Dr. Marcia Endres presented this material for DAIReXNET on May 19, 2015. You can find more information and a recording of the webinar on our website at http://www.extension.org/pages/15830/archived-dairy-cattle-webinars

1. 1
© 2015 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
AUTOMATED CALF FEEDERS ON
U.S. FARMS: HOW DO THEY WORK?
Marcia Endres, DVM, PhD
Department of Animal Science
University of Minnesota, St. Paul

2. Most dairy farms in the U.S. house preweaned calves
in individual hutches/pens (74.9%, NAHMS, 2007)

3. Advantages:
• No calf-to-calf contact
• All in – all out
• Good air quality (usually)
• Can move to new ground
• Easy to assess appetite &
attitude & detect disease
Potential disadvantages:
• Operator comfort
• Labor intensive
• Weather issues
Godden, 2014

4. 4
© 2015 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
WHY FEED CALVES IN GROUPS?
 More space per calf
 Social interaction
 Easier to feed larger
amounts of milk
 More frequent feeding
 Labor management

5. 5
© 2015 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
AUTOMATED CALF FEEDER

6. 6
© 2015 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.

7. 7
© 2015 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.

8. 8
© 2015 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
WHAT ARE SOME OF THE
CHALLENGES?
 Calf individual observation
 Prevention of disease
 Competition for feed
 Cost of equipment
 Equipment setup
 Equipment cleanliness

9. 9
© 2015 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
MANAGING AUTOMATED CALF
FEEDING SYSTEMS
 Majority of research – Europe
– Major differences:
 Management practices
 Economic impacts
 Need to investigate housing and
management on US farms

10. 10
© 2015 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
WHAT CAN MAKE THEM WORK IN THE US?
GOAL: Develop best management practices
to optimize calf welfare and performance
Photo Courtesy Andrew Hetke

11. 11
© 2015 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
REASONS GIVEN BY PRODUCERS FOR USING
AUTOMATED CALF FEEDERS (IN PRIORITY ORDER)
 Less time spent on menial tasks
 Improved growth rate
 Improved information on calf feeding
 Natural diet changes
 Indicators of health issues
 Closer to natural feeding
 Improved labor condition
 Reduction in labor cost
 Social interaction/socialization
 Behavioral expression
 Reduced disease incidence

12. 12
© 2012 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
What were some housing and
management practices?
38 DAIRY FARMS VISITED EVERY TWO
MONTHS

13. 13
© 2015 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
New Barn 39%
Retrofit 61%
Autofeeder barn construction

14. 14
© 2015 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
VENTILATION
Positive
Pressure
Tubes 87%
No Tubes
13%

15. 15
© 2015 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
AmountofMilk/ReplacerFed(L)
Farms
Starting and Peak Volume of
Milk/Milk Replacer
Peak Amount
(L)
Starting Amount (L)
Mean Starting Amount Mean Peak Amount

16. 16
© 2015 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
AGE OF INTRODUCTION
Avg = 5.95 days

17. 17
© 2015 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.

18. 18
© 2015 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
CALF LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
 Calf health scores
– Modified scoring system (McGuirk 2009)
 Attitude – Ears – Eyes - Nose
 Cleanliness (evidence of diarrhea)
 Body condition
 Rectal temperature (abnormal scores)
– 10,179 calves scored by single observer
 Mortality and treatment records
 Feeding behavior from software

19. 19
© 2015 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Attitude Ear Nose Eyes Cleanliness
ProportionofAbnormalAnimals
Top 10 Farms
vs.
Bottom 10 Farms
10 Healthiest 10 Least Healthy
Average of Health Scores

20. 20
© 2015 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
CLEANLINESS SCORES
Scores Percent
0 58.1
1 32.5
2 9.4
n=10,179

21. 21
© 2015 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
RISK FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH
ABNORMAL HEALTH SCORES
 Number of calves per group
 Number of feed stations per pen
 Space per calf
 Time to reach peak milk allowance
 Air speed in resting area/ feeder
 SPC on tube samples >100,000 cells/ml

22. 22
© 2015 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
FARM BACTERIAL COUNTS (CFU/ML)
22
Item
Tube
Coliform
Mixer
Coliform
Tube
SPC
Mixer
SPC
Median of
Top 10 (Q1-Q3)
887
(206-1,211)
12
(3-15)
87,590
(32,603-134,940)
9,006
(2,308-9,392)
Median of
Bottom 10
(Q1-Q3)
5,659,567
(1,198,059-
14,344,063)
522,263
(64,564-
20,001,213)
21,140,625
(18,644,538-
71,642,610)
10,209,920
(3,204,500-
43,673,293)

23. 23
© 2015 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
SUGGESTED PRACTICES
 Excellent colostrum management
 Excellent ventilation, no drafts
 Clean, dry, abundant bedding
 Minimum of 35-40 ft2 per calf
 Free choice water and high quality starter
pellet in pen
Godden, 2014

24. 24
© 2015 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
SUGGESTED PRACTICES
 Careful, frequent observation of calves to
detect illness early
 Smaller groups
 Narrow range of ages
 Do not restrict milk intake
– Large meal and daily allowances
Godden, 2014

25. Mark your calendars!
Precisiondairyfarming.com/2015

26. Thank you for your time and attention!
miendres@umn.edu
This project is supported by Agriculture and Food Research Initiative competitive grant
no. 2012-67021-19280 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
• Matt Jorgensen and Amber Adams-Progar
• Cooperator farms
• Co-investigators
• Undergraduate students
• USDA-NIFA for funding
Acknowledgements:
Thank you for your attention!