Automated milk feeders are used by dairy producers to manage preweaned calves in group housing, but little is known about how these feeding systems are being used in the United States. To better understand how US dairy producers are operating these systems, this study investigated characteristics of barn design, environment, and management practices on 38 farms in the Upper Midwest of the United States via a questionnaire and on-farm measurements. Farms using automated feeders ranged in size from 7 to 300 calves on site. Natural ventilation was used on 50% of the farms, followed by barns with mechanical ventilation (39.5%), tunnel ventilation (7.9%), or outdoor facilities (sheltered plastic domes; 2.6%). Calves were kept in groups of 17.6 ± 9.8 animals (range: 5.9 to 60.5) with an average space allowance of 4.6 ± 2.0 m2/animal (range: 1.6 to 11.9). Calves on these farms received 3.7 ± 0.75 L (range: 2 to 6) of colostrum, but 22% of the tested calves had serum total protein values lower than 5.0 g/dL. Calves had an initial daily allowance of 5.4 ± 2.1 L (range: 3 to 15 L) of milk or milk replacer, rising to a peak amount of 8.3 ± 2.0 L (range: 5 to 15 L) over 18 ± 11.4 d (range: 0 to 44 d). Milk replacer was fed to calves on 68.4% of the farms compared with whole milk supplemented with nutrient balancer on 23.7% and whole milk alone on 7.9% of the farms. Calves were completely weaned at 56.8 ± 9.0 d of age (range: 40 to 85.5) and 52.1 ± 7.5 d (range: 40 to 79) since introduction into the group pen with the feeder. Notably, bacterial contamination of milk was common; the median coliform count was 10,430 cfu/mL (interquartile range: 233,111; range: 45 to 28,517,000) and standard plate count was 2,566,867 cfu/mL (interquartile range: 15,860,194; range 6,668 to 82,825,000) for samples collected from the feeder tube end (or feeder hose). Some areas of deficiency might be of concern as they might be influencing the success of using automated calf feeding systems. In particular, a better understanding of the dynamics of pathogen load is needed in both the group pen area and in the automated feeder unit itself, as these reservoirs represent significant risk to calf health and welfare.
Bibliographical noteFunding Information:
We thank all the dairy producers who participated in the study. In addition, we thank Luis Espejo (St. Augustine, FL) for help with statistical analysis. We thank the following students at the University of Minnesota for help with data entry: Nathan Bos, Kelly Froehlich, Andrew Hetke, Andrew Plumski, and Michael Schmitt. This project was supported by Agriculture and Food Research Initiative competitive grant no. 2012-67021-19280 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
© 2017 American Dairy Science Association
Copyright 2017 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
- automated calf feeder
- calf management