Skip to main content
Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2018 Jun 13;101(10):9168–9184. doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-14010

Preweaned heifer management on US dairy operations: Part I. Descriptive characteristics of preweaned heifer raising practices

NJ Urie *,, JE Lombard *,1, CB Shivley *,, CA Kopral *, AE Adams *,‡,2, TJ Earleywine §, JD Olson #, FB Garry
PMCID: PMC7094552  PMID: 29908815

Abstract

The objective of this study was to describe preweaned dairy heifer calf management practices on dairy operations across the United States that were used to analyze factors associated with colostrum quality and passive transfer, Cryptosporidium and Giardia, morbidity and mortality, and average daily gain. This study included 104 dairy operations in 13 states that participated in the National Animal Health Monitoring System's Dairy 2014 calf component study. This 18-mo longitudinal study focused on dairy heifer calves from birth to weaning, and data were collected on 2,545 heifer calves. Descriptive statistics were generated regarding colostrum feeding, preweaning housing, milk feeding and consumption, growth, morbidity and mortality, and weaning practices. The majority of calves enrolled were Holsteins (89.4%). Over half the calves (63.2%) enrolled in the study received the majority of their colostrum via bottle; however, 22.1% of calves from 51.0% of operations received colostrum via suckling from their dams. For all calves, the mean time to the first colostrum feeding was 2.8 h, and the average amount of colostrum at the first feeding was 2.9 L, with 4.5 L provided in the first 24 h. The mean serum IgG of all calves was 21.7 g/L; however, 76.0% of operations had at least 1 calf with failure of passive transfer of immunity with a serum IgG below 10 g/L. The majority of calves in the study were housed individually (86.6%). Nonetheless, 20.2% of operations housed some calves in groups, representing 13.4% of all calves. Approximately one-half of the calves in the study (52.3%) were dehorned or disbudded during the preweaning period, with only 27.8% of these calves receiving analgesics or anesthetics during the procedure. Whole or waste milk was the liquid diet type fed to 40.1% of calves, and milk replacer was fed to 34.8% of calves. A combination of milk and milk replacer was fed to 25.1% of calves. Calves, on average, were fed 2.6 L per feeding and fed 2.6 times/d, resulting in a total of 5.6 L of liquid diet fed per day. The mean average daily gain for all calves enrolled in the study was 0.7 kg/d. Fecal samples were collected and almost all operations had at least 1 calf positive for Cryptosporidium (94.2%) or Giardia (99.0%), and 84.6% of operations had calves that tested positive for both Cryptosporidium and Giardia. Over one-third of calves (38.1%) had at least one morbidity event during the preweaning period and the mortality rate was 5.0%. The mean age at weaning was 65.7 d. This study provides an update on dairy heifer raising practices in the United States.

Key words: preweaning management, liquid diet, dairy heifer calves

INTRODUCTION

The management of preweaned dairy heifer calves in the United States is complex and varies based on many factors, including operation size and location. Previous reports regarding management practices of preweaned dairy calves have been published (Heinrichs et al., 1994; Fulwider et al., 2008; Walker et al., 2012). However, continual change in the industry necessitates current information regarding management practices of preweaned dairy heifer calves throughout the United States. Additionally, rearing heifer calves is an expensive endeavor at approximately $5.50/calf per day (Zwald et al., 2007). Nevertheless, the cost of raising a heifer calf generally does not exceed the cost of purchasing a springing heifer (McGuirk, 2008). Therefore, ensuring that preweaned heifer calves are managed properly to produce healthy dairy cows is extremely important to the industry. As part of USDA's National Animal Health Monitoring System Dairy 2014 study (USDA, 2016), the calf component aimed to describe current dairy heifer calf health and management practices during the preweaning period. The objectives of the longitudinal heifer calf study were to (1) describe practices related to colostrum management, milk feeding, and calf housing; (2) evaluate colostrum quality and passive transfer; (3) estimate the incidence of disease and its relationships with management factors; and (4) evaluate ADG during the preweaning period. The specific objective of this paper was to describe the study sample of operations and calves that were used to analyze factors associated with colostrum quality and passive transfer, Cryptosporidium and Giardia, morbidity and mortality, and ADG.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study Design

The USDA's National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) conducts national surveys to collect information on the health, management, and productivity of domestic livestock species (USDA, 2016). In 2014, a nationwide survey was conducted to collect information about the US dairy industry and included an 18-mo longitudinal preweaned heifer calf study.

The calf component was part of the NAHMS Dairy 2014 study and consisted of a convenience sample of 104 dairy operations (Figure 1, Figure 2 ). These operations were located in 13 states, including California, Colorado, and Washington in the West region, and Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin in the East region. Dairy operations were categorized, based on the number of mature cows, as small (30 to 99 cows), medium (100 to 499 cows), or large (500 or more cows).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Map of states participating in the calf component of the Dairy 2014 study. Regions were defined as West (blue states; California, Colorado, and Washington) and East (green states; Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin). Color version available online.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Flowchart of operations participating in the USDA's National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) Dairy 2014 calf component (USDA, 2016). NASS = National Agricultural Statistics Service; VMO = veterinary medical officer.

Data collection for the calf component of the study occurred from March 2014 through September 2015. Each operation was instructed to enroll 24 heifer calves over a 1-yr period, or an average of 2 calves/mo. Farm personnel selected which calves to enroll in the study. However, a calf must have been alive at 24 h of age to be enrolled. Because fewer operations participated than originally planned, the target number enrolled per operation was increased to 48 calves. Additionally, because enrollment of farms did not occur as quickly as anticipated, the study encompassed 18 mo instead of the 12-mo period that was planned (Figure 2).

Heifer Calf Health Card

Each calf enrolled in the study had a Heifer Calf Health Card (“Calf Card”) filled out to record information on events that occurred from birth to weaning (https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/dairy/downloads/dairy14ques/CalfHealth.pdf). The Calf Card contained questions in both English and Spanish and was filled out by the producer, the calf handler, a veterinary medical officer, extension personnel, veterinarians, or a combination of people involved with calf raising. The Calf Card included birth data (e.g., birth date, weight, and calving ease), colostrum feeding data (including timing, amount, and method of colostrum feeding), preweaning housing and procedures data (e.g., housing, ventilation, bedding, navel disinfection, and dehorning), milk feeding (including type of liquid diet fed, any additives, and method of feeding), milk consumption record (volume and frequency of feedings), preweaning growth record (hip height and heart girth recordings every 2 wk), biologic sampling record (including serum collection and fecal sampling dates), vaccinations, disease incidence and treatment, weaning data (weaning date, primary weaning criteria), and any additional notes. Starter feed labels and milk replacer labels, if applicable, were also provided.

Biological Sampling

Before enrollment in the study, calves were screened for persistent infection with bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV). V-Cut ear notchers (Nasco, Fort Atkinson, WI) were used to collect ear notch samples from all calves, which were tested on-farm for BVDV using the Idexx SNAP BVDV Antigen Test (Idexx, Westbrook, ME). Calves that tested positive for BVDV were excluded from the study. Colostrum samples (40–50 mL) from the first feeding of colostrum administered to each calf were collected in conical screw-top tubes and frozen until shipping. Blood samples (5 mL) from calves between 1 and 7 d of age were collected in serum separator tubes, and samples were centrifuged if possible before shipping. Colostrum and blood samples were shipped together on ice to USDA's National Veterinary Services Laboratories (Ames, IA). Blood samples were centrifuged at the National Veterinary Services Laboratories and serum was separated. Serum and colostrum samples were then accumulated and shipped in bulk to the Saskatoon Colostrum Co. (Saskatoon, SK, Canada) for testing. Colostrum samples were tested for IgG concentration using radial immunodiffusion and Brix score using a digital Brix refractometer. Serum samples were tested for IgG concentration using radial immunodiffusion, total protein, and Brix score using a digital Brix refractometer. Blood samples collected within 24 h of birth or after 7 d of age were excluded from this analysis.

Radial immunodiffusion was used to measure the concentration of IgG in colostrum and serum. Each 24-mL agarose plate, prepared in-house using commercially available ingredients and reagents, was punched with 42 wells (of 6 μL volume). Wells 1 to 4 and 39 to 42 were for 2 replicates of each of the 4 calibrators used to generate the standard curve, wells 5 to 9 and 10 to 14 were for each of the 2 reference standards that were used to qualify the plate, and wells 15 to 38 were used for test samples. Serial 2-fold dilutions (1:4, 1:8, 1:16, 1:32) of the bovine IgG standard (Bovine Serum Calibrator cat. no. 4005, Midland BioProducts Corp., Boone, IA), reference bovine serum (CVB bovine IgG species standard working stock is further diluted 1:4), and reference colostrum (diluted 1:15) were prepared in PBS. A 1:4 dilution of test serum and a 1:15 dilution of test colostrum were prepared using PBS. Two replicates of 4 µL of each dilution of the bovine IgG standard were dispensed for the standard curve. Two replicates of 4 µL of the diluted reference colostrum and reference serum and 4 µL of the diluted test sample were dispensed on the plate. The plates were incubated at 20 to 25°C for 18 to 19 h in a humidified chamber. As a measure of preservation to prevent microbial growth, sodium azide was added to the liquefied agarose solution to a final concentration of 0.01%. A plate reader was used to measure and record the ring diameters for the precipitin rings surrounding the wells (Digital RID reader, AD400, The Binding Site Inc., San Diego, CA). Using the results (ring diameters) obtained for each of the 2-fold dilutions of the bovine IgG standard and an Excel spreadsheet (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA) with calculation formulas, a regression line was generated for each plate for the variables R (ring diameter) versus log10 (concentration). The plate was considered acceptable if the coefficient of determination was greater than 0.97 for the standard curve, and the mean values for the reference colostrum and reference serum were the expected values ±10%. Immunoglobulin concentration for the test sample was determined using the regression line of the bovine IgG standard obtained for each plate. The diameters were entered into a template where the regression line and immunoglobulin concentration (g/L) were calculated.

A Brix refractometer (Palm Abbe Digital Refractometer, Misco, Solon, OH) was used to measure the Brix score for colostrum, as well as the Brix score and total protein for serum. First, the prism was cleaned, calibrated, and dried. The refractometer was calibrated using distilled water according to the manufacturer's supplied instructions. For testing, 300 µL of sample was added to the prism window and the start button was pressed. The result was then recorded as percent Brix or total protein, and the prism was cleaned and dried before testing the next sample. Results from blood samples collected within 24 h of birth or after 7 d of age were excluded from this analysis. Results with a Brix score >15% or a serum total protein >11% were considered outliers and were excluded from the analysis.

For evaluation of enteric parasites, approximately 50 g of feces was collected directly from the rectum of calves between 2 and 4 wk of age and placed in cylindrical screw-top containers. Fecal samples were shipped on ice to the USDA Agricultural Research Service's Environmental Microbial Food Safety Laboratory (Beltsville, MD). Fecal samples were tested for Cryptosporidium and Giardia by immunofluorescence microscopy. Parasite forms were concentrated from feces as previously described (Fayer et al., 2000; Santín et al., 2004). Briefly, 15 g of feces from each specimen cup was mixed with 35 mL of distilled water (dH2O). The suspension was passed through a sieve with a 45-μm pore size screen. The filtrate volume was adjusted to 50 mL with dH2O and centrifuged at 1,800 × g for 15 min. The pellet was resuspended in a mixture of 25 mL of dH2O and 25 mL of CsCl (1.4 g/L) and centrifuged at 300 × g for 20 min. Supernatant (4 mL), aspirated from each suspension, was washed with dH2O and the final pellet was examined by microscopy as described below.

A 2-μL suspension of the pellet was transferred to a well (11-mm diameter) of a 3-well glass microscope slide, and 2 μL of premixed Merifluor reagent (Meridian Diagnostics, Cincinnati, OH) was added. The slide was covered with a 24- × 50-mm coverslip and the entire well area was examined and oocysts and cysts counted by fluorescence microscopy at 400× using a Zeiss Axioskop fluorescence microscope (Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany) equipped with epifluorescence and a fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC)-Texas Red dual wavelength filter.

Growth Measurements

Calves were measured approximately every 2 wk during the preweaning period to measure growth. Height/weight tapes from Coburn (Nasco, Fort Atkinson, WI) were provided for measuring calves. For consistency, it was recommended that 1 trained veterinary medical officer or animal health technician complete the measurements on all calves enrolled on an operation. Birth weights were estimated using a scale, hoof circumference, or heart girth circumference and reported in pounds or kilograms. The method operations used to estimate birth weight were not captured. Hip height and heart girth circumference were measured every 2 wk and recorded in centimeters. Heart girth circumference in centimeters was converted to kilograms using the following equation (Heinrichs et al., 1992):

BW(kg)=[(0.02655×cm)2+(2.876×cm)+102.71].

Preweaning weight gain was calculated by subtracting the birth weight from the final weight. Average daily gain was calculated by taking the weight gain during the preweaning period divided by the number of days between birth weight and final weight (approximately the preweaning period). Final weights did not always occur at the same time as weaning, with a standard deviation of 8.9 d. However, only calves with final weight measurements within 14 d of weaning were included in the analysis.

Statistical Analysis

When each calf was weaned, the Calf Card was mailed to NAHMS (Fort Collins, CO). Initial validation was performed on every Calf Card as it came in to check accuracy of dates and other information. Data were then entered into SAS (version 9.4; SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). Once all Calf Cards were entered, the data were validated again by NAHMS staff and merged with the results from the colostrum, serum, and fecal testing obtained from the laboratories. Descriptive data were analyzed using the FREQUENCY and MEANS procedures for categorical and continuous variables, respectively; PROC GLM was used to model serum total protein level and serum Brix score by serum IgG level to develop comparable categories.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Study Demographics

Overall, 2,545 preweaned dairy heifer calves from 104 operations in 13 states were enrolled in the study from March 2014 through September 2015. The number of calves excluded from the study due to a positive BVDV test was not reported by the field staff. Approximately one-half of the operations (48.1%) that participated in the study were categorized as large herds, and 75.0% of operations were from the East region (Table 1 ). Overall, the majority of calves enrolled were Holsteins (89.4%); however, 25.0% of all operations enrolled at least 1 Jersey calf. This sample is consistent with the results reported in the NAHMS 2014 Dairy study and is representative of the current dairy cow population. According to the NAHMS Dairy 2014 study, Holsteins were housed on 89.6% of operations and represented 86.0% of all US dairy cows, whereas Jerseys were housed on 28.2% of operations and represented 7.8% of all US dairy cows (USDA, 2016). The distribution of enrolled calves born by month ranged from 5.6% in December to 9.8% in June. Almost two-thirds of enrolled calves were born in 2014 (62.6%).

Table 1.

Demographic information of participating US operations (n = 104) and their preweaned dairy calves (n = 2,545) from March 2014 to September 2015

Variable Level Operations1
Heifer calves
Number Percent Number Percent
Total 104 100.0 2,545 100.0
Herd size Small (30–99 cows) 21 20.2 354 13.9
Medium (100–499 cows) 33 31.7 684 26.9
Large (500+ cows) 50 48.1 1,507 59.2
Region2 West 26 25.0 961 37.8
East 78 75.0 1,584 62.2
Breed Holstein 102 98.1 2,273 89.4
Jersey 26 25.0 114 4.5
Other 34 32.7 154 6.1
Not reported 3 4
Birth month January 63 60.6 215 8.4
February 60 57.7 187 7.3
March 63 60.6 237 9.3
April 65 62.5 211 8.3
May 60 57.7 202 7.9
June 67 64.4 249 9.8
July 68 65.4 220 8.6
August 68 65.4 228 9.0
September 67 64.4 213 8.4
October 64 61.5 221 8.7
November 62 59.6 219 8.6
December 60 57.7 143 5.6
Year 2014 103 99.0 1,592 62.6
2015 84 80.8 953 37.4
1

Operation percentages were calculated by dividing the variable level by the total number of operations (104) enrolled in the study. Operations may have had calves in more than one variable level; therefore, the sum of a variable might not always equal 100%.

2

West = California, Colorado, Washington; East = Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Birth Data

The majority of calves were unassisted at birth (75.2%) and most were singleton calves (96.6%; Table 2 ). Almost one-fourth of calves (24.8%) required assistance during birth; 19.7% required minor assistance (1 person), 3.9% required moderate assistance (2 people), and 1.2% required mechanical or surgical extraction. However, calving ease was not reported for 6.1% of calves.

Table 2.

Birth and navel care practices for heifer calves (n = 2,545) on 104 US operations from March 2014 to September 2015

Variable Level Heifer calves
Number Percent
Dam lactation First 884 38.7
Second 606 26.6
Third or higher 791 34.7
Not reported 264
Calving ease Unassisted 1,796 75.2
Minor (1 person) 471 19.7
Moderate (2 people) 94 3.9
Mechanical/surgical extraction 28 1.2
Not reported 156
Number of calves Single 2,385 96.6
Twins 85 3.4
Triplets 0 0.0
Not reported 75
Sex of birth attendant Male 1,144 49.9
Female 130 5.7
Unattended 1,002 43.7
Both 16 0.7
Not reported 253
Navel disinfected Yes 1,974 78.8
No 532 23.2
Not reported 39

The percentage of births requiring assistance in this study was slightly higher than the NAHMS national estimate of 17.2% (USDA, 2007), but lower than that in a study by Lombard et al. (2007) of 36.6%. However, because a calf must have been alive at 24 h of age to be enrolled in this study and no bull calves were enrolled, it is likely that the overall twinning rate and dystocia scores reported above are underestimated. Nonetheless, the physiological effects associated with dystocia, such as metabolic acidosis and increased time to standing, can reduce long-term calf survival (House, 2002; Lombard et al., 2007). Therefore, decreasing the dystocia rate and addressing the negative physiological effects are important for ensuring short- and long-term calf health and survival.

Approximately three-fourths of enrolled calves (78.8%) had their navels disinfected (Table 2), and iodine was the disinfectant used on 82.0% of treated calves. However, of the 103 operations that reported their navel disinfectant practices, only 69.2% of operations always disinfected the navel, 9.6% disinfected the navel on some calves, and 20.2% never disinfected the navel. It is recommended that producers disinfect navels immediately following birth, along with improving maternity pen hygiene and ensuring adequate colostrum consumption and passive transfer to prevent omphalitis and to reduce calf morbidity and mortality (Waltner-Toews et al., 1986; Mee, 2008; Wieland et al., 2017).

Colostrum Feeding

Approximately one-third of operations (31.7%) and 19.7% of enrolled calves were administered pooled colostrum (Table 3 ). Only 8.7% of operations and 6.7% of calves were provided heat-treated colostrum. This is slightly higher than the 1.5% of operations that reported heat-treating colostrum in the NAHMS Dairy 2014 study (USDA, 2016). Heat-treated colostrum was generally heated to 60°C, except on 1 operation on which colostrum was heated to 63°C. The majority of calves in the study (63.2%) received colostrum via a bottle. Nevertheless, 22.1% of calves on 51.0% of operations received colostrum via suckling from their dams. Furthermore, only 17.3% of all operations, representing 11.8% of calves, reported an on-farm Brix reading of their colostrum before laboratory testing. However, in the NAHMS Dairy 2014 study, only 4.1% of operations reported completing an on-farm Brix reading (USDA, 2016). In total, 278 calves had both on-farm and laboratory Brix readings. The mean for all on-farm colostrum Brix readings was 23.6%, which was the same as the mean laboratory colostrum Brix reading of 23.5%. Of all colostrum samples that were tested on-farm and considered high quality (>22%), 17.9% of samples were below the 22% cutoff when tested at the laboratory. The majority of calves (77.3%) received excellent quality colostrum (>50 g/L). Nevertheless, 90.3% of operations had at least 1 colostrum sample with an IgG concentration of 50 g/L or less. Additionally, 16.5% of operations had greater than 90% of all colostrum samples with an IgG concentration >50 g/L. This illustrates that almost all operations fed suboptimal colostrum to at least 1 newborn calf and reinforces the importance of testing the quality of all colostrum samples on-farm. Approximately three-fourths of all tested calves (72.7%) had excellent passive transfer of immunity (serum IgG concentration >15 g/L). Conversely, 76.0% of operations (13.0% of all calves) had at least 1 calf considered to have failure of passive transfer of immunity with serum IgG below 10 g/L (Gay, 1983). Only 16.3% of operations had >90% of sampled calves with excellent passive transfer (>15 g/L). Serum total protein and serum Brix score, which are often used as on-farm measurements of passive transfer, showed similar results to serum IgG concentration. Serum total protein level and serum Brix scores were compared with serum IgG concentration to develop comparable categories (R2 = 0.803 and R2 = 0.797, respectively). Of all serum total protein samples tested, 15.6% of calves were considered to have failure of passive transfer of immunity (serum total protein concentration <5.1 g/L) and 75.4% had excellent passive transfer of immunity (≥5.4 g/L) based on serum total protein concentration. About one-fifth (21.2%) of all farms had ≥90% of calves with excellent serum total protein. Serum Brix score classified 15.2% of all calves to have failure of passive transfer of immunity (<8.1% serum Brix score) and 71.3% to have excellent passive transfer of immunity (≥8.6%). Slightly fewer farms (15.4%) had ≥90% of calves with excellent serum Brix score. The mean time to first colostrum feeding and amount at first colostrum feeding for all calves was 2.8 h (SE 0.1), and 2.9 L (SE 0.0; Table 4 ). The mean total amount of colostrum provided to all calves in the first 24 h was 4.5 L (SE 0.0). The mean colostrum IgG concentration for all heifer calves was 74.2 g/L (SE 0.7) and the mean serum IgG concentration for all calves was 21.7 g/L (SE 0.2).

Table 3.

Categorical colostrum feeding practices and quality for preweaned dairy calves on 104 US operations from March 2014 to September 2015

Variable Level Operations1
Heifer calves
Number Percent Number Percent
Source2 Dam of calf 77 74.0 1,372 54.9
 First lactation 66 85.7 422 30.8
 Second lactation 67 87.0 344 25.1
 Third or higher lactation 69 89.6 432 31.5
 Lactation not reported 30 174
Other dam 43 41.3 575 23.0
Pooled 33 31.7 493 19.7
Dam and other dam 10 9.6 28 1.1
Colostrum replacer 6 5.8 33 1.3
Not reported 5 44
Heat treatment of colostrum Yes 9 8.7 171 6.8
No 94 91.3 2,326 93.2
Not reported 1 48
Feeding method Bottle 81 77.9 1,566 63.2
Esophageal feeder 35 33.7 277 11.2
Bottle and esophageal feeder 11 10.6 64 2.6
Pail 1 1.0 24 1.0
Suckled from dam 53 51.0 547 22.1
Not reported 10 67
Brix completed on-farm Yes 18 17.3 300 11.8
No 86 82.7 2,245 88.2
Colostrum IgG (g/L) quality Poor (<40 g/L) 76 73.8 300 13.3
Fair (40–50 g/L) 79 76.7 211 9.4
Excellent (>50 g/L) 103 100.0 1,742 77.3
Not reported 51 292
≥90% of samples with excellent quality (>50 g/L) 17 16.5
At least 1 sample <50 g/L 93 90.3
Serum IgG (g/L) quality Failure (<10 g/L) 79 76.0 325 13.0
Fair (10–14 g/L) 87 83.7 356 14.3
Excellent (≥15 g/L) 104 100.0 1,817 72.7
Not reported 19 47
≥90% of calves with excellent serum IgG 17 16.3
≥80% of calves with excellent serum IgG 36 34.6
Serum total protein (g/L) quality Failure (<5.1 g/L) 82 78.8 390 15.6
Fair (5.1–5.3 g/L) 84 80.8 224 9.0
Excellent (≥5.4 g/L) 104 100.0 1,882 75.4
Not reported 19 49
≥90% of calves with excellent serum total protein 22 21.2
≥80% of calves with excellent serum total protein 45 43.3
Serum Brix (%) score Failure (<8.1%) 81 77.9 379 15.2
Fair (8.1–8.5%) 88 84.6 337 13.5
Excellent (≥8.6%) 104 100.0 1,778 71.3
Not reported 21 51
≥90% of calves with excellent serum Brix 16 15.4
≥80% of calves with excellent serum Brix 37 35.6
1

Operation percentages were calculated by dividing the variable level by the total number of operations reported for each variable. Operations may have had calves in more than one variable level; therefore, the sum of a variable might not always equal 100%.

2

Some heifer calves may have received colostrum from multiple sources.

Table 4.

Continuous colostrum feeding practices and quality for preweaned dairy calves on 104 US operations from March 2014 to September 2015

Variable Heifer calves
Calf mean (SE) Percentile
Number Percent 5th 25th 50th 75th 95th
Brix reading completed on-farm (% Brix) 300 11.8 23.6 (0.2) 19.0 22.0 23.0 25.0 30.0
Time to colostrum feeding (h) 2,401 94.3 2.8 (0.1) 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.5 8.0
Amount of first colostrum feeding (L) 2,446 96.1 2.9 (0.0) 1.9 1.9 2.8 3.8 3.8
Total amount of colostrum fed (L) 2,412 94.8 4.5 (0.0) 1.9 3.8 3.8 5.7 7.6
Colostrum IgG (g/L) 2,253 88.5 74.2 (0.7) 25.0 52.2 72.9 92.6 130.1
Colostrum Brix (%) 2,253 88.5 23.5 (0.1) 14.9 20.9 23.9 26.5 30.7
Age at serum sampling (d) 2,476 97.3 3.1 (0.0) 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 6.0
Serum IgG (g/L) 2,498 98.2 21.7 (0.2) 6.1 14.3 20.8 28.3 40.2
Serum total protein (g/dL) 2,496 98.1 6.0 (0.0) 4.6 5.4 5.9 6.5 7.4
Serum Brix (%) 2,494 98.0 9.2 (0.0) 7.5 8.4 9.1 9.8 10.9

The general recommendation is to remove the calf from its dam within 2 h following birth and feed at least 10% of BW (approximately 4 L for a 40-kg calf) of quality colostrum (IgG >50 g/L) at the first feeding, within 4 h following birth (BAMN, 2001; McGuirk and Collins, 2004; Godden, 2008). Following these recommendations has been proven to reduce failure of passive transfer. Additionally, it is recommended that, on the farm level, 90% of all calves have excellent passive transfer to minimize overall morbidity and mortality (McGuirk and Collins, 2004). Pooling of colostrum from multiple dams is generally thought to decrease overall colostrum quality and increase disease risk, as it might result in mixing larger volumes of low-quality colostrum with smaller volumes of higher quality colostrum and mixing of possible disease pathogens (Arthur et al., 1996). Heat treatment of colostrum needs to be performed at a low temperature (60°C) for a longer period of time (60 min) compared with milk pasteurization to prevent protein (i.e., immunoglobulin) denaturation (Godden et al., 2006). A Brix refractometer is a simple on-farm instrument to evaluate colostrum quality and passive transfer status; a Brix reading greater than 22% represents quality Holstein colostrum (Quigley et al., 2013). Very few operations in this study used a Brix refractometer to measure colostrum quality. However, measuring colostrum quality before administration can help prevent failure of passive transfer. For more information, see Shivley et al. (2018a).

Preweaning Housing and Procedures

The majority of calves in the study (86.6%) were housed individually (Table 5 ). Nonetheless, 20.2% of operations housed some calves in groups. The mean group size was 12.5 calves (SE 0.4) with a range from 3 to 25 calves per group. Similar results were reported in the NAHMS Dairy 2014 study, with 74.9% of operations housing calves individually and 19.6% housing calves in groups (USDA, 2016). The majority of calves (80.3%) were housed with natural ventilation. Approximately one-half of the calves in the study (52.3%) were dehorned or disbudded during the preweaning period. Only 27.8% of the dehorned/disbudded calves received analgesics or anesthetics during the procedure. This is consistent with the NAHMS Dairy 2014 report, where 28.2% of dehorned or disbudded calves received analgesics or anesthetics (USDA, 2016). Starter was provided to 100.0% of calves during the preweaning period, at a mean age of 4.2 d (SE 0.1) and a range of 1 to 67 d of age. The mean age at which starter feed was provided was higher in the NAHMS Dairy 2014 report, at 10.8 d of age (USDA, 2016). About one-third (33.5%) of calves received coccidiostats in the starter and 14.5% of calves received fly control in the starter (Table 6 ). Hay was offered during the preweaning period on 43.3% of operations, at an operation mean age of 26.7 d (SE 3.4).

Table 5.

Categorical preweaning housing and procedures practices for preweaned dairy calves (n = 2,545) on 104 US operations from March 2014 to September 2015

Variable Level Operations1
Heifer calves
Number Percent Number Percent
Sex of primary caretaker Male 68 65.4 1,515 59.5
Female 44 42.3 888 34.9
Both 14 13.5 142 5.6
Housing Individual 93 89.4 2,203 86.6
Group 21 20.2 342 13.4
Ventilation Natural 87 83.7 2,043 80.3
Positive pressure 16 15.4 239 9.4
Other 18 17.3 263 10.3
Bedding Straw/hay 67 64.4 1,306 51.3
Shavings/woodchips 31 29.8 543 21.3
Sand 5 4.8 37 1.5
None 13 12.5 280 11.0
Other/combination 26 25.0 379 14.9
Dehorning/disbudding Yes 67 64.4 1,275 52.3
Received analgesics/anesthetics 22 32.8 354 27.8
No 37 35.6 1,163 47.7
Not reported 0 0.0 107
Fed calf starter Yes 102 100.0 2,491 100.0
With coccidiostats 51 50.0 835 33.5
With fly control 26 25.5 360 14.5
Not reported 2 54
1

Operation percentages were calculated by dividing the variable level by the total number of operations reported for each variable. Operations may have had calves in more than one variable level; therefore, the sum of a variable might not always equal 100%.

Table 6.

Continuous preweaning housing and procedures practices for preweaned dairy calves (n = 2,545) on 104 US operations from March 2014 to September 2015

Variable Operations
Heifer calves
Percentile of heifer calves
Number Percent Mean (SE) Number Percent Mean (SE) 5th 25th 50th 75th 95th
Age at dehorning/disbudding (d) 62 59.6 27.7 (2.5) 1,181 46.4 24.5 (0.6) 0.0 4.0 23.0 37.0 58.0
Age water was first offered (d) 100 96.2 7.7 (1.3) 2,838 93.6 5.9 (0.2) 0.0 1.0 2.0 5.0 31.0
Age hay was first offered (d) 45 43.3 26.7 (3.4) 717 28.2 19.5 (0.9) 0.0 1.0 7.0 35.0 64.0
Age starter was first offered (d) 102 98.1 5.1 (0.6) 2,491 97.9 4.2 (0.1) 0.0 1.0 3.0 6.0 13.0
Calf starter (% protein) 91 87.5 19.8 (0.2) 2,236 87.9 20.1 (0.0) 17.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 23.0
Number in group housing 14 13.5 11.7 (1.8) 242 9.5 12.5 (0.4) 5.0 8.0 12.0 14.0 25.0
Days of age at weaning (d) 103 99.0 64.9 (1.8) 2,406 94.5 65.7 (0.4) 43.0 56.0 61.0 71.0 100.0

Historically, individual housing of calves has been promoted by the dairy industry because of studies that showed increased weight gain and lower disease incidence (Chua et al., 2002). However, recent studies demonstrated potential benefits of group housing for calves, both socially and physically (Chua et al., 2002; De Paula Vieira et al., 2010). Given that research supports both housing strategies, each farm must assess its management style, ability to detect disease in calves, and overall calf-rearing priorities to decide the best housing style for the operation. Disbudding or dehorning is routinely performed on preweaned dairy calves to reduce the risk of injury to other cattle and workers. Dehorning is a painful procedure regardless of the method used. However, an analgesic or anesthetic helps minimize the pain of the procedure (Graf and Senn, 1999; Grondahl-Nielsen et al., 1999; Stafford and Mellor, 2005). Ultimately, managing perioperative pain associated with disbudding or dehorning can minimize the negative effects attributed to pain, including decreased weight gain (Stafford and Mellor, 2011). Nutritional requirements—including high-quality calf starter and fresh clean water—should be met from the first day of life throughout the preweaning period to support calf growth and rumen development (BAMN, 2003).

Milk Feeding and Consumption

The most common liquid diet type was whole or waste milk, representing 40.1% of all calves, whereas 34.8% of calves received milk replacer and 25.1% received a combination of the two (Table 7 ). A higher number of operations (64.8%) reported feeding whole or waste milk to preweaned dairy heifer calves (USDA, 2016). Over half of operations (65.4%) and 51.2% of calves, regardless of diet type, were provided a milk additive. The most common milk additives were coccidiostats (36.7% of calves), direct-fed microbials (15.7% of calves), and antibiotics (13.8% of calves). Of all operations that fed whole or waste milk or a combination, 36.5% pasteurized the milk and 21.2% evaluated milk bacterial counts. The NAHMS Dairy 2014 study reported that 55.7% of operations pasteurize the milk (USDA, 2016). The majority of operations (87.5%), representing 79.3% of enrolled calves, fed calves twice per day. Three feedings per day and ad libitum feedings were less common, representing 10.4 and 8.6% of enrolled calves, respectively (Table 7). The average amount of liquid diet fed per day during the preweaning period was 5.7 L (SE 0.0; Table 8 ). The mean percentages of protein and fat provided to heifer calves in milk replacer were 22.7 and 20.2%, respectively (Table 8).

Table 7.

Categorical milk feeding practices for preweaned dairy calves (n = 2,545) on 104 US operations from March 2014 to September 2015

Variable Level Operations1
Heifer calves
Number Percent Number Percent
Diet type Milk replacer 40 38.5 885 34.8
Whole/waste milk 45 43.3 1,020 40.1
Combination 40 38.5 640 25.1
Milk additives Acids/preservatives 7 6.7 103 7.9
Coccidiostats 51 49.0 935 36.7
Direct-fed microbials 18 17.3 400 15.7
Fly control 26 25.0 297 11.7
Antibiotics 15 14.4 352 13.8
Other additives (e.g., minerals, vitamins) 22 21.2 338 13.3
Any 68 65.4 1,302 51.2
None 36 34.6 1,243 48.8
Pasteurization (excluding milk replacer) Yes 31 36.5 737 44.4
No 54 63.5 923 55.6
Evaluation of bacterial counts (excluding milk replacer) Yes 18 21.2 301 18.1
No 67 78.8 1,359 81.9
Method of feeding Bottle 39 37.5 657 25.8
Bucket or pail 17 16.3 362 14.2
Milk bar 5 4.8 71 2.8
Robotic 3 2.9 49 1.9
Bottle and bucket 58 55.8 1,240 48.7
Other combinations 12 11.5 166 6.5
Average frequency of liquid diet feedings per day 1 feeding per day 12 11.5 43 1.7
2 feedings per day 91 87.5 2,019 79.3
3 feedings per day 16 15.4 265 10.4
Ad libitum or robotic feeding 12 11.5 218 8.6
1

Operation percentages were calculated by dividing the variable level by the total number of operations reported for each variable. Operations may have had calves in more than one variable level; therefore, the sum of a variable might not always equal 100%.

Table 8.

Continuous milk feeding practices for preweaned dairy calves (n = 2,545) on 104 US operations from March 2014 to September 2015

Variable Operations1
Heifer calves
Percentile of heifer calves
Number Percent Mean (SE) Number Percent Mean (SE) 5th 25th 50th 75th 95th
Milk replacer protein (%) 60 57.7 22.4 (0.4) 1,330 52.3 22.7 (0.1) 20.0 20.0 22.0 25.0 28.0
Milk replacer fat (%) 60 57.7 20.1 (0.4) 1,330 52.3 20.2 (0.1) 15.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 25.0
Milk replacer, dry powder per feeding (g) 52 50.0 133.2 (2.8) 1,130 44.4 133.2 (0.8) 113.4 113.4 141.8 144.6 170.1
Total number of days fed liquid diet 103 99.0 62.8 (1.6) 2,536 99.6 63.6 (0.4) 38.0 55.0 61.0 70.0 100.0
Average volume fed per feeding (L) 103 99.0 2.5 (0.1) 2,536 99.6 2.6 (0.0) 1.1 1.9 2.6 3.1 3.8
Total volume liquid diet fed during the preweaning period (L) 103 99.0 350.2 (11.8) 2,536 99.6 360.7 (2.9) 145.7 265.0 338.9 459.9 624.6
Average volume liquid diet fed per day (L) 103 99.0 5.6 (0.2) 2,536 99.6 5.7 (0.0) 3.5 4.7 5.5 6.8 8.5
1

Operation percentages were calculated by dividing the variable level by the total number of operations reported for each variable. Operations may have had calves in more than one variable level; therefore, the sum of a variable might not always equal 100%.

At birth, calves are functionally monogastrics and rely exclusively on a liquid milk diet for nutrients (Drackley, 2008). Protein is considered the rate-limiting nutrient for calf growth (Drackley, 2008). Therefore, as long as the liquid diet is similar in quality to whole waste milk, all diet types should be sufficient for calf growth. Historically, calf-feeding programs included twice-daily feedings of approximately 2 L/feeding (Thickett et al., 1986). This practice of restricting milk intake led to increased starter intake but at the cost of calf health and growth. More recently, enhanced feeding programs with higher percentage protein milk replacers or ad libitum feeding programs have gained popularity (Jasper and Weary, 2002; Terré et al., 2009).

Preweaning Growth

The mean birth weight for all calves enrolled in the study was 42.5 kg (SE 0.1; Table 9 ). Weaning weights varied greatly, with a mean of 88.3 kg (SE 0.4) at an average weaning age of 65.7 d (SE 0.4). The ADG for all calves enrolled in the study was 0.7 kg/d (SE 0.0). Growth data are provided separately for Holstein calves and Jersey calves (Figure 3, Figure 4 ; Tables 10 , 11 , 12 , and 13 ). Figure 3, Figure 4 show all the weight data points taken for calves throughout the study. The weight data points were then used to develop growth percentiles for dairy heifer calves from birth to 90 d of age.

Table 9.

Continuous preweaning growth measurements for Holstein heifer calves (n = 2,273) and Jersey heifer calves (n = 114) from March 2014 to September 2015

Variable Holstein heifer calves
Jersey heifer calves
Number Percent Mean (SE) Number Percent Mean (SE)
Birth weight (kg) 2,266 99.7 43.0 (0.1) 108 94.7 35.1 (0.5)
Weaning weight (kg) 2,065 90.8 89.4 (0.5) 105 92.1 71.7 (2.0)
Days of age at weaning 2,149 94.5 66.1 (0.4) 106 93.0 66.6 (1.1)
Preweaning weight gain (kg) 1,953 85.9 48.0 (0.4) 90 78.9 39.0 (1.8)
ADG (kg) 1,949 85.7 0.73 (0.0) 90 78.9 0.57 (0.0)

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Preweaning growth chart for Holstein calves (n = 2,273) on 104 US operations. Color version available online.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Preweaning growth chart for Jersey calves (n = 114) on 26 US operations. Color version available online.

Table 10.

Holstein heifer BW (kg) by age (n = 2,273) from March 2014 to September 2015

Age (d) Holstein heifer calves
SE Percentile of Holstein heifer calves
Number Percent Mean BW (kg) 5th 25th 50th 75th 95th
Birth 2,266 99.7 43.0 0.1 35.0 40.0 42.7 45.9 52.3
7–13 267 11.7 48.9 0.4 38.0 44.3 48.4 52.3 60.0
14–20 1,418 62.4 49.9 0.2 39.5 44.3 49.3 54.5 62.7
21–27 660 29.0 55.3 0.3 42.7 50.0 54.5 60.0 71.1
28–34 1,214 53.4 59.4 0.3 45.0 52.3 59.0 65.5 77.7
35–41 599 26.4 66.2 0.5 47.7 59.0 65.5 74.1 85.5
42–48 1,341 59.0 71.4 0.3 52.3 62.7 71.4 79.1 92.7
49–55 817 35.9 78.8 0.5 57.1 68.6 77.7 88.1 101.4
56–62 1,421 62.5 84.8 0.4 60.9 74.5 83.6 93.4 109.1
63–69 704 31.0 91.4 0.6 64.9 80.6 90.7 100.0 114.5
70–76 519 22.8 94.9 0.8 69.1 83.6 92.7 104.5 123.3
77–83 198 8.7 99.4 1.3 72.7 88.1 99.0 110.9 126.6
84–90 215 9.5 104.0 1.2 80.5 91.4 101.8 115.9 136.4

Table 11.

Holstein heifer hip heights (cm) by age (n = 2,273) from March 2014 to September 2015

Age (d) Holstein heifer calves
SE Percentile of Holstein heifer calves
Number Percent Mean height (cm) 5th 25th 50th 75th 95th
Birth 1,951 85.8 82.8 0.1 75.0 80.0 83.0 86.0 90.0
7–13 211 9.3 85.8 0.3 80.0 83.0 86.0 88.0 93.0
14–20 1,278 56.2 86.6 0.1 79.0 84.0 86.0 89.0 94.0
21–27 538 23.7 88.2 0.2 81.0 86.0 88.0 91.0 96.0
28–34 1,094 48.1 89.8 0.1 82.0 87.0 90.0 93.0 97.0
35–41 482 21.2 91.3 0.2 83.0 89.0 91.0 94.0 99.0
42–48 1,020 44.9 93.0 0.2 86.0 90.0 93.0 96.0 101.0
49–55 463 20.4 93.4 0.2 85.0 90.0 93.0 96.0 102.0
56–62 752 33.1 93.9 0.2 85.0 91.0 94.0 97.0 102.0
63–69 423 18.6 95.2 0.3 86.0 92.0 95.0 98.0 102.0
70–76 327 14.4 96.8 0.3 89.0 94.0 97.0 99.0 105.0
77–83 127 5.6 98.0 0.6 88.0 94.0 97.0 102.0 109.0
84–90 152 6.7 98.1 0.4 91.0 95.0 98.0 101.0 107.0

Table 12.

Jersey heifer BW (kg) by age (n = 114) from March 2014 to September 2015

Age (d) Jersey heifer calves
SE Percentiles of Jersey heifer calves
Number Percent Mean BW (kg) 5th 25th 50th 75th 95th
Birth 108 94.7 35.1 0.5 25.0 31.6 35.5 38.2 42.7
7–13 5 4.4 36.9 4.0 27.3 27.3 41.4 44.1 44.7
14–20 81 71.1 38.7 0.8 27.7 34.1 38.6 41.8 48.7
21–27 22 19.3 41.0 1.4 36.8 37.7 39.2 44.1 52.5
28–34 76 66.7 45.9 1.1 31.8 39.6 45.5 53.2 62.7
35–41 22 19.3 50.1 2.1 40.4 42.9 48.7 53.6 68.6
42–48 62 54.4 55.3 1.4 40.0 47.7 53.8 62.7 74.5
49–55 30 26.3 62.1 2.2 48.2 51.8 60.0 68.2 85.5
56–62 104 91.2 69.3 1.4 50.0 57.2 69.1 78.2 95.0
63–69 34 29.8 70.1 2.3 53.6 60.0 67.0 77.3 98.1
70–76 10 8.8 73.1 6.3 54.5 65.5 68.0 74.5 122.3
77–83 11 9.6 80.7 5.3 60.9 62.3 80.6 90.7 110.7
84–90 10 8.8 86.2 11.1 47.7 54.5 90.5 99.5 147.5

Table 13.

Jersey heifer hip heights (cm) by age (n = 114) from March 2014 to September 2015

Age (d) Jersey heifer calves
SE Percentile of Jersey heifer calves
Number Percent Mean height (cm) 5th 25th 50th 75th 95th
Birth 97 85.1 75.8 0.6 65.0 72.0 76.0 79.0 86.0
7–13 4 3.5 76.5 3.8 70.0 70.0 76.5 83.0 83.0
14–20 75 65.8 78.7 0.7 69.0 76.0 79.0 82.0 87.0
21–27 18 15.8 81.6 1.4 74.0 79.0 80.5 83.0 102.0
28–34 67 58.8 82.0 0.8 75.0 78.0 82.0 86.0 91.0
35–41 19 16.7 85.4 1.2 77.0 82.0 84.0 88.0 102.0
42–48 51 44.7 85.4 0.7 77.0 81.0 85.0 89.0 95.0
49–55 13 11.4 87.8 1.8 80.0 84.0 87.0 89.0 104.0
56–62 59 51.8 85.4 0.7 78.0 81.0 84.0 89.0 95.0
63–69 18 15.8 85.6 1.0 78.0 84.0 85.0 88.0 96.0
70–76 7 6.1 87.9 2.9 78.0 81.0 87.0 91.0 102.0
77–83 8 7.0 96.8 3.0 85.0 89.5 97.5 103.0 109.0
84–90 6 5.3 90.0 3.1 80.0 84.0 89.5 97.0 100.0

Growth during the preweaning period can ultimately influence breeding and milking potential in the adult cow (Heinrichs, 1993; Soberon et al., 2012). However, growth can be influenced by various factors throughout the preweaning period, including breed, management practices, environmental factors, disease, and nutrition (Place et al., 1998). Birth and weaning weights in this study are similar to those in the NAHMS Dairy 2007 study, in which the median reported weight of Holstein calves under 7 d of age was 44.1 kg and that of Holstein calves between 63 and 69 d of age was 86.8 kg (USDA, 2010). The growth percentiles provided might be a valuable resource to producers and industry professionals to help ensure that current calf-feeding protocols result in adequate growth. For more information on preweaning heifer calf growth, please see Shivley et al. (2018b).

Vaccinations

Preweaning vaccinations (any vaccine) were administered on 65.4% of all operations, representing 64.6% of heifer calves (Table 14 ). The average age at first vaccine, regardless of the disease vaccinated against, was 4.0 d. Vaccinations to protect against infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, parainfluenza 3, and bovine respiratory syncytial virus were administered, on average, between 11 and 12 d of age to approximately one-half of all enrolled calves (51.2, 51.1, and 46.2%, respectively). Vaccinations against rotavirus and coronavirus were administered to 17.3 and 21.6% of all calves on 23.1 and 28.8% of all operations, respectively. These vaccinations were administered, on average, at 0.2 d of age.

Table 14.

Vaccination by disease and average age at first dose of vaccination for preweaned dairy calves (n = 2,545) on 104 US operations from March 2014 to September 2015

Disease Operations1
Heifer calves
Average age (d) at first dose of vaccine
Number Percent Number Percent
Infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR) 55 52.9 1,302 51.2 11.7
Parainfluenza 3 (PI3) 55 52.9 1,300 51.1 11.5
Bovine respiratory syncytial virus (BRSV) 51 49.0 1,175 46.2 12.2
Bovine viral diarrhea (BVD) 18 17.3 327 12.8 37.6
Rotavirus 24 23.1 440 17.3 0.2
Coronavirus 30 28.8 550 21.6 0.2
Clostridia 19 18.3 353 13.9 25.2
Leptospirosis 3 2.9 64 2.5 55.1
Escherichia coli 18 17.3 289 11.4 0.2
Histophilus somni 0 0.0 0 0.0
Mannheimia haemolytica 20 19.2 261 10.2 37.7
Salmonella 8 7.7 172 6.8 14.0
Mycobacterium avium ssp. paratuberculosis (MAP; Johne's disease) 3 2.9 66 2.6 19.6
Brucellosis 0 0.0
Rabies 0 0.0
Pinkeye (Moraxella bovis) 4 3.8 34 1.3 51.4
Mycoplasma bovis 1 0.01 11 0.4 19.4
Any vaccination 68 65.4 1643 64.6 4.0
1

Operation percentages were calculated by dividing the variable level by the total number of operations reported for each variable. Operations may have had calves in more than one variable level; therefore, the sum of a variable might not always equal 100%.

Cryptosporidium and Giardia

Fecal samples were collected from 2,323 calves throughout the preweaning period, at a mean of 21.9 d of age (SE 0.1). Almost all operations had at least 1 calf positive for Cryptosporidium (94.2%) or Giardia (99.0%), and 84.6% of operations had calves that tested positive for both Cryptosporidium and Giardia. Overall, 43.0% of calves tested were positive for Cryptosporidium and 30.4% were positive for Giardia (Table 15 ). Cryptosporidium parvum and Giardia duodenalis are intestinal protozoa that are commonly found in calves and have the potential to cause diarrhea (Huetink et al., 2001). Additionally, both are zoonotic pathogens, putting human health at risk. For more information, see the review by Urie et al. (2018a).

Table 15.

Categorical fecal results and morbidity and mortality factors for preweaned dairy calves (n = 2,545) on 104 US operations from March 2014 to September 2015

Variable Level Operations1
Heifer calves
Number Percent Number Percent
Fecal testing Positive for Cryptosporidium 98 94.2 1,000 43.0
Negative for Cryptosporidium 6 5.8 1,323 57.0
Positive for Giardia 103 99.0 707 30.4
Negative for Giardia 1 1.0 1,615 69.5
Positive for Cryptosporidium and Giardia 88 84.6 308 13.3
Negative for Cryptosporidium and Giardia 0 0.0 923 39.7
Not tested 0 222
Morbidity and treatment Digestive signs 78 78.0 483 21.4
Respiratory signs 63 63.0 287 12.7
Any illness 88 88.0 859 38.1
No illness 12 12.0 1,398 61.9
Not reported 4 288
Received treatment 83 79.8 826 32.5
Mortality Digestive signs 27 26.0 41 1.6
Respiratory signs 18 17.3 18 0.7
Other 13 12.5 26 1.0
Unknown 58 55.8 32 1.3
Not reported 7 6.7 11
Any cause of death 37 35.6 128 5.0
1

Operation percentages were calculated by dividing the variable level by the total number of operations reported for each variable. Operations may have had calves in more than one variable level; therefore, the sum of a variable might not always equal 100%.

Morbidity and Mortality

Overall, 38.1% of enrolled calves were reported to have at least 1 morbidity event (Table 15). The majority of ill calves had digestive signs (56.0%) or displayed respiratory signs (33.4%). Most calves that had reported clinical signs (90.2%) received treatment, with the most common treatment being antibiotics (76.8%). The mortality rate was 5.0% with a mean age at death of 24.4 d (SE 1.6).

The results of this study show that overall mortality has decreased slightly and morbidity has remained consistent compared with previous studies. The percentages of morbidity and mortality in the 1992 National Dairy Heifer Evaluation project were 36.1 and 8.4%, respectively (USDA, 1992). The Dairy Calf and Heifer Association reported that the target morbidity rate for calves from 24 h to 60 d of age was less than 25%, and the target mortality rate for calves from 24 h to 60 d of age was less than 5% (Dairy Calf and Heifer Association, 2010). Thus, there is room to improve overall morbidity and mortality in preweaned dairy heifer calves. Refer to Urie et al. (2018b) for a more in-depth discussion on preweaning dairy heifer health.

Weaning

Operations reported that calves were weaned based on multiple criteria, with the majority of operations (98.1%) weaning calves based on age (Table 16 ). Approximately half of operations (49.5%) and 31.1% of calves were weaned based on starter intake. Preventatives, including vaccinations and antibiotics, were given to 18.2% of calves at the time of weaning. Antibiotics were the most common preventatives provided, with 12.8% of all calves receiving an antibiotic at the time of weaning. The mean age at weaning for all enrolled calves was 65.7 d (Table 6). The NAHMS Dairy 2014 study reports a mean age at weaning of 63.0 d (USDA, 2016).

Table 16.

Categorical weaning practices for preweaned dairy calves (n = 2,545) on 104 US operations from March 2014 to September 2015

Variable Level Operations1
Heifer calves
Number Percent Number Percent
Criteria for weaning Starter intake 51 49.5 749 31.1
Age 101 98.1 2,139 88.9
Lack of space 30 29.1 318 13.2
Other 21 20.4 220 9.1
Not reported 1 139
Preventatives at weaning Antibiotics 12 12.0 306 12.8
Vaccinations 11 11.0 116 4.9
Other 7 7.0 48 2.0
Any 26 26.0 434 18.2
None 74 74.0 1,953 81.8
Not reported 4 158
1

Operation percentages were calculated by dividing the variable level by the total number of operations reporting for each variable. Operations may have had calves in more than one variable level; therefore, the sum of a variable might not always equal 100%.

Weaning calves based on starter intake ensures adequate ruminal development, making the transition from a primarily liquid diet to a grain or forage diet easier. According to the Bovine Alliance on Management and Nutrition (BAMN, 2003), calves should be consuming at least 0.7 to 0.9 kg of starter for 2 to 3 consecutive days before weaning. Judicious use of antimicrobials is recommended to optimize therapeutic efficacy and minimize antimicrobial resistance.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, these results are representative of the Dairy 2014 NAHMS study results. Both studies are in agreement on areas that have improved within the dairy industry, such as decreased mortality and decreased failure of passive transfer. Additionally, this study describes areas where producers can continue to advance heifer calf management and welfare, such as enhanced feeding programs to increase ADG, detection of clinical disease signs, and weaning programs to efficiently and effectively wean calves. As stated earlier, rearing heifer calves is an expensive endeavor, at approximately $5.50/calf per day. Therefore, research to maximize the efficiency of raising replacement heifers and minimize losses due to morbidity and mortality is extremely important. The descriptive statistics reported here can be used as a source for researchers to better understand current practices regarding dairy heifer calf management and ultimately help guide various research projects in the future. These results can also be used to guide education programs for dairy producers to improve overall heifer calf health.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the 104 dairy producers and their staff for participating in the study; the federal and state animal health personnel who assisted in collecting the data; Judy Rodriguez (USDA National Animal Health Monitoring System, Fort Collins, CO) for technical assistance in data validation and analysis; and Ken Leslie (Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada), Jud Heinrichs (Department of Animal Science, Pennsylvania State University, University Park), Robert James (Down Home Heifer Solutions Inc., Blacksburg, VA), Dan Catherman (Strauss Feeds, Watertown, WI), Nina von Keyserlingk (Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada), and Daniel Weary (Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia) for their guidance in study design and analysis.

REFERENCES

  1. Arthur G.H., Noakes D.E., Pearson H., Parkinson T.J. The development of the conceptus. In: Arthur G.H., Nokes D.E., Pearson H., editors. Pregnancy and Parturition in Veterinary Reproduction and Obstetrics. 7th ed. W. B. Saunders; Philadelphia, PA: 1996. pp. 51–109. [Google Scholar]
  2. BAMN A guide to colostrum and colostrum management for dairy calves. Bovine Alliance on Management and Nutrition (BAMN) 2001. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/dairy/downloads/bamn/BAMN01_Colostrum.pdf
  3. BAMN A guide to dairy calf feeding and management. Bovine Alliance on Management and Nutrition (BAMN) 2003. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/dairy/downloads/bamn/BAMN03_GuideFeeding.pdf
  4. Chua B., Coenen E., van Delen J., Weary D.M. Effects of pair versus individual housing on the behavior and performance of dairy calves. J. Dairy Sci. 2002;85:360–364. doi: 10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(02)74082-4. 11913695. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Dairy Calf and Heifer Association Gold standards. 2010. http://calfandheifer.org/gold_standards/index.php
  6. De Paula Vieira A., von Keyserlingk M.A.G., Weary D.M. Effects of pair versus single housing on performance and behavior of dairy calves before and after weaning from milk. J. Dairy Sci. 2010;93:3079–3085. doi: 10.3168/jds.2009-2516. 20630226. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Drackley J.K. Calf nutrition from birth to breeding. Vet. Clin. North Am. Food Anim. Pract. 2008;24:55–86. doi: 10.1016/j.cvfa.2008.01.001. 18299032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Fayer R., Trout J., Graczyk T., Lewis E. Prevalence of Cryptosporidium, Giardia and Eimeria infections in post-weaned and adult cattle on three Maryland farms. Vet. Parasitol. 2000;93:103–112. doi: 10.1016/S0304-4017(00)00356-3. 11035228. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Fulwider W.K., Grandin T., Rollin B.E., Engle T.E., Dalsted N.L., Lamm W.D. Survey of dairy management practices on one hundred thirteen north central and northeastern United States dairies. J. Dairy Sci. 2008;91:1686–1692. doi: 10.3168/jds.2007-0631. 18349262. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Gay C.C. Proc. 4th Int. Symp. Neonatal Dis. Vet. Infect. Dis. Org., Saskatoon, SK, Canada. 1983. Failure of passive transfer of colostral immunoglobulins and neonatal disease in calves: A review; pp. 346–364. [Google Scholar]
  11. Godden S. Colostrum management for dairy calves. Vet. Clin. North Am. Food Anim. Pract. 2008;24:19–39. doi: 10.1016/j.cvfa.2007.10.005. 18299030. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Godden S., McMartin S., Feirtag J., Stabel J., Bey R., Goyal S., Metzger L., Fetrow J., Wells S., Chester-Jones H. Heat-treatment of bovine colostrum. II: Effects of heating duration on pathogen viability and immunoglobulin G. J. Dairy Sci. 2006;89:3476–3483. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72386-4. 16899682. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Graf B., Senn M. Behavioural and physiological responses of calves to dehorning by heat cauterization with or without local anaesthesia. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1999;62:153–171. [Google Scholar]
  14. Grondahl-Nielsen C., Simonsen H.B., Lund J.D., Hesselholt M. Behavioural, endocrine and cardiac responses in young calves undergoing dehorning without and with use of sedation and analgesia. Vet. J. 1999;158:14–20. doi: 10.1053/tvjl.1998.0284. 10409412. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Heinrichs A.J. Raising dairy replacements to meet the needs of the 21st century. J. Dairy Sci. 1993;76:3179–3187. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(93)77656-0. 8227639. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Heinrichs A.J., Rogers G.W., Cooper J.B. Predicting body weight and wither height in Holstein heifers using body measurements. J. Dairy Sci. 1992;75:3576–3581. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(92)78134-X. 1474218. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Heinrichs A.J., Wells S.J., Hurd H.S., Hill G.W., Dargatz D.A. The National Dairy Heifer Evaluation Project: A profile of heifer management practices in the United States. J. Dairy Sci. 1994;77:1548–1555. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(94)77096-X. 8083414. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. House J.K. Perinatal adaptation, asphyxia, and resuscitation. In: Smith B.P., editor. Large Animal Internal Medicine. 3rd ed. Mosby; St. Louis, MO: 2002. pp. 266–267. [Google Scholar]
  19. Huetink R.E., van der Giessen J.B., Noordhuizen J.M., Ploeger H.W. Epidemiology of Cryptosporidium spp. and Giardia duodenalis on a dairy farm. Vet. Parasitol. 2001;102:53–67. doi: 10.1016/s0304-4017(01)00514-3. 11705652. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Jasper J., Weary D.M. Effects of ad libitum milk intake on dairy calves. J. Dairy Sci. 2002;85:3054–3058. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(02)74391-9. 12487471. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Lombard J.E., Garry F.B., Tomlinson S.M., Garber L.P. Impacts of dystocia on health and survival of dairy calves. J. Dairy Sci. 2007;90:1751–1760. doi: 10.3168/jds.2006-295. 17369215. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. McGuirk S.M. Disease management of dairy calves and heifers. Vet. Clin. North Am. Food Anim. Pract. 2008;24:139–153. doi: 10.1016/j.cvfa.2007.10.003. 18299036. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. McGuirk S.M., Collins M. Managing the production, storage, and delivery of colostrum. Vet. Clin. North Am. Food Anim. Pract. 2004;20:593–603. doi: 10.1016/j.cvfa.2004.06.005. 15471626. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Mee J.F. Newborn dairy calf management. Vet. Clin. North Am. Food Anim. Pract. 2008;24:1–17. doi: 10.1016/j.cvfa.2007.10.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Place N.T., Heinrichs A.J., Erb H.N. The effects of disease, management, and nutrition on average daily gain of dairy heifers from birth to four months. J. Dairy Sci. 1998;81:1004–1009. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(98)75661-9. 9594389. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Quigley J.D., Lago A., Chapman C., Erickson P., Polo J. Evaluation of the Brix refractometer to estimate immunoglobulin G concentration in bovine colostrum. J. Dairy Sci. 2013;96:1148–1155. doi: 10.3168/jds.2012-5823. 23200468. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Santín M., Trout J.M., Xiao L., Zhou L., Greiner E., Fayer R. Prevalence and age-related variation of Cryptosporidium species and genotypes in dairy calves. Vet. Parasitol. 2004;122:103–117. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2004.03.020. 15177715. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Shivley C.B., Lombard J.E., Urie N.J., Haines D.M., Sargent R., Kopral C.A., Earleywine T.J., Olson J.D., Garry F.B. Preweaned heifer management on US dairy operations: Part II. Factors associated with colostrum quality and passive transfer status of dairy heifer calves. J. Dairy Sci. 2018;101:9185–9198. doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-14008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Shivley C.B., Lombard J.E., Urie N.J., Kopral C.A., Santin M., Fayer R., Earleywine T.J., Olson J.D., Garry F.B. Preweaned heifer management on US dairy operations: Part VI. Factors associated with average daily gain in preweaned dairy heifer calves. J. Dairy Sci. 2018;101:9245–9258. doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-14022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Soberon F., Raffrenato E., Everett R.W., Van Amburgh M.E. Preweaning milk replacer intake and effects on long-term productivity of dairy calves. J. Dairy Sci. 2012;95:783–793. doi: 10.3168/jds.2011-4391. 22281343. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Stafford K.J., Mellor D.J. Dehorning and disbudding distress and its alleviation in calves. Vet. J. 2005;169:337–349. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2004.02.005. 15848777. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Stafford K.J., Mellor D.J. Addressing the pain associated with disbudding and dehorning in cattle. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2011;135:226–231. [Google Scholar]
  33. Terré M., Tejero C., Bach A. Long-term effects on heifer performance of an enhanced-growth feeding programme applied during the preweaning period. J. Dairy Res. 2009;76:331–339. doi: 10.1017/S0022029909004142. 19445830. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Thickett W.S., Mitchell D., Hallows B. Farming Press; Ipswich, UK: 1986. Calf Rearing. [Google Scholar]
  35. Urie N.J., Lombard J.E., Shivley C.B., Adams A.E., Kopral C.A., Santin M. Preweaned heifer management on US dairy operations: Part III. Factors associated with Cryptosporidium and Giardia in preweaned dairy heifer calves. J. Dairy Sci. 2018;101:9199–9213. doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-14060. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Urie N.J., Lombard J.E., Shivley C.B., Kopral C.A., Adams A.E., Earleywine T.J., Olson J.D., Gary F.B. Preweaned heifer management on US dairy operations: Part V. Factors associated with morbidity and mortality in preweaned dairy heifer calves. J. Dairy Sci. 2018;101:9229–9244. doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-14019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. USDA Dairy heifer morbidity, mortality, and health management focusing on preweaned heifers. US Department of Agriculture, National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) 1992. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/dairy/downloads/ndhep/NDHEP_dr_Report.pdf
  38. USDA . USDA-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)-Veterinary Services (VS)-Center for Epidemiology and Animal Health (CEAH); Fort Collins, CO: 2007. Part 1: Reference of dairy cattle health and management practices in the United States, 2007.https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/dairy/downloads/dairy07/Dairy07_dr_PartI.pdf [Google Scholar]
  39. USDA . USDA-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)-Veterinary Services (VS)-Center for Epidemiology and Animal Health (CEAH); Fort Collins, CO: 2010. Heifer calf health and management practices on U.S. dairy operations, 2007.https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/dairy/downloads/dairy07/Dairy07_ir_CalfHealth.pdf [Google Scholar]
  40. USDA . USDA-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)-Veterinary Services (VS)-Center for Epidemiology and Animal Health (CEAH); Fort Collins, CO: 2016. Dairy 2014: Dairy cattle management practices in the United States, 2014.https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/dairy/downloads/dairy14/Dairy14_dr_PartI.pdf [Google Scholar]
  41. Walker W.L., Epperson W.B., Wittum T.E., Lord L.K., Rajala-Schultz P.J., Lakritz J. Characteristics of dairy calf ranches: Morbidity, mortality, antibiotic use practices, and biosecurity and biocontainment practices. J. Dairy Sci. 2012;95:2204–2214. doi: 10.3168/jds.2011-4727. 22459866. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Waltner-Toews D., Martin S.W., Meek A.H. Dairy calf management, morbidity and mortality in Ontario Holstein herds. IV. Association of management with mortality. Prev. Vet. Med. 1986;4:159–171. [Google Scholar]
  43. Wieland M., Mann S., Guard C.L., Nydam D.V. The influence of 3 different navel dips on calf health, growth performance, and umbilical infection assessed by clinical and ultrasonographic examination. J. Dairy Sci. 2017;100:513–524. doi: 10.3168/jds.2016-11654. 27865488. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Zwald A., Kohlman T.L., Gunderson S.L., Hoffman P.C., Kriegl T. University of Wisconsin; Madison: 2007. Economic costs and labor efficiencies associated with raising dairy herd replacements on Wisconsin dairy farms and custom heifer raising operations. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Dairy Science are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES