.09 ab Differences between means are indicated by different alphabetical superscripts (P < 0.05)

Distribution of IgG Concentration  Mean = 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(%) < > Total Percentage of samples with above and below industry recommended total plate count Samples(%) Range (CFU/ml) < 100, , , , , ,00 - 1,000, >1,000, Total IgG > 50 mg/mlTPC < 100,000 CFU/ml

Percentage of Samples Distributed Across Adequate IgG Concentrations and Total Plate Count QualitySamples(%) > 50 IgG and < 100,000 TPC > 50 IgG and > 100,000 TPC ,000 TPC < 50 IgG and < 100,000 TPC Total746100

Conclusions  IgG concentration  Greater in individual vs pooled samples  No difference across breed or storage method  Bacterial content  Greatest in 1 st 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 Colostrometer TM 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: kEqyUtYzMdfifySA&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  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: k.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 ?