Naive Blogger

Inexperienced and unsophisticated, that's me.

Today the farm that rents the land next to my home in western New York State is combining wheat. Now, you have to remember my personal experience combining wheat started with a PTO-powered, narrow-cut combine on which I stood at the back to tie off large burlap bags of the grain. These accumulated in a chute that would dump three bags at a time to make picking them up convenient.

This year nearly the entire farm next door was planted to winter wheat that is now ready to harvest. Last evening two huge John Deere combines showed up. They have headers that are so wide that they have to be taken off the combine and pulled sideways on a wagon in order to go down the road. They started harvesting this morning as soon as the dew was off the wheat. The entire wheat crop will be combined before the day is gone. There is a regular parade of 10-wheelers going back and forth to carry the grain away.

Technology certainly has changed. I visited the Cornell University ruminant research center not too long ago. The calves look great. Automatic milk replacer feeders permit scheduling intakes based on the maturity of the calf. I have not see it yet but I'll bet that somewhere there is a unit like this that feeds information to a smart phone app - from anywhere you can check on little Susie-Q to see if she is drinking her allotted milk replacer today. 

I was not forward enough thinking to see these advances back in 1984 or even 1994. The challenge for this naive blogger (and maybe some of the blog readership) is to understand the potential for these emerging technical tools and adapt them to improve the profitability of calf rearing - more live, healthy calves that have grown to their genetic potential that will make milk when they walk into the parlor. 

If you have a favorite "tech" adaptation or idea you could send it to me - smleadley@yahoo.com - and now and then I can pass ideas along in Calves with Sam.

Now, I've got to go watch these big machines - you know what they say about men and their toys. If I ask nicely maybe one of the guys will let me ride along in the cab for a round or two!

"Calving Ease" Monthly Newsletter

I forgot that some folks do not know about the monthly newsletter on calf rearing that I have been writing since 1998. Some of the recent issues are:

• Putting the Brakes on Bacteria Growth in Colostrum
• Planning for Success: We Can Feed More without Scours
• Hot Weather and Calves
• Spring Slip-ups in Calf Care
• Buying and Using Household Bleach
• Try Sleeping on Concrete
• Wash Water Always Above 120 F

The electronic access is www.atticacows.com. Click on Calving Ease. 

If you are trying to find a resource on a particular topic you may wish to use the search feature - see the search box in the upper right-hand corner of the screen.

Putting the Brakes on Bacteria Growth in Colostrum

• In the United States we estimate that at least 45 percent of all colostrum fed to calves contains enough environmental bacteria to make calves sick.
• About 77 percent of refrigerated colostrum has bacteria counts high enough to make calves sick (>100,000cfu/ml)
• Warm colostrum is an ideal growth medium for bacteria.
• Lowering colostrum temperature slows the rate of bacteria growth.
• Adding a food-grade preservative slows the rate of bacteria growth.

These are the main points in the July issue of the monthly calf care newsletter, "Calving Ease."  This issue is available at our vet clinic web site, www.atticacows.com or just click July Newsletter.

You Would Not Eat Off of This Plate

At our house my wife and I wash our plates after each use. On one hand, our sanitation standards are not necessarily those to be used for calf feeding equipment. On the other hand, the use of effective sanitation practices for calf feeding equipment has been shown to be related to the need for treatments for diarrhea among calves.

As a dairy consultant working primarily in North America it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that all the problems of calf rearing are exclusive to "us." In a recent article (D. Klein-Jobsti and others, "Farm characteristics and calf management practices on dairy farms with and without diarrhea: a case-control study to investigate risk factors for calf diarrhea" Journal of Dairy Science, August 2014 pp 5110-5119) two aspects of cleanliness were investigated in Austria.

One aspect was cleanliness of the calving area. Dairies with a separate place for calving that was kept clean had significantly fewer calves with diarrhea (scours) than those that had practices that allowed significant contact for newborn calves with dirty conditions. 

Another aspect of cleanliness was cleaning of calf feeding equipment. One one hand I was very interested to find that the problems these investigators found in Austria were the same as the ones I find regularly in North America.

• Failure to wash feeding equipment after every use.
• Frequent "washing" by simply rinsing with water.

On these farms a small number of buckets were used to feed milk to all the calves - that is, buckets were shared from one calf to another. Then, they were just rinsed with water on 7 out of 10 farms. I was puzzled that the scours rate among calves was not related to lack of feeding equipment sanitation the 100 farms they studied - maybe all the other farm conditions were more significant causes of diarrhea?

On the other hand, just because lax sanitation practices are common does not mean that they are desirable.

Just to remind readers, you can check HERE for a calf feeding equipment washing protocol that is both practical and effective.

What do you think about drinking milk from this bucket?

 

If All Else Fails, Read the All the Directions!

This was a case of many too many cases of passive transfer failure. The farm was facing a management challenge due to Johne's disease. One of the control measures adopted was to feed a colostrum replacer rather than maternal colostrum to newborn calves. The bag indicates the product should be mixed with 5 cups of 110-120F water and that feeding 2 bags is recommended for good passive transfer of immunity.

Following an extended episode of scouring calves the herdsman was convinced to check immunity levels among baby calves. The results revealed that too many of the calves had blood serum total protein levels below 5.0 - a commonly accepted threshold to determine passive transfer failure.

A review of mixing procedures showed that the water being used was both the correct temperature and volume. Since time of birth and time of colostrum replacer feeding were recorded for each calf it was easy to confirm that feedings were being done promptly after birth.

As we talked a worker came into the utility room to mix colostrum replacer for a newborn calf. She ran water in a pail, opened two packages of the colostrum replacer and proceeded to mix. 

You need to know that the dairy initially used a colostrum replacer with 100g IgG per package and fed 2 packages to each calf. Somewhere along the line the decision was made to switch to a colostrum replacer packaged with 60g IgG per package. Have you already guessed what happened?

Yes, you are correct. The new product's mixing instructions used the same temperature water but a different volume. That part got through to the folks mixing the product. However, the new product says, "To replace maternal colostrum feed calf 3 bags."  Ooops! Somehow that part of the directions was overlooked. Instead of feeding the recommended 180g IgG the calves were only receiving 120g.

The story does have a good ending. Once the protocol was corrected to use 3 bags of product per calf the blood serum total protein values improved and the proportion of calves needing treatment for scours went down. Amazing, reading ALL the directions does improve performance of a product.

The BVD-PI Test Can't be Positive!

A heifer aborted a late gestation calf. As part of our routine in this situation a tissue sample was sent for BVD-PI testing. The result was positive. The dairyman said, "The BVD-PI test can't be positive."

Let's step back for a moment. The  BVD-PI test is for an animal that was exposed to the BVD virus in utero during a window of time when the fetus incorporates the virus as a "normal" part of her body. Thus, she becomes "persistently infected" and though she is not ill she continuously sheds the virus as long as she lives.

Clearly we do not want BVD-PI animals on the dairy. This huge load of virus particles is a constant challenge to the immune system to all the other animals, both young and mature.

So, why did the dairyman exclaim, "Can't be positive" ?

He knew about  BVD and the challenge of BVD-PI animals. Before he buys springers he has them tested to be sure they are not PI positive. We had talked about testing heifer calves born to purchased heifers but he decided that he couldn't be bothered with that. Besides, he "knew" he would be able to tell by looking at a calf if she was a PI calf.

Our practice recommends that all replacement calves born to purchased dams be tested for BVD-PI status. This is not the first time a calf born to a purchased springer has come back positive at our practice. And, over the years we have seen heifers that look as normal as can be turn up positive when tested.

So where were the weak links in this situation. First, in spite of our explanation about how PI calves are created, he was so sure that if the dams were negative the calves had to be negative, too. False! Second, he was sure that even if a PI animal was born, he could reliably visually identify her. False!

What is this owner planning to do? The last I heard his regular vet and he are planning to collect samples for BVD-PI testing. Will they check all the animals? Just sample animals from purchased springers?

I have not had the opportunity to talk with this veterinarian this week to find out if this dairy has seen an increase in number of services per conception and abortions over the past year or two. If these have been increasing I would advise testing all the animals. There could be a "Typhoid Mary" out there in the freestalls!

What Percentage of IgG's End up the Blood?

This is just a reminder that all the antibodies that go into the front of a newborn calf do not necessarily end up her blood.

In a recently reported research project calves were fed 185g of immunoglobulins (IgG) using a lactation-based colostrum replacer in either one or two feedings. [Cabrel, R.G. and Others, "Colostrum replacer feeding regimen, addition of sodium bicarbonate, and milk replacer: The combined effects on absorptive efficiency of immunoglobulin G in neonatal calves." Journal of Dairy Science 97:2291-2296 April 2014].

Absorption Efficiency - that is a measure that compares the amount of IgG fed and the amount of IgG that ends up in the blood of a calf.

The different treatments for feeding the colostrum replacer (CR) were:

• One feeding of the 185g IgG between 30 and 60 minutes after birth [They fed 3 packages of Calf Choice Total Gold brand colostrum replacer as 3L total volume]
• Two feedings, 123g IgG between 30 and 60 minutes after birth and 62g IgG  six hours later. [same product split into 2/3 and 1/3 feedings]

Results:

Absorption efficiency - one-feeding treatment = 31.3% efficiency

                                   two-feeding treatment = 33.7% efficiency

Conclusion: Roughly about 1/3 of IgG fed are absorbed into the blood.

These values are similar to those reported in earlier research (e.g., Quigley and Others, " Absorption of protein and IgG in calves fed a colostrum supplement or replacer." JDS 85: 1243-1248, 2002. 

There was no significant difference between one-feeding and two-feeding treatments (only 10 calves per treatment so I have some reservations about the findings)

Blood IgG levels - one-feeding treatment = 15.9 g/L (above 6.0 refractometer reading)

                             two-feeding treatment = 16.5g/L (above 6.0 refractometer reading)

When absorption efficiency was compared between calves that were fed with a bottle and those fed with an esophageal feeder there were no significant differences in absorption efficiency.

Conclusions:

1. Equal levels of efficiency of absorption of IgG's can be achieved with either one-time or two-time feeding given that the first feeding is ASAP after birth. This reinforces findings from earlier studies.

2. Good levels of immunity as measured by IgG's in blood can be achieved by feeding a sufficient volume of IgG's (in this case 185g).

Interpretation my part - I currently recommend feeding 200g of IgG soon after birth in either one or two feedings in order to achieve the goal of successful passive transfer of immunity to 95% of the calves (that is, 95% with blood serum total protein readings at 5.0 and higher).

Have you remembered to share with your friends how easy it is to access Calves with Sam? Just Google the blog name, Calves with Sam, to bring up the link.