Download ARIZONA AND NEW MEXICO DAIRY NEWSLETTER COOPERATIVE EXTENSION The University of Arizona

Survey
yes no Was this document useful for you?
   Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Document related concepts

Vegetarianism wikipedia, lookup

Probiotics in children wikipedia, lookup

United States raw milk debate wikipedia, lookup

Transcript
ARIZONA AND NEW MEXICO
DAIRY NEWSLETTER
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION
The University of Arizona
New Mexico State University
May 2009
THIS MONTH’S ARTICLE:
An Update on Management Programs for Holstein Calves
G. C. Duff, K. J. Dick, S. W. Limesand, S. R. Sanders,
and S. P. Cuneo
Department of Animal Sciences,
The University of Arizona,
Tucson, Arizona
Corresponding author: [email protected]
SAVE THE DATE
Arizona Dairy Production Conference
Hilton Garden Inn
Phoenix, AZ
October 15, 2009
The 8th Annual Arizona Dairy Production Conference
October 15, 2009
Hilton Garden Inn Phoenix Airport
This is a one day conference that provides technical information to dairy producers and
allied industry in Arizona. With 139 licensed dairies and 1331 cows per dairy (or
173,000 total head) the State of Arizona ranks 2nd in the nation for herd size and 3rd in
the nation for pounds of milk produced per cow with 22,855 milk pounds per cow. The
networking opportunities are great as many of the Dairy Producers attend this event.
All sponsors will be recognized at the registration table and inside the conference room.
Other options for each level are detailed on the enclosed sponsor form.
If you wish to be a sponsor please complete the form and send it along with your
payment. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Julie at
520-626-1754 or [email protected]
8th Annual Dairy Production Conference
Thursday, October 15, 2009
(Note: Change of Date)
Hilton Garden Inn Phoenix Airport
3422 E Elwood
Phoenix, Arizona
Sponsorship Options
Platinum Sponsorship Level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2,000

Display table outside of seminar room

Sponsor in official conference program

Two complimentary conference registrations

Signage at conference listing your sponsorship
Gold Sponsorship Level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,000

Sponsor in official conference program

One complimentary conference registration

Signage at conference listing your sponsorship
Silver Sponsorship Level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $500

Sponsor in official conference program

Signage at conference listing your sponsorship
-----------------------------------------Name:
Organization:
Address:
City, State, ZIP:
Phone:
Sponsorship Amount:
Fax:
Email Address:
If you choose the PLATINUM sponsorship level, please let us know if you would like to put up a
display:
Yes, I will need space for a display
No, I am not going to put up a display.
Make check payable to: University of Arizona Foundation
Please mail check to:
The University of Arizona
Campus Agricultural Center
Department of Animal Sciences
4101 N. Campbell Ave.
Tucson, AZ 85719
Attention: Julie Stefanic
520-626-1754
[email protected]
8th Annual
Arizona Dairy Production Conference
October 15, 2009
Registration Form
REGISTRATION FEE DOES NOT APPLY TO PRODUCERS
Allied Industry Registration Fee: $25.00 X ___ = $___________
# people
Additional Proceedings:
$10.00 X ___ = $___________
#
Total amount enclosed or charged to credit card:
$___________
Name
Organization
Address
City, State, ZIP
Phone
FAX
Email
If paying by credit card (Please note only Visa or Mastercard can be accepted)
Mastercard or Visa
Credit Card Number
Expiration Date
3- or 4-digit security code
No part of the registration fee is considered a tax deductible donation.
Send registration form and fees to: The University of Arizona
Attn: Julie Stefanic
Department of Animal Sciences
Shantz Building - PO Box 210038
Tucson, AZ 85721
For addidtional information call 520-626-1754 or email [email protected]
An Update on Management Programs for Holstein Calves
G. C. Duff, K. J. Dick, S. W. Limesand, S. R. Sanders, and S. P. Cuneo
Department of Animal Sciences, The University of Arizona, Tucson
Corresponding author: [email protected]
SUMMARY
•
•
•
All colostrum is not created equal.
Direct fed microbials can alter performance of calves, particularly after weaning,
and alters digestive tract morphology.
Pasteurization management, weaning programs and growing diets deserves
attention.
INTRODUCTION
Holstein calves (both bulls and heifers) are of great financial importance to both dairies and
feedyards in the desert southwest. For steers, their availability and uniformity and overall
production have out weighed the potential deficits in carcass characteristics (smaller and
elongated ribeye area, increase kidney, pelvic and heart fat, etc.) and increased maintenance
costs. In Arizona alone, an estimated 300,000 Holstein steers are raised in beef production
facilities. At the current price of approximately $0.80/lb, the live value of the animals is well
over $300,000,000. Nutrition and management during the first few weeks of life has long-term
impacts on animal productivity (Van Amburgh 2003; 2008). In addition to general performance
of the animals, health of the milk-fed calf remains a primary road block to profitability. In 2006,
overall death losses of heifers born in 2006 and alive 48 h were reported to be 7.8% (USDA
APHIS, 2007). Although data are not available for Holstein bull calves, death losses have been
reported to range from 7.7% for bull calves reared for beef to as high as 26.1% in a bull beef
ranch in California (Berge et al., 2009). Scours, diarrhea, or other digestive problems caused
56.5% of the reported deaths followed by respiratory 22.5% in unweaned heifers (USDAAPHIS, 2007). Morbidity of dairy calves is less available. Morbidity of dairy calves
encompasses several mechanisms. Diarrhea can be a problem at times and if left unchecked, the
animals succumb to dehydration and death. In addition, respiratory disease complex may be a
problem. Respiratory disease is a viral/bacterial disease. However; Rivera et al. (2003) pointed
out that exacerbating factors, such as degree of stress, previous plane of nutrition, genetic, and
previous health history, interact with exposure to viral and bacterial agents in beef cattle.
The long-term consequences of morbidity include lighter final body weight and decreased
average daily gain, lighter carcasses, lesser percentage of carcasses grading USDA Choice or
better compared with animals never treated for respiratory disease. Several nutrition and
management considerations may influence morbidity and mortality of Holstein calves.
Therefore, improving performance of Holstein calves will have a tremendous impact on the
economy in Arizona.
PRE-WEANING MANAGEMENT
Colostrum
At the 23rd Annual Southwest Nutrition and Management Conference, Van Amburgh pointed
out the importance of colostrum management and plasma Ig status on calf survivability and
32
growth. Colostrum status will also be addressed during this conference. Van Amburgh (2008)
discussed colostrum management and suggested that all colostrum in not created equal.
Preliminary evidence from our research program confirms this observation. Dairy producers
have done an excellent job at providing colostrum to all newborn calves, however, anecdotal
information suggests that the best quality colostrum is fed to heifer calves. During the fall 2007,
we secured Holstein bull calves from two separate sources (Table 1). Although both serum IgG
concentrations (measured by turbidimetric immunoassay; QTII; Midland Bioproducts
Corporation, Midland, IA) and protein (measured by refractometer) suggested successful
passive transfer (Quigley, 2001) for both sources; mortality was higher for Dairy B than for
Dairy A (Table 1).
Post-mortem evaluation of calves was inconclusive. Results from a
clinical trial utilizing 90, 1-d-old calves on each of 3 commercial calf ranches reported that
colostrum supplementation during the first 2 wk of life was been successful in reducing diarrhea
(Berge et al., 2009). In addition, 28-d average daily gain was significantly increased in
colostrum supplemented calves vs. the unsupplemented control group. These authors suggested
that colostrum products may adequately address the potential problem of colostrum-deprived
calves and minimize prophylactic and therapeutic use of antibiotics.
Table 1. An evaluation of mortality at the U of A Calf Research facility during the fall 2007
Source
Itema
Dairy A
Dairy B
SE
P<
Serum IgG, mg/dL
Serum protein, g/dL
Death lossb
2,075
5.3
2,002
5.0
6.7
63.0
112
0.06
0.65
0.01
a
Serum IgG measured with turbidimetric analysis using QTII (Midland Bioproducts,
Corporation; Boone, IA). Serum protein measured with a refractometer.
b
Chi Square analysis P < 0.01.
Pasteurization of Waste Milk
With high milk replacer costs, commercial dairies and calf ranches have renewed interest in
using waste milk for calf production. Godden et al. (2005) reported higher growth rate and
lower morbidity and mortality rates for calves fed pasteurized nonsaleable milk compared to
milk replacer. These authors suggested that part of the performance advantage may have been
related to crude protein and crude fat concentrations of the two products. The nonsaleable milk
averaged 25.6% crude protein and 29.6% crude fat whereas the milk replacer was a 20:20.
Factors that should be further evaluated include efficiency of pasteurization in destroying
pathogens and/or antibiotic resistance of pathogens in the animal as well as effects of antibiotics
on beneficial gut microflora. Ruzante et al. (2008) reported results from the Central Valley of
California with a 3.5-, 3-, 4.7-, and 2.6-log reduction in the number of total bacteria in their
waste milk. These authors suggested that a lack of uniformity and adequate controls of
pasteurization processes could allow survival of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis
(MAP) or other pathogens. They further suggested that the calf raising facilities could benefit
from stricter training and standard operating procedures.
33
Direct-Fed Microbials
Bacterial direct-fed microbials (DFM) fed to cattle have been shown to have many potential
benefits to the animal, as well as the producer. Supplementation with DFM has been reported to
increase ADG in beef steers (Ware et al., 1988; Galyean et al., 2000; Elam et al., 2003), improve
feed efficiency (Galyean et al., 2000; Elam et al., 2003; Vasconceles et al., 2008), and increase
hot carcass weight (Galyean et al., 2000; Huck et al, 2000). In preruminant calves, DFM have
decreased the incidence of diarrhea (Bechman et al., 1977; Maeng et al., 1987; Fox, 1988; AbuTarboush et al., 1996) and have also decreased morbidity. In addition, L. acidophilus has been
shown to reduce the prevalence of E. coli O157:H7, decreased the thickness of lamina propria
(Elam et al, 2003), as well as protecting the animal’s immune system from other pathogens
(Fuller, 1977; Gilliland and Speck, 1977). A combination of lactate-utilizing and lactateproducing bacteria can decrease the incidence of ruminal acidosis by altering proportions of
VFA (Kim et al., 2000; Beauchemin et al., 2003) and blood metabolites (Ghorbani et al., 2002).
Energy utilization may be more efficient due to the modification of VFA proportions
(Beauchemin et al., 2003; Elam et al., 2003). Direct-fed microbials have also been shown to be
effective in dairy cows by increasing milk yield (Jaquette et al., 1988; Ware et al., 1988a;
Gomez-Basauri et al., 2001). Few studies have evaluated effects of DFM on calf performance
and digested tract morphology. We conducted an experiment with the objectives of evaluating
the effects of a DFM on performance, and ruminal and intestinal morphology of neonatal/transition Holstein bull calves.
Overall performance data are presented in Table 2. As designed, no differences (P < 0.81) were
detected for beginning BW. Likewise, no differences between treatments were detected for BW
at weaning (P = 0.47) or final BW (P = 0.81). Furthermore, no differences between treatments
were detected for ADG for calves at weaning (P = 0.37) or for the 2-week post weaning period
(P = 0.45). Dry matter intake was not altered by treatment for calves at weaning (P = 0.30), as
well as during the 2-week post weaning period (P = 0.37). Feed efficiency (F:G) was not
affected by treatment for calves through weaning (P = 0.56) or the post weaning period (P =
0.47). Performance variables were not affected when the DFM was supplemented to the calf
diets at weaning or post-weaning. This could be due to the fact that the calves were healthy at
the start of the trial and remained healthy throughout the study. As mentioned previously,
research has shown that supplementing DFM in calves is beneficial when calves are
experiencing health problems. The calves in this trial originated from a single source and were
housed on soil that had not been inhabited by cattle in the past. These two factors alone may
have prevented illness altogether. There was no difference in BW between treatments during
the weaning and post-weaning periods. Likewise, average daily gain was not different between
treatments in the present study and this was similar to observations seen in studies performed by
Morrill et al., 1977; Ellinger et al., 1980; and Abu-Tarboush et al., 1996. These authors reported
no improvement in daily gain as a result of supplementing with lactobacilli. Conversely, a study
completed by Beeman (1985) resulted in greater gains by Holstein calves supplemented with
lactobacilli compared with control calves. O’Brien et al. (2003) reported similar results with
Holstein bull calves fed a novel DFM having significantly greater ADG for the first 6 weeks of
the study compared to control calves that were not supplemented with DFM. In addition, DMI
and feed efficiency were not different between treatment groups in the present study.
Cruywagen et al. (1996) reported parallel results observing no difference in DMI or feed
efficiency in dairy-type calves fed L. acidophilus in the milk replacer. Improvements in
performance may not be as advantageous to neo-natal/transition dairy calves as establishing and
34
maintaining normal intestinal microorganisms. Performance variables may or may not be
important during the first 3 weeks of the preruminant’s life when enteric disease is most
prevalent (Beauchemin et al., 2006). In support, Krehbiel et al. (2003) stated that decreasing the
incidence or severity of diarrhea is a most likely a more important response.
Rumen papillae height (Table 3) did not differ among treatments in calves at weaning (P = 0.34)
or in calves during the post weaning period (P = 0.44). Average papillae width did not differ
between treatments in calves at weaning (P = 0.94), however papillae were wider for DFM
treated calves after the post weaning period (P < 0.01). The density of ruminal papillae was less
in the DFM treated calves post-weaning (P < 0.03), although there was no difference in DFM
calves at weaning (P = 0.92) compared to control animals.
Ruminal papillae are extremely important in nutrient absorption. Prior to transitioning from a
pre-ruminant to a ruminant, growth and development of the ruminal absorptive surface area
(papillae), is necessary to enable absorption and utilization of microbial digestion end products,
specifically rumen VFA (Warner et al., 1956). In the present study, DFM treatment did not alter
ruminal papillae height or width at weaning. However, calves treated with DFM had wider
ruminal papillae 2 weeks post-weaning compared to control calves. Essentially, these results
suggest that DFM treated calves may have had more nutrient absorptive area than the control
animals. Rumen absorptive surface area increases as papillae length and papillae width increase
(Lemeister and Heinrichs, 2004). Furthermore, DFM treated calves had less papillae density
than control calves during the post-weaning period. Lane and Jesse (1997) observed similar
results with lambs infused with VFA. Lambs infused with VFA tended to have longer papillae
and less papillae density than the lambs infused with saline, indicating nutrients enhance rumen
absorption. The control group had greater papillae density and thinner papillae post-weaning
which possibly results in less nutrient absorptive surface area. Papillae growth in DFM treated
calves in the present study could be related to increased VFA, as VFA are a byproduct of
microbial fermentation. In a study by Tamate et al. (1962), rumen papillary growth was
stimulated in milk-fed calves receiving either propionate or butyrate directly into the rumen.
These authors go on to mention that butyrate and, to a lesser extent, propionate are used as
energy sources by the rumen epithelium and subsequently have the greatest influence on
epithelial development. In support, presence and absorption of VFA is indicated to stimulate
rumen epithelial metabolism and may be key initiating rumen epithelial development (Baldwin
and McLeod, 2000). In the present study, papillary growth results were observed in the postweaning period because at this point the rumen is much more developed than in the milkfeeding stage. In addition, the fact that no difference was observed in papillary growth at
weaning is most likely due to the product exerting its effects in the hindgut during the milk fed
period because the esophageal groove would be functional at this point. Solid feed intake
stimulates rumen microbial proliferation and production of microbial end products, VFA, which
have been shown to initiate rumen development (Heinrichs, 2005). In support, in the preweaned
dairy calf, solid food intake, especially concentrate of high carbohydrate diets, stimulates rumen
microbial proliferation and VFA production, subsequently initiating rumen development
(Harrison et al., 1960). In a recent study by Lehloenya et al. (2008), Propionibacteria strain
P169 tended to reduce acetate, increased propionate and tended to decrease the
acetate:propionate ratio in ruminally and duodenally cannulated Angus X Hereford steers
compared to control steers. In reference to the present study, additional microbes in the rumen
from the supplemented DFM should essentially produce more VFA with more propionate thus
initiating rumen development.
35
In the duodenum, there were no significant differences between treatments for any of the
morphometric variables examined at weaning or post-weaning (Table 3). There has not been
much research conducted in this area, but it may be concluded that since the duodenum is a
short section of the small intestine, rate of passage may be faster, therefore the supplement
passed straight through the duodenum without having any effect. In addition, the duodenum
function is mostly secretions whereas jejunum and ileum are more absorption.
In the ileum, total height, villus height, and crypt depth was greater for DFM treated calves at
weaning compared to the control group (Table 3). No differences between treatments were
noted for the post-weaning period. As previously mentioned, the reverse effect occurred in the
rumen. Post-weaning effects are observed in the rumen because the intake of solid feed initiates
rumen development, therefore the DFM exerts its effects on the rumen at this point in
development. Similar to the papillary growth in the present study, taller villi may indicate an
increased absorptive area for improved nutrient uptake. The increased crypt depth in treated
animals at weaning may be resultant of an increased turnover of enterocytes in the small
intestine. Enterocytes turn over in the gastrointestinal canal by migrating from their mitosis in
the crypts of Lieberkuhn to their extrusion at the tips of the villi and destruction in the lumen
(Savage, 1986). Furthermore, reduction in intestinal crypt cell production can be attributed to
lack of luminal nutrition or altered intestinal workload (McCullough et al., 1998).
The hypothesis in the present study was that DFM treated calves would have improved
performance variables and that digestive tract morphology of treated calves would also be
improved. Although performance was not significantly different, there was definitely
considerable improvement in ruminal and ileal morphology, indicative of a possible
improvement in nutrient absorption.
Dietary direct-fed microbial supplementation had no statistically significant effect on production
variables of uncompromised calves (body weight, average daily gain, feed intake, and feed
efficiency); albeit the greatest numerical results happened in post-weaning. It did, however,
have positive effects on digestive tract morphology. Direct-fed microbial supplementation
increased the size of ruminal papillae, as well as increasing the size of ileal villi. These results
indicate that direct-fed microbials may increase the nutrient absorptive surface area of the rumen
and small intestine, resulting in a healthier digestive tract. If this is the case, there is a
possibility that microbial supplementation can be used by calf producers to improve and/or
maintain the health of calves immediately after birth, as well as aiding in the transition stage
from the milk-feeding period to the post-weaning period. Little research has been conducted in
this particular field of work, therefore many questions remain and further studies are required in
order to gain a better understanding of the effects of direct-fed microbial on neo-natal/transition
dairy calves. Future studies might include using a larger number of animals in order to evaluate
animal performance effectively. Future researchers may also want to determine the incidence of
enteric pathogens such as E. coli and Salmonella in calves treated with DFM. Proliferation of
ruminal papillae and growth rate of papillae may also be topics of future studies involving DFM
supplemented calves.
36
Table 2. Effects of direct-fed microbials on performance by Holstein bull calves before weaning and 2 wk postweaning
Treatments
Item
Phase 1
Initial BW, lb
Weaning BW, lb
Day 0 to weaning
ADG, lb
Daily DMI, lb/d
G:F 0.54
Phase 2
Weaning BW, lb
Final BW, lb
ADG, lb
DMI, lb
G:F
Control
DFMa
SE
94
156
93
153
2.4
2.9
0.72
0.98
0.04
0.03
0.58
0.38
0.38
4.17
5.55
0.89
0.81
1.25
2.30
0.54
156
183
2.04
4.75
0.43
1.21
2.26
0.01
155
185
2.24
4.68
0.49
0.31
0.09
0.07
P<
0.66
0.67
0.57
a
5 x 108 of Bovamine® supplemented daily
Weaning refers to calves supplemented only through milk feeding.
c
Post-weaning refers to calves supplemented though weaning plus an additional 14 days of grain feeding.
b
37
Table 3. Effects of direct-fed microbials on the digestive tract morphology of Holstein bull calves
Treatments
Variable/perioda
Ruminal
Papillae height, μm
Weaning
Post-weaning
Average papillae width, μm
Weaning
Post-weaning
Density of papillae, no./mm
Weaning
Post-weaning
4.1
3.1
Duodenum
Total height (villus + crypt), μm
Weaning
Post-weaning
Villus height, μm
Weaning
Post-weaning
Crypt depth, μm
Weaning
Post-weaning
Control
DFMb
971.28
1064.81
867.25
1128.72
84.16
62.76
0.34
0.44
129.49
120.43
128.42
137.92
11.59
5.29
0.94
<0.01
4.2
2.4
0.00007
0.00128
SE
P-value
0.92
0.03
1047.53
786.25
927.07
818.58
101.18
29.77
0.40
0.43
455.41
425.30
489.85
440.52
30.00
19.95
0.40
0.56
442.98
361.74
389.17
378.66
29.68
16.68
0.18
0.43
38
Average villus width, μm
Weaning
Post-weaning
Ileum
Total height (villus + crypt), μm
Weaning
Post-weaning
Villus height, μm
Weaning
Post-weaning
Crypt depth, μm
Weaning
Post-weaning
Average villus width, μm
Weaning
Post-weaning
145.45
123.07
130.64
129.34
12.76
6.48
0.41
0.47
756.64
940.75
891.37
899.62
34.41
34.47
<0.01
0.39
462.25
554.34
543.17
503.58
20.99
20.57
<0.01
0.07
295.09
387.04
348.65
397.04
17.78
18.40
0.03
0.69
112.22
122.50
119.65
118.07
5.05
5.04
0.29
0.51
a
Weaning refers to calves supplemented only through milk feeding.
Post-weaning refers to calves supplemented though weaning plus an additional 14 days of grain feeding.
b
5 x 108 of Bovamine® supplemented daily
Special Dietary Considerations
One common practice for producers to decrease both diarrhea and respiratory disease is use of antibiotics in milk replacer. A total of 55.7% of
producers include antibiotics in milk replacer with oxytetracycline and neomycin used most often. Other research that has shown promise have
been inclusion of allicin (thio-2-propene-1 sulinic acid S-allyl ester) a component of garlic (Donovan et al., 2002). The aforementioned authors
fed milk replacers containing antibiotics or a blend of fructooligosaccharides, allicin and gut-active microbes from birth to 5 weeks of age.
Results suggested that a combination of compounds resulted in similar calf performance as milk replacers containing oxytetracycline and
neomycin. Likewise, Heinrichs et al. (2003) reported that mannan oligosaccharide can replace antibiotics in milk replacer. Addition of mannan
oligosaccharide also improved feed intake compared to antibiotic-fed calves, but this difference did not result in overall growth differences.
39
Weaning
The average age heifer calves are weaned was 8.2 weeks (USDA-APHIS, 2007) and 64% of
dairies reporting to the USDA-APHIS weaning heifers between 6 and 8 wks of age. In addition,
it has generally been recommended that calves be weaned when they are consistently
consuming 700 to 900 g/d of starter (Maas and Robinson, 2007). Quigley (1996) evaluated
weaning methods for Jersey calves and reported that intake of milk replacer and feed costs were
greater when calves were weaned according to intake of starter (1 lb/day for 2 consecutive
days). Other methods of weaning have been according to body weight or age (Quigley, 1996).
With increased costs of production, calf ranches may be weaning calves earlier and the impact
of such practices on overall feedlot performance deserves attention.
POST-WEANING MANAGEMENT
Feeding Holstein steers from weaning to 125 kg (275 lbs)
Limited research is available evaluating diets for Holstein steers from weaning through 125 kg.
Holstein steers are weaned on high concentrate diets; however, growing diets should be higher
in fiber and lower in protein than calf starter diets (Maas and Robinson, 2007). For weaned
calves, diets should be 18% CP (63 g CP/mcal ME) up to 8 wk old and 15 to 16% CP (52 to 56
g CP/mcal ME) for calves form 8 to 12 wk old (Hill et al., 2008). In addition, protein sources
used during this critical time period should be plant based. Holstein steers may not utilize nonprotein nitrogen sources until later in the finishing period (Duff and McMurphy, 2007).
REFERENCES
Abu-Tarboush, H. M., M. Y. Al-Saiady, and A. H. Keir El-Din. 1996. Evaluation of diet
containing lactobacilli on performance, fecal coliform, and lactobacilli of young dairy
calves. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 57:39–49.
Baldwin, R. L., VI, and K. R. McLeod. 2000. Effects of diet forage:concentrate ratio and
metabolizable energy intake on isolated rumen epithelial cell metabolism in vitro. J.
Anim. Sci. 78:771-783.
Beauchemin, K. A., C. R. Krehbiel, and C. J. Newbold. 2006. Enzymes, Bacterial Direct-Fed
Microbials and Yeast: Principles for Use in Ruminant Nutrition. Pages 251-284 in R.
Mosenthin, R. Zentek, and P Zebrowska (Eds.) Biology of Nutrition in Growing
Animals. Elsevier.
Beauchemin, K. A., W. Z. Yang, D. P. Morgavi, G. R. Ghorbani, W. Kautz, and J. A. Z.
Leedle. 2003. Effects of bacterial direct-fed microbials and yeast on site and extent of
digestion, blood chemistry, and subclinical ruminal acidosis in feedlot cattle. J. Anim.
Sci. 81: 1628-1640.
Beeman, K. 1985. The effect of Lactobacillus spp. on convalescing calves. Agripractice 6:8–10.
Berge, A. C. B., T. E. Besser, D. A. Moore, and W. M. Sischo. 2009. Evaluation of the effects
of oral colostrum supplementation during the first fourteen days on the health and
performance of preweaned calves. J. Dairy Sci. 92:286-295.
Cruywagen, C. W., I. Jordaan, and L. Venter. 1996. Effect of Lactobacillus acidophilus
supplementation of milk replacer on preweaning performance of calves. J. Dairy Sci.
79:483-486.
40
Donovan, D. C., S. T. Franklin, C. C. L. Chase, and A. R. Hippen. 2002. Growth and health of
Holstein calves fed milk replacers supplemented with antibiotics or enteroguard. J.
Dairy Sci. 85:947-950.
Duff, G. C., and C. P. McMurphy. 2007. Feeding Holstein steers from start to finish. 2007.
Vet. Clin. Food Anim. 23:281-297.
Elam, N. A., J. F. Gleghorn, J. D. Rivera, M. L. Gaylean, P. J. Defoor, M. M. Brashears, and S.
M. Younts-Dahl. 2003. Effects of live cultures of Lactobacillus acidophilus (strains
NP45 and NP51) and Propionibacterium freudenreichii on performance, carcass, and
intestinal characteristics, and Escherichia coli strain O157 shedding of finishing beef
steers. J. Anim. Sci. 81: 2686-2698.
Ellinger, D. K., L. D. Muller, and P. J. Glantz. 1980. Influence of feeding fermented colostrum
and Lactobacillus acidophilus on fecal flora of dairy calves. J. Dairy Sci. 63:478–482.
Fuller. 1977. The importance of lactobacilli in maintaining normal microbial balance in the
crop. Br. Poult. Sci. 18:85–94.
Galyean, M. L., G. A. Nunnery, P. J. Defoor, G. B. Salyer, and C. H. Parsons. 2000. Effects of
live cultures of Lactobacillus acidophilus (Strains 45 and 51) and Propionibacterium
freudenreichii PF-24 on performance and carcass characteristics of finishing beef
steers. Available: http://www.asft.ttu.edu/burnettcenter/progressreports/bc8.pdf.
Ghorbani, G. R., D. P. Morgavi, K. A. Beauchemin, and J. A. Z. Leedle. 2002. Effects of
bacterial direct-fed microbials on ruminal fermentation, blood variables, and the
microbial populations of feedlot cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 80:1977–1986.
Gilliland, S. E., and M. L. Speck. 1977. Antagonistic action of Lactobacillus acidophilus toward
intestinal and food borne pathogens in associative cultures. J. Food Prot. 40:820–823.
Godden, S. M., J. P. Fetrow, J. M. Feirtag, L. R. Green and S. J. Wells. 2005. Economic
anlaysis of feeding pasteurized nonsaleable milk versus conventional milk replacer to
dairy calves. J. Amer. Vet. Med. Assoc. 226:1547-1554.
Harrison, H. N., R. G. Warner, E. G. Sander, and J. K. Loosli. 1960. Changes in the tissue and
volume of the stomachs of calves following the removal of dry feed or consumption of
inert bulk. J. Dairy Sci. 43:1301–1312.
Heinrichs, J. 2005. Rumen development in the dairy calf. Advances in Dairy Technology
17:179-187.
Heinrichs, A. J., C. M. Jones, and B. S. Heinrichs. 2003. Effects of mannan oligosaccharide or
antibiotics in neonatal diets on health and growth of dairy calves. J. Dairy Sci.
86:4064-4069.
Hill, T M., H. G. Bateman II, J. M. Aldrick, and R. L. Schlotterbeck. 2008. Crude protein for
diets fed to weaned dairy calves. Prof. Anim. Sci. 24:596-603.
Huck, G. L., K. K. Kreikemeier, and G. A. Ducharme. 2000. Effect of feeding two microbial
additives in sequence on growth performance and carcass characteristics of finishing
heifers. Available: http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/library/lvstk2/srp850.pdf.
Krehbiel, C. R., S. R. Rust, G. Zhang, and S. E. Gilliland. 2003. Bacterial direct-fed microbials
in ruminant diets: Performance response and mode of action. J. Anim. Sci. 81(E.
Suppl. 2):E120-E132.
Lane, M. A., and B. W. Jesse. 1997. Effect of volatile fatty acid infusion on development of
the rumen. J. Dairy Sci. 80:740-746.
Lehloenya, K. V., C. R. Krehbiel, K. J. Mertz, T. G. Rehberger, and L. J. Spicer. 2008. Effects
of Propionibacteria and yeast culture fed to steers on nutrient intake and site and extent
of digestion. J. Dairy Sci. 91:653-662.
41
Lesmeister, K. E. and A. J. Heinrichs. 2004. Effects of corn processing on growth
characteristics, rumen development, and rumen parameters in neonatal dairy calves. J.
Dairy Sci. 87:3439-3450.
Maas, J., and P. H. Robinson. 2007. Preparing Holstein steer calves for the feedlot. Vet. Clin.
Food Anim. 23:269-279.
Maeng, W. J., C. W. Kim, and H. T. Shin. 1987. Effect of a lactic acid bacteria concentrate
(Streptococcus faecium Cernelle 68) on growth rate and scouring prevention in dairy
calves. J. Dairy Sci. 9:204–210.
McCullough, J. S., B. Ratcliffe, N. Mandir, K. E. Carr, and R. A. Goodlad. 1998. Dietary fibre
and intestinal microflora: effects on intestinal morphometry and crypt branching. Gut
42:799-806.
Morrill, J. L., A. D. Dayton, and R. Mickelsen. 1977. Cultured milk and antibiotics for young
calves. J. Dairy Sci. 60:1105–1109.
OBrien, M. L., K. J. Touchette, J. A. Coalson, R. M. Costello, T. Rehberger, and B. Galbraith.
2003. Effect of a novel direct-fed microbial in a calf milk replacer. J. Dairy Sci. 86
(Suppl. 1), 22 (Abstract).
Quigley, J. 2001. CalfNotes.com. Calf Note #39. Using a refractometer. Available at:
http://www.calfnotes.com/pdffiles/CN039.pdf.
Quigley, III, J. D. 1996. Influence of weaning methods on growth, intake, and selected blood
metabolites in Jersey calves. J. Dairy Sci. 79:2255-2260.
Rivera, J. D., G. C. Duff, M. L. Galyean, D. M. Hallford, and T. T. Ross. 2003. Effects of
graded levels of vitamin E on inflammatory response and evaluation of methods of
supplementing vitamin E on performance and health of beef steers. Prof. Anim. Sci.
19:171-177.
Ruzante, J. M., I. A. Gardner, J. S. Cullor, W. L. Smith, J. H. Kirk, and J. M. Adaska. 2008.
Isolation of Mycobacterium avium subsp paratuberculosis from Waste Milk Delivered
to California Calf Ranches
Foodborne Path. and Dis.. 5:681-686.
doi:10.1089/fpd.2008.0082.
Savage, D. C. 1986. Gastrointestinal microflora in mammalian nutrition. Ann. Rev. Nutr.
6:155-178.
Tamate, H., A. D. McGillard, N. L. Jacobson, and R. Getty. 1962. Effect of various dietaries on
the anatomical development of the stomach in the calf. J. Dairy Sci. 45:408.
USDA APHIS. 2007 Dairy 2007: Part 1: Reference of dairy cattle health and management
practices
in
the
United
States.
Available
at:
http://nahms.aphis.usda.gov/dairy/dairy07/Dairy2007_PartI.pdf.
Van Amburgh, M. 2003. Calf growth and development: new requirements and implications
for future performance. Pages 1-13 in Proc. Southwest Nutrition and Management
Conference. University of Arizona, Tucson.
Van Amburgh, M. 2008. Early life management and long-term productivity of dairy calves.
Pages 46-52 in Proc. Southwest Nutrition and Management Conference. University of
Arizona, Tucson.
Vasconcelos, J. T., N. A. Elam, M. M. Brashears, and M. L. Galyean. 2008. Effects of
increasing dose of live cultures of Lactobacillus acidophilus (Strain NP 51) combined
with a single dose of Propionibacerium freudenreichii (Strain NP 24) on performance
and carcass characteristics of finishing beef steers. J. Anim. Sci. 86:756-762.
42
Ware, D. R., P. L. Read, and E. T. Manfredi. 1988a. Lactation performance of two large dairy
herds fed Lactobacillus acidophilus strain BT138 in a switchback experiment. J. Dairy.
Sci. 71(Suppl. 1):219.
Ware, D. R., P. L. Read, and E. T. Manfredi. 1988b. Pooled summary of eight feedlot trials
evaluating performance and carcass characteristics of steers fed Lactobacillus
acidophilus strain BT138. J. Anim. Sci. 66(Suppl. 1):436.
Warner, R. G., W. P. Flatt, and J. K. Loosli. 1956. Dietary factors influencing the development
of the ruminant stomach. J. Agric. Food Chem. 4:788-792.
43
HIGH COW REPORT
April 2009
MILK
Arizona Owner
*Riggin Ranch
*Goldman Dairy
*Riggin Ranch
*Riggin Ranch
*Shamrock Farms
*Danzeisen Dairy, Llc.
*Shamrock Farms
*Stotz Dairy
*Stotz Dairy
*Riggin Ranch
Barn#
98,095
7,108
97,028
96,824
14,401
75
18,821
23,757
23,427
97,624
Age
04-06
08-04
05-08
06-00
05-02
03-11
04-02
03-03
03-06
05-00
Milk
36110
34640
33990
33800
33760
33010
32650
32190
31870
31,860
*Stotz Dairy
*Stotz Dairy
*Riggin Ranch
*Stotz Dairy
*Riggin Ranch
*Rio Blanco Dairy
*Stotz Dairy
*Mike Pylman
*Goldman Dairy
*Goldman Dairy
20,070
23,757
97,028
23,580
98,095
7,441
17,791
27,788
8,006
8,039
06-03
03-03
05-08
03-05
04-06
05-06
07-04
02-01
03-06
03-01
1,401
1,372
1,330
1,321
1,314
1,299
1,277
1,263
1,240
1,193
*Riggin Ranch
*Danzeisen Dairy, Llc.
*Stotz Dairy
*Riggin Ranch
Paul Rovey Dairy
*Goldman Dairy
*Riggin Ranch
*Shamrock Farms
*Riggin Ranch
*Stotz Dairy
97,028
75
23,757
96,824
7,694
7,108
98,095
14,401
99,082
17,791
05-08
03-11
03-03
06-00
03-07
08-04
04-06
05-02
03-08
07-04
1,004
991
979
973
967
966
944
930
923
919
New Mexico Owner
Mccatharn DAIRY
S.A.S. Dairy
Red Roof Dairy
Arrowhead Dairy
Pareo Dairy
Pareo Dairy
Arrowhead Dairy
*Vaz Dairy
Arrowhead Dairy
*Vaz Dairy
Barn #
2529
8511
596
4370
6831
3345
4323
942
4049
4384
Age
4-03
5-05
6-02
5-02
4-07
6-09
7-00
4-04
6-02
4-08
Milk
35,118
34,829
34,441
33,894
33,885
33,793
33,765
33,720
33,690
33,630
Pareo Dairy
S.A.S. Dairy
S.A.S. Dairy
Red Roof Dairy
Arrowhead Dairy
Arrowhead Dairy
Pareo Dairy
Pareo Dairy
Mccatharn Dairy
*Providence Dairy
6831
4657
8511
596
4370
4323
5606
10558
2529
3112
4-07
7-08
5-05
6-02
5-02
7-00
5-10
4-02
4-03
------
1,629
1,345
1,324
1,290
1,262
1,254
1,250
1,236
1,215
1,199
8511
2529
4657
6831
4323
9400
477
4370
596
M177
5-05
4-03
7-08
4-07
7-00
8-03
3-10
5-02
6-02
3-10
1,140
1,109
1,089
1,075
1,073
1,065
1,048
1,035
1,022
1,021
FAT
PROTEIN
*all or part of lactation is 3X or 4X milking
S.A.S. Dairy
Mccatharn Dairy
S.A.S. Dairy
Pareo Dairy
Arrowhead Dairy
*Providence Dairy
S.A.S. Dairy
Arrowhead Dairy
Red Rof Dairy
Caballo Dairy
ARIZONA - TOP 50% FOR F.C.M.b
April 2009
OWNERS NAME
*Stotz Dairy West
*Goldman Dairy
*Riggin Ranch
*Danzeisen Dairy, Inc.
*Shamrock Farms
*Stotz Dairy East
*Withrow Dairy
Lunts Dairy
*Zimmerman Dairy
Paul Rovey Dairy
*Rio Blanco Dairy
*Parker Dairy
*Saddle Mountain
*Cliffs Dairy
*Mike Pylman
*DC Dairy, LLC
*Yettem
*Shamrock Farms Emerald
*Shamrock Farms Organic
*Dutch View Dairy
Number of Cows
MILK
FAT
3.5 FCM
DIM
2,166
2,400
1,305
1,951
8,298
999
5,218
681
1,206
85
2,128
4,404
2,999
330
6,129
1,128
3,686
18
928
2,359
25,843
24,959
24,633
24,269
24,724
22,972
23,104
22,376
22,423
21,999
20,189
22,027
21,242
20,964
21,962
21,396
17,985
20,169
20,714
20,395
957
855
844
850
809
829
811
822
782
778
823
773
775
781
742
754
838
760
683
684
26,695
24,657
24,338
24,278
23,809
23,377
23,142
23,006
22,377
22,129
22,078
22,060
21,753
21,731
21,529
21,474
21,361
21,047
20,032
19,910
228
204
212
223
215
218
200
180
201
200
199
210
196
215
244
245
193
228
NEW MEXICO - TOP 50% FOR F.C.M.b
April 2009
OWNERS NAME
Number of Cows
MILK
FAT
3.5 FCM
CI
*SAS
McCatharn
*Pareo 2
*Butterfield
*Clover Knolls
*Milagro
*Do-Rene
*Vaz
Vaz 2
*Providence
*Goff
*Tee Vee
Ridgecrest
*Tallmon
*Pareo
Cross Country
2,013
1,121
1,671
2,282
3,499
3,481
2,411
2,130
1,969
3,313
6,033
1,137
3,916
539
3,753
3,894
24,616
25,446
24,380
27,262
25,011
23,801
24,794
23,164
22,942
23,348
24,421
22,504
22,725
21,911
22,235
22,286
936
906
900
821
844
874
827
859
857
824
785
821
811
830
815
807
25,822
25,695
25,136
25,101
24,501
24,464
24,132
23,946
23,817
23,458
23,289
23,044
22,977
22,934
22,830
22,723
13.10
13.20
13.40
13.10
12.90
13.82
12.00
14.70
14.00
13.30
13.30
14.12
12.40
13.70
13.50
12.90
* all or part of lactation is 3X or 4X milking
average milk and fat figure may be different from monthly herd summary; figures used are last day/month
b
ARIZONA AND NEW MEXICO HERD IMPROVEMENT SUMMARY
FOR OFFICIAL HERDS TESTED April 2009
ARIZONA
1. Number of Herds
NEW MEXICO
30
24.00
63,789
59,291
2126
2470
91
87
5. Average Days in Milk
200
202
6. Average Milk – All Cows Per Day
64.1
64.65
3.5
3.62
59,038
51,583
69.1
70.08
88
76.56
11. Average Days Open
153
148
12. Average Calving Interval
14.2
14.13
13. Percent Somatic Cell – Low
85
83
14. Percent Somatic Cell – Medium
10
13
15. Percent Somatic Cell – High
5
4
16. Average Previous Days Dry
64
624
17. Percent Cows Leaving Herd
34
34
21,811
19,897
Percent butterfat
3.55
3.61
Percent protein
3.02
3.13
Pounds butterfat
773
846
Pounds protein
656
702
2. Total Cows in Herd
3. Average Herd Size
4. Percent in Milk
7. Average Percent Fat – All Cows
8. Total Cows in Milk
9. Average Daily Milk for Milking Cows
10. Average Days in Milk 1st Breeding
Milk
Department of Animal Sciences
1650 E. Limberlost Drive
Tucson, AZ 85719
Phone: 520-626-1754
Fax: 520-626-1283
Email: [email protected]
SAVE THE DATE
Arizona Dairy Production Conference
Hilton Garden Inn
Phoenix, AZ
October 15, 2009