Dairy Calves - News

Transform Efficiency: The Evolution of Full Circle Jerseys

Wed, 06 Aug 2025 13:54:08 GMT

In the heart of Dalhart, Texas, a remarkable agricultural shift is underway at Full Circle Jerseys, a farm known for its robust herd of 5,000 milking cows. The farm is strategically transitioning its herd from straight Jerseys to Holstein x Jersey crossbreds. This change is driven by the pursuit of increased energy-corrected milk yield, and according to its management team, an overall enhancement of operational efficiency.

“In a nutshell the ‘HoJo’, as we call them, are simply a more efficient animal,” says Brandon Beavers, the farm’s general manager. “Not necessarily in terms of overall production, but in converting feed into milk solids.”

Full Circle Jerseys epitomizes the gold standard of agricultural integration. Alongside their dairy operations, they manage a feed yard in Oklahoma that specializes in backgrounding beef-on-dairy calves and includes a heifer-raising operation.

(Wyatt Bechtel)

Beavers articulates the level of integration they’ve achieved: “The farm basically is now fully integrated,” he states.

By producing their own feed and using a methane-capturing digester installed two years ago, the farm enhances its sustainability efforts and operational efficacy.

Leverage Technology
A pivotal element in Full Circle’s efficiency narrative is their embrace of advanced technology. Activity monitoring collars, a key technological tool, facilitate the monitoring of cow behavior.

“As the cow exits the milking parlor, the collar informs us if she needs attention,” Beavers explains.

This information complements other systems, such as automatic sort gates and a management rail, and optimizes time management by allowing the farm to focus on individual cow needs without disrupting the entire herd.

Beavers shares they now are better at time management when it comes to the cows, as they used to lock up 100% of the cows to work on a few. Now they can focus on the individual cow needs and not disrupt the entire herd.

In all areas of their Texas operation, measurement and data underpin decision-making. Daily milk production is scrupulously recorded with cutting-edge technology slated to soon record an individual cow’s milk yield, fat and protein content. Beavers expresses enthusiasm about the forthcoming advancements, including laboratory-grade analysis for each stall. This data, which provides insights into energy, health and feed efficiency, supports strategic decisions such as therapeutic care driven by subclinical indicators and herd management decisions based on milk production.

Comprehensive Calf Care
Attention to detail extends to their thorough calf care protocols. Immediately after birth, calves undergo a meticulous process — being weighed, tagged and having navels dipped in iodine, followed by a warm water bath and blow-drying. The cows are milked in a specialized parlor where colostrum testing occurs using a brix test.

“Anything over 22 brix is considered No. 1 feeding colostrum,” Beavers shares.

He says there are several purposes to washing a calf after birth.

“First, it helps clean the calf by reducing bacterial load the calf comes in contact with during the birthing process. It also helps dry the calf, which allows the natural defense mechanism of the hair coat to insulate the calf. The maternal cleansing also stimulates blood flow in the calf’s body and invigorates the calf,” he says.

Beavers adds the process of washing calves with warm water, then blow drying, is their attempt to imitate the natural process of a cow licking her offspring soon after birth.

“It replicates the cleansing, drying and blood flow stimulation while we are providing care for the calf in a clean, warm and dry environment,” he says.

A Comparative Look
While the dairy sector at Full Circle benefits from real-time data and technology, their feed lot operations involve longer feedback periods.

“In the feed lots, when we make a feed change, it takes us 150 days or 180 days to obtain results to go off of,” Beavers says. “With the level of technology and data that we collect from the dairy, it’s a night and day difference.”

Full Circle Jerseys exemplifies how integration and technology can revolutionize modern farming, elevating efficiency, sustainability and productivity. By continually innovating, they set a benchmark for the future of dairy farming.

Your Next Read:
Transform Your Tradition: How Alfalawn Dairy Embraces Smart Technology

Liver Abscesses Reduced with Beef-Cross Feeding Strategy

Tue, 22 Apr 2025 16:00:00 GMT

As the dairy-beef crossbreeding phenomenon continues to evolve, there remain unsolved challenges to maximizing the performance and value of those animals.

We know those calves aren’t the same as fullblood, conventional beef animals. And we know we can’t feed and raise them exactly the same. But can we get closer to matching the performance of their beef cousins, particularly related to challenges like their currently high incidence of liver abscesses?

A recent Iowa State University study sought to bring some clarity to the lifetime nutrition of beef-cross animals, and how it influences their performance and ultimate carcass quality. The study started with 120 day-old, dairy-beef cross steers, and segmented them into 4 feeding groups:

A high-starch starter ration for 60 days, followed by a high-starch pelleted ration for 60 days.
A high-starch starter ration for 60 days, followed by a forage-based TMR ration for 60 days.
A low-starch starter ration for 60 days, followed by the high-starch pelleted ration for 60 days.
A low-starch starter ration for 60 days, followed by the forage-based TMR ration for 60 days.

All calves were weaned from a common liquid ration at 60 days. Following the 60-day postweaning experimental phase, the entire study group was fed a common grower TMR ration for 140 days, and a common finishing diet for another 200 days.

In the post-weaning receiving phase, the two groups fed the pelleted ration had significantly higher feed intake, average daily gain (ADG), and ending weight. However, that disparity narrowed during the grower phase. By the end of the grower phase (~260 days), there was no significant difference in bodyweight between the four groups.

In the finishing phase, there was also no significant difference in feed intake or ADG between any group. But the low starch/TMR group was unique in that it had a slightly different growth curve. Those calves continued steadily increasing in daily feed intake and growth as the other calves were slowing down.

“Some of this may be due to compensatory gain following the receiving phase, but we speculate some may also be due to a healthier rumen in the later finishing period,” said Iowa State Extension Beef Specialist Denise Schwab, primary investigator of the study.

Harvest data indicated no difference in the quality grade, yield grade, or carcass weights between the four groups, but the low starch/TMR group had slightly heavier carcass weights.

Most telling was the disparity in the incidence of liver abscesses and condemned rumens. In total, the incidence of liver abscesses across all groups was 19%, which is well below current industry incidence for dairy-beef cross steers. The high starch/TMR group had more than 30% incidence of liver abscesses, while the low starch/TMR group had less than 5%.

Rumen condemnations were highest for the high starch/high starch pellet group, at 19%. Comparatively, the low starch/TMR group was the lowest, at just 4%. Overall, the low starch/TMR group had an average of 20% fewer liver abscesses and rumen condemnations compared to the other three groups.

In terms of numeric economic returns, the low starch/TMR group had the highest average carcass value, and the high starch/TMR group had the highest net economic returns.

A summary of the study, which was supported by the Iowa Beef Industry Council and Iowa Beef Checkoff, can be found here .

Your Next Read: New Calf Health Monitoring Tool is Nothing to Spit At

Survey: Beef-Cross Calves Need Better Implant, Breeding Strategies

Fri, 02 Aug 2024 21:22:26 GMT

What started out as somewhat of an experiment less than a decade ago has now become a standard of the U.S. cattle industry. All signs would indicate that the beef-dairy crossbred animal is here to stay.

Recognizing the unique characteristics and production channels of these calves, researchers at Iowa State University conducted a survey of producers involved in their rearing. Funded by the Iowa Beef Industry Council and Iowa Beef Checkoff, the study was conducted to:

(1) Learn about management practices employed by dairy producers and calf ranches who raise beef-cross calves; and

(2) Learn about challenges related to finishing beef-cross calves from the perspective of commercial feedlot operators.

On the calf-rearing side, responses were submitted by 11 producers who raise more than 21,000 dairy or beef-cross calves annually. Five were current dairy producers, while the rest were speciliazed calf raisers.

All but one of the 11 calf raisers had ongoing knowledge of colostrum feeding and/or tested incoming calves routinely for passive transfer of immunity. The single producer who did not have confirmed colostrum status purchased calves from auctions.

The calf raisers indicated a need for additional research on reducing liver abscesses; sire genetics and selection; starting calves to prevent sickness; weather impact on starting calves; nutrition plans; improving carcass cutout; impact of stress events; and prevention on treatment of mycoplasma.

On the feedlot side, 21 cattle feeders replied, most of whom had experience raising full-blood beef, dairy, and beef-cross calves.

Of particular interest was the disparity between the size of the animals when they entered the feedlot stage. The producers reported the average weight of beef calves entering the feeding stage was 613 pounds, compared to an average in-weight for beef-cross calves of 372 pounds.

The feeders’ experience also pointed to the superior carcass performance of beef-cross calves. They reported an average of 13% of beef-cross animals grading Prime, compared to an industry average of 7.54% reported in the most recent National Beef Quality Audit. They also reported an average of 22% of beef-cross calves produced Yield Grade 1, versus a 6.77% national average.

The ISU researchers noted a wide variation in implant strategies for beef-cross calves, which they suggested could use some fine-tuning. “In theory, there should be a different implant protocol for BXD compared to beef cattle due to differences in days on feed, marbling genetic merit, and traditional muscle size and shape,” they stated.

Feeders also expressed a desire for improved education regarding beef semen selection, particularly focused on choosing sires that promote feedlot performance and high-quality carcass finish. “Additional research is needed to select the ideal beef bulls based on growth, performance, and carcass merit without compromising calving ease,” the ISU researchers noted.

The study’s complete report can be accessed here .

Survey: Beef-Cross Calves Need Better Implant, Breeding Strategies

Wed, 03 Jul 2024 19:05:39 GMT

BVDV-Resistant Calf Created Through Gene Editing

Mon, 12 Feb 2024 20:08:42 GMT

The application of gene editing in cattle has blazed another frontier: bovine viral diarrhea (BVDV) resistance.

Previous gene-editing research has produced polled calves that do not require dehorning, and calves with lighter-colored haircoats that are more tolerant of heat stress. Now, USDA researchers, in cooperation with the University of Nebraska, have completed an extensive study that produced a calf proven to have reduced susceptibility to BVDV.

The BVD virus remains one the most challenging cattle diseases in the world. It affects animal health in many ways because it can impair the gastrointestinal tract, respiratory system, and reproductive functions. It also can be a silent scourge, because persistently infected (PI) animals can quietly spread it with herd mates while appearing perfectly healthy themselves.

BVDV is also a crafty virus. Vaccines against it have been available for decades, but its “extensive antigenic diversity in circulating field strains of BVDV poses a challenge in making these vaccines broadly protective,” according to USDA researchers.

In this project, the researchers used CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing technology to replace 6 amino acids in the CD46 gene. The bovine CD46 gene is the sight within the cell to which the BVD virus cleaves and gains entry to infect and replicate in a new host animal.

Cloned embryos from Gir cattle were used in the experiment. (Gir is a Zebu breed and one of the most prominent cattle breeds in India). The edited cells were transferred to some of the embryos, while the other half were left unedited and served as “wild-type” controls. Eight of each type of embryo were implanted into recipient cows.

Of the pregnancies that resulted, one edited and one non-edited fetus were harvested at 100 days to evaluate the BVDV resistance of cells from several body systems. Ultimately, one full-term pregnancy resulted from an edited embryo, and the calf was delivered by cesarean section at 285 days of gestation.

Because no live births resulted from the non-editing embryos, the edited calf was partnered shortly after birth with a newborn Holstein calf from a commercial dairy herd.

Both calves were evaluated for cell-level BVDV susceptibility via tissue and blood samples. The pair of calves also were directly exposed to BVDV from a live PI calf that was housed in the same room with them for 7 days when the study pair was 10 months old.

Among the study’s results:

Cells from the kidney, lung, small intestine, esophagus, liver, and heart cells from the edited fetus showed significantly lower susceptibility to BVDV in a laboratory setting, compared to the unedited fetus.
The live tissue samples showed that the edited calf had a significant reduction in BVDV susceptibility in the three cell types tested – skin fibroblasts, lymphocytes, and monocytes – compared to the unedited control calf.
When exposed to the BVD virus via the live PI calf, both study calves ran a fever, but the edited calf did not exhibit the additional symptoms displayed by the control calf, which included cough, rhinitis, and redness and chafing around the nostrils. BVDV viremia was detected in the blood of both animals, but lasted 28 days in the control calf and only 3 days in the edited calf, which also displayed a significantly lower level of total infection load.
At age 20 months, the edited calf was healthy and thriving, and displayed no “off-target” (unintended) gene edits as a result of the on-target edit.

Overall, the study showed that the gene editing measure did not make the calf entirely immune to BVDV, but did significantly improve the calf’s ability to withstand the viral challenge. The commercial application of such technology is yet to evolve, as this is the very first “proof of concept” study evaluating the practice of gene editing to build BVDV resistance.

But the researchers pointed out that the ability to aid cattle in resisting BVDV has potentially far-reaching implications. Animal health and welfare could be improved and production losses minimized. In addition, the procedure could reduce the use of antibiotics in food animal production because BVDV often leads to secondary infections that require antibiotic therapy.

The study also is the first to prove the ability of gene editing reduce the impact of a viral disease in general. As more work is done, the procedure could potentially be replicated to minimize other viral diseases as well.

For more on herd health, read:

How to Increase the Marketability of Beef-on-Dairy Calves

Tue, 16 Jan 2024 14:00:00 GMT

Many farms have become more innovative over the past few years by implementing beef genetics into their breeding programs. There have been two main advantages to adopting beef on dairy: management of replacement numbers and increased market value of the calves leaving the farm. A Wisconsin study found that 65% of the farmers surveyed sell their dairy beef crosses within the first week of birth, while 12.5% raised them to finish. No matter when beef cross calves are being marketed, steps can be taken to make them more marketable.

Don’t Skip Day One of Calf Care

The calves are not staying on the farm, but they should be treated like any other replacement animal. Dip navels with 7% iodine, administer proper vaccinations, and feed high-quality colostrum. Colostrum should be greater than 50 IgG to be considered high quality. Some farms have concerns about using their high quality colostrum on calves that may leave the farm. Many farms have had luck keeping their colostrum stocked by saving 50 to 70 lgG colostrum for market calves and greater than 70 for replacement heifers. Just like with replacement heifers, ensure colostrum is fed within a couple of hours of birth.

Track Calf Growth

For those marketing weaned calves, track average daily gain. Calves should have an average daily gain of approximately 1.5 lbs per day or double their birth weight by 8 weeks of age. Tracking weights weekly by using a weigh tape or portable scale will help determine whether these goals will be met. Collecting calf weights will also help determine when to vaccinate. Respiratory vaccinations should be given between 400 and 500 pounds. Ensure vaccinations are given at least two weeks before being transported from the farm.

Keep Health Records

Health records are extremely important when selling calves to a private buyer or through a contract. No matter what age the calves are marketed, buyers want to see that the calves are well cared for. Keep track of and provide vaccination and processing records. Signs of navel infections and respiratory disease will decrease the calf’s value. By collecting passive transfer for each calf, the farm can prove that the calves were given high-quality colostrum to set them up for future success. Being able to prove that providing the buyer with healthy calves by providing health records and sound calves will make your calves more marketable.

For more on beef-on-dairy, read:

Nine Ways to Help Resuscitate A Newborn Calf

Tue, 21 Nov 2023 21:05:28 GMT

The first sign of trouble Dr. Andrew Dann saw was the Holstein calf he was pulling was backward. The Attica, N.Y., dairy practitioner says in any dystocia scenario like that he anticipates needing to resuscitate the calf upon arrival.

“Breech calves, oversized calves, backward calves, I’m always thinking they’re probably going to need some help to get going,” he says.

Fortunately, the calf responded well to Dann’s intervention and lived. He estimates more than 50% of the calves he resuscitates do survive, with the overall success rate varying depending upon on the type of calving situation he encounters.

Dann and other bovine veterinarians recently shared some of the practices they routinely use when newborn calves need help at birth.

Here are nine practices for your consideration:

1. ASSESS THE CALF AT DELIVERY. “As a practitioner, one of our jobs is to help educate our clients so they know what’s normal for a calf at delivery and what’s not,” says Dr. Geof Smith, dairy technical services veterinarian for Zoetis. He addressed the topic of resuscitating calves at the 2022 American Association of Bovine Practitioners annual conference.

(Farm Journal)

“After a typical birth the calf should breathe within 30 seconds of delivery, be capable of lifting its head within 3 minutes, sitting up on its own within 5 minutes, and should be trying to stand after 20 minutes,” he says. “After an hour the calf should be standing (Table 1).”

Calves in distress won’t stand or stand for very long. They won’t nurse well, and will have decreased efficiency in absorbing immunoglobulins.

Other signs of newborn calf stress can include irregular breathing, hemorrhages or red spots in the eye, cyanotic or blue mucous membranes, and a swollen tongue or head.

To better assess calves born during difficult circumstances, a Calf VIGOR Scorer (originally developed by the University of Guelph) is available for iPhone from the University of Wisconsin-Madison at the App Store for $2.99. Smith says the system is similar to an Apgar scoring system used to assess newborn human infants.

2. CLEAR AIR PASSAGES. Check the calf’s nostrils and mouth and remove fluid or mucus using your hand, a suction bulb or even a turkey baster.

“I have one client who has high-dollar embryo calves, and they keep an oxygen tank with a cup mask at the ready when a calf’s born to help it breathe,” Dann says. “They put the mask over the calf’s snout, and it gets a dose of pure oxygen. That has helped tremendously at times.”

If a calf isn’t breathing upon arrival but has a heartbeat, Dann says it is still a good candidate for resuscitation.

3. PUT THE CALF IN STERNAL RECUMBENCY. “Position the calf with their legs underneath them,” Dann advises. “If available, get a couple bales of hay or straw and put one on each side of the calf to prop it into an upright position, so it’s not leaning to one side or the other.”

Don’t leave the calf on its side, which prevents both lungs from inflating uniformly. By getting the animal into an upright position, the calf will be able to expand both lungs more readily as it breathes.

Likewise, don’t hang a calf upside down or over a gate. “These calves have to generate pretty significant negative pressure to expand their alveoli and open up their lungs,” Smith says. “If you want to pick it up for 30 seconds and put it back down, I don’t have a major problem with that. But we definitely don’t need to be hanging these calves upside down for a long time. They cannot expand their lungs when they’re upside down.”

“That can cause too much cranial pressure in the calf’s head and potentially decrease oxygen flow to the brain,” Dann adds.

4. USE A STIMULUS. Dann’s go-to practice is to pour a small amount of cold tap water in one ear.

“That activates neurons and stimulates a calf’s gasp reflex,” he says. “It annoys them, and they’ll shake their head. That’s what you want to see.”

Dann cautions against drenching the calf with water, which can lower its body temperature or even make it more prone to hypothermia.

“I’m using a small amount of water, probably 100 milliliters,” he says.

(Farm Journal)

Some practitioners and producers use straw to tickle the calf’s nostrils to elicit a response, but Dann is reluctant to recommend the practice. “I’m not entirely against this, but you could potentially damage the nostril,” he explains. “A little cold water in the ear is, I believe, a better way to go and has no negative repercussions.”

The use of caffeine is another way Smith says he has seen a stimulant used successfully to help resuscitate calves. “One of the things that caffeine will do is clear adenosine and stimulate respiration,” he says, noting that one caffeine source he sees some dairy farms use is 5-Hour Energy.

5. MECHANICAL VENTILATION OPTIONS. Mechanical ventilation has been shown to effectively ventilate calves in the short-term (Front Vet Science 2018; 5:292). Smith says intubation would be the gold standard but is rarely possible to use in the field. Likewise, he says nose-to-nose or nose-to-mouth are unlikely to be effective.

His recommendation, if you resuscitate calves frequently, is to consider purchasing a resuscitating kit. McCulloch markets one for about $140.

One caution, Smith adds, is sometimes mechanical ventilation will contribute to air winding up in the esophagus and abomasum, and it doesn’t protect the calf trachea.

6. CONSIDER ADMINISTERING MEDICATION. Certain prescription medications such as doxapram may also be used to stimulate respiration, although severely affected calves do not always respond to it.

Smith says minimum data is available but the use of doxapram at 2 mg/kg, IV has a potent stimulating action on the respiratory center. He often recommends it in calves that have severe depression from xylazine (Vet Med Rev 1981; 1:70-74).

Dann often administers a dose of epinephrine, which he says can help open the airway and encourage the calf’s lungs to expand.

7. STIMULATE BLOOD FLOW MANUALLY, IF NECESSARY. Most cows, given the opportunity, will lick and clean their calves upon arrival. You can mimic the dam by using towels to rub and clean the calf.

Sometimes, Dann says he will encounter a beef cow that is disinterested in her offspring. In those situations, Dann says his clients sometimes pour cornmeal across the calf’s back to entice the cow to lick her calf.

8. ADDRESS PAIN CONTROL NEEDS IN THE DAM AND NEWBORN. Dystocia is likely painful for both the cow and her calf. “Calves often have significant muscle bruising, and I believe rib fractures occur more frequently than we might suspect,” Smith says. He references a recent study conducted in Japan that showed approximately 20% of calves born via assisted delivery there had rib fractures (Japan Vet Med Assoc 2021; 74:181-185).

When calves were administered 1 ml of injectable meloxicam, they recovered better after dystocia and gained more weight during the first weeks of life (Bovine Practitioner 2015; 49:1-12).

(Farm Journal)

9. MONITOR AND MANAGE THE CALF. Smith encourages practitioners to help educate producers and their employees on how to assess when a calf needs assistance at birth and when to allow Mother Nature to continue guiding the process (Table 3).

“I think calving management skills are really critical,” Smith says. “If we as veterinarians work on our skills with resuscitation and try to teach those to our producers, we can really improve calf wellness and vitality in the first few hours and days of life.”

Beef Calf Vigor Assessment Shows Importance of Suckle Reflex

When You See Blood in Scours

Keeping Up with Navel Infections

New Lidocaine-Infused Band Reduces Castration Pain, Discomfort

Wed, 27 Sep 2023 16:14:45 GMT

The use of heavy, elastic bands for castration is a practice long employed in the production and management of beef and dairy calves and lambs.

Now, an innovative tool called Lidoband is available to help veterinarians, livestock producers and managers in the United States and Canada address the need for castration while significantly reducing any associated pain and discomfort in the process.

Lidoband, from Solvet, is a novel, lidocaine-impregnated latex band approved for use in calves under 250 pounds and in lambs under 50 pounds.

The new, one-step tool is helping revolutionize what is a standard castration practice in the livestock industry, says Steve Schram, a pharmaceuticals marketing executive and spokesman for the company.

“This is a groundbreaking tool that’s helping veterinarians and producers address an unmet need, both current and future animal welfare requirements, while keeping calves and lambs safe and healthy in the process,” Schram says.

Long-Term Pain Relief
Castration, a common practice in the livestock industry, is a necessary management practice to control reproduction, manage animal temperament and behavior, improve meat quality and ensure proper herd management.

In the process, Lidoband provides a local, soothing anesthesia to the application area, according to Lionel Gibbs, Solvet chief executive officer.

“Each band is infused with 80 milligrams of lidocaine and stops the pain and discomfort associated with banding,” Gibbs says. “It’s a slow-release product that doesn’t go systemic; it stays in the local tissue and works for up to 42 days.”

The length of pain relief provided to the animal is critical. The banded castration process in beef and dairy calves, for example, commonly requires three to six weeks before the testes are sloughed off. In the United States alone, an estimated 15 million bovine castration procedures are performed each year.¹

“Along with reducing pain, a benefit of using Lidoband is the area around the scrotum stays very clean. There’s no flaky, scabby problem, and that’s a valuable byproduct of using it,” Gibbs adds.

Animal Well-Being Benefits
Schram notes that Lidoband is revolutionary in addressing the long-time unmet need to reduce the pain associated with castration by banding, as the only pain-relief options available until now were to use an oral or injectable product.

“Addressing and eliminating pain are the right things to do, and this is a tool veterinarians can use to educate producers who were unaware or knew little about the pain associated with the practice of banding,” he says.

Lidoband is available for purchase over-the-counter through traditional distribution channels, including various farm supply stores.

Schram says there is little to no need to come into contact with the product during application as each band is individually packaged in a foil-sealed blister and can be used with most commercial elastrator applicators (not included).

“But as a standard precaution the company recommends using latex gloves during administration,” he adds.

Looking ahead, Gibbs says Solvet is finalizing the development of a new version of Lidoband that will be suited for use with larger animals in the livestock industry.

Sources

1. Coetzee J.F., Nutsch A.L., Barbur L.A., Bradburn R.M. A survey of castration methods and associated livestock management practices performed by bovine veterinarians in the United States. BMC Vet. Res. 2010;6:12. doi: 10.1186/1746-6148-6-12.

Here’s Why Cows Produce Less Colostrum During the Fall and Winter

Wed, 04 Jan 2023 21:15:09 GMT

When a cow freshens during the fall or winter, have you noticed that she tends to produce less colostrum than her herd mates who calved during the spring and summer? It’s not a coincidence, yet little is known as to why this phenomenon occurs. Recent research, however, is shedding a little more ‘light’ on the situation.

A study by Gavin and colleagues conducted on a Texas dairy herd evaluated the colostrum production and quality of 2,988 Jersey cows during a year to assess possible effects of photoperiod, temperature, and cow factors on colostrum production. The average colostrum production for the herd stood at 9.4 lb. with a range of 0 to 58.4 lb. produced.

The research team noted a considerable variation in colostrum production throughout the year, with average colostrum production of 14.5 lbs. in June, 5.5 lbs. in January, and 10.6 lbs. in May. They also observed that cows with more than one lactation had a more significant decline in colostrum production from June to December, on average, compared to first lactation heifers, with 35% of them producing no colostrum in December compared to 1% of the first lactation heifers.

It was discovered that an animal’s photoperiod, also known as the amount of time a cow receives light, was the main factor that affected colostrum production. They observed that longer sunlight duration 21 days before and at calving day strongly correlated with greater colostrum yield.

A similar study conducted in Michigan found corresponding results. The study, which was conducted by Rossi and co-authors, evaluated three commercial Michigan dairy farms. It was observed that the lowest colostrum yield was produced during winter (4.5 quarts) by cows milked within 6 hours after calving when compared to the other seasons (5.7, 6.2, 5.7 quarts of colostrum during spring, summer, and fall, respectively).

While there’s no known way to prevent this season depression in colostrum yield, there are tactics farmers can take to help combat it. Banking additional high-quality colostrum during the spring and summer months can help farmers get through periods of lower colostrum production, along with the use of colostrum replacement packets when necessary.

For more on calf management, read:

Online Modules Now Available for Calf Care and Quality Assurance Program

Wed, 11 May 2022 15:39:42 GMT

Farmers and ranchers raising calves now have access to the free Calf Care and Quality Assurance (CCQA) program online at www.calfcareqa.org . CCQA promotes a way of thinking that prompts calf raisers to approach management decisions with thoughtfulness and an appreciation for the responsibility they have to their animals, consumers, the environment and the broader cattle industry in the United States.

“Healthy calves are the cornerstone of every beef, dairy and veal facility,” said Trey Patterson, Wyoming rancher and chair of the Beef Quality Assurance Advisory Group. “Committing to calf health management is the right thing to do for calves, producers and consumers, and completing CCQA’s online modules is an easy way to demonstrate that commitment.”

The program was developed with an understanding of the diversity of calf-raising enterprises, being science and outcomes based while maintaining facility type and size neutrality. While the practices identified in the animal care reference manual are not the only practices that can meet the desired outcomes, the program provides a framework that serves as a resource for anyone working in the calf-raising industry. In addition to the manual, online modules and self-assessment tools, CCQA will release an audit tool later this year. Completion of the CCQA online modules provides certification equivalent to Beef Quality Assurance certification.

Certification through CCQA helps ensure optimal calf health and welfare and is the first, collaborative educational tool that provides guidelines for calf raisers. The CCQA program is a joint initiative led by NCBA’s Beef Checkoff-funded Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) program and the National Dairy Farmers Assuring Responsible Management (FARM) program, managed by the National Milk Producer’s Federation (NMPF) with support from the Dairy Calf and Heifer Association, and the Beef Checkoff-funded Veal Quality Assurance (VQA) program.

“Certification programs such as CCQA establish guidelines and standards that help earn the public’s trust, demonstrating that beef and dairy producers share their values and are committed not only to quality animal care, but also to ensuring safe, wholesome meat and milk,” said Patterson.

For more information, visit www.calfcareqa.org .

The Secret to Raising Dairy Beef Profitably

Thu, 03 Feb 2022 19:03:11 GMT

The secret to raising high quality dairy beef at a profit is really no secret at all: It just requires top management throughout the steer’s life cycle and consistent forward contracting to mitigate market risk.

Dairy beef now makes up about 20% of the fed cattle market. That’s up almost four-fold in less than a decade, says Tara Felix, an Extension beef specialist with Pennsylvania State University. There’s a couple of reason for that: 1) Veal consumption has plummeted in the last 50 years. Male dairy calves no longer used for veal had to go somewhere, and that somewhere was the feedlot. 2) A major drought four years ago meant far fewer “native” cattle were being raised, which meant Holstein steers made a larger and larger percentage of the fed cattle market.

Pennsylvania farmers are looking to capitalize on these trends. But the stigma against Holstein steers is they have poor feed:gain ratios, take too long to grow and don’t grade as well native cattle. Some or all of that can be true if they’re mismanaged, says Felix. But her two years of feeding trials with Holsteins, and a third on-going, suggests dairy steers can be a profitable enterprise, she says.

One of the first lessons Felix tries to teach newbie dairy beef feeders is that cattle raised for beef need grain, not forage. “I discourage my producers from thinking that forage is their cheapest diet,” she says. “You don’t want to finish these cattle at 24 or 25 months. We want them on grain early to encourage lean tissue growth rather than bone and frame growth.”

It’s also critical that the same care given to dairy heifer calves be given to steers fed for dairy beef. “We need the same care with steers as with heifers, meaning high-quality colostrum is given at birth,” she says. And she encourages early grain feeding—as early as day 3—to encourage rumen development. Once weaned, steer calves can be comingled in the feedlot.

In her first year’s trial, 44 Holstein steers from a single source were placed on feed April 1 averaging 546 lb at 9 months. These calves had received a Ralgro implant two months earlier, and were already consuming 10 lb of grain/head. They were transitioned to a diet of corn, silage, distillers dried grain with solubles (DDGS) and minerals. Over the 209-day feeding period, they consumed roughly 20 lb of corn and 4 lb of DDGS per head daily.

They were again implanted 28 days after arrival with Encore, a mild, long-duration implant labeled for up to 400 days. “However, we also chose to re-implant these calves again with a terminal implant 133 days later (Component TE-S),” says Felix. That was done to sustain average daily gains through 209 days.

It worked. “As a group, the calves gained 3.96 lb/day (without shrink) for the entire duration of the demonstration,” she says. These gains led to a feed-to-gain conversion ratio of 7:1. The cattle averaged 1,343 lb +/- 130 lb at finish and carcasses ranged from 677 to 861 lb. All cattle were USDA Yield Grade 1 to 3. Rib eye areas averaged 12.3 square inches for the entire group.

The cost per day to feed, implant and house the steers were $2.95/steer. “Because the cattle were bought by JBS when the market was on an upswing at $1.50/lb and sold on a downswing at 97¢/lb, the 44 steers on this demonstration did lose approximately $188/head,” says Felix. “However, had these calves been contracted in April (when they were purchased) at $1.11, they would have broken even…. These calves out-performed our expectations, but they could not out-perform the markets,” she says.

In the second year of trial, calves were split into two groups upon feedlot entry, with half the calves receiving two implants (Component E-s on Day O followed by Component TE-S on day 116) while the other half received none. Steers receiving implants gained a half pound more per day than those which did not. Because the steers were housed in the same pen, feed intakes for each of the two groups could not be measured.

The steers that received implants finished at an average of 1,371 lb +/- 144 lb while the steers that did not receive implants finished out weighing 1,282 lb +/- 79 lb. The steers receiving the implants graded lower, with one grading prime, 10 choice, 7 select and 2 standard. Those that didn’t receive implants had 1 grade prime, 14 choice, 4 select and none standard.

Felix notes that cattle treated with implants were given them on Day 0 of feedlot entry. “In an ideal setting, steers would be brought up to full grain intake to ensure quality grade was not affected,” she says. Still, assuming similar feed conversion, the implanted steers netted $60 more per head then their non-implanted pen mates.

Felix says she learned a couple of things from the trials. First, if producers aren’t using implants, they may be leaving dollars in the feedlot by not doing so. “The use of implants is critical for Holsteins to get their ribeyes to look more like beef ribeyes,” she says. “And you need the final implant because you need that final push for Holstein steers to finish.

“By coupling excellent nutrition with current technologies, producing beef with Holsteins can be a profitable enterprise,” Felix concludes.

“Black” is Not the Only Goal in Beef-on-dairy Breeding

Thu, 03 Feb 2022 19:00:34 GMT

If the dairy industry wants the beef business to embrace beef-on-dairy crossbreds long-term, we need to up our genetic selection game, according to Denise Schwab, Extension Beef Specialist for Iowa State University.

Schwab advised producers at Iowa State’s recent Midwest Dairy & Beef Day that beef-on-dairy breeding decisions need to be made with the same precision they devote to genetic selection for dairy replacement females. “It’s not likely you tell your semen rep, ‘Just give me Holstein semen that’s cheap,’” she stated. “Yet that’s what’s happening with a lot of beef-on-dairy breeding right now. We need to aim for more than just a black calf.”

Unfortunately, many of the dairy-beef crosses today are simply “black Holsteins,” with similar frame characteristics to full-blood dairy animals. “If you’re going to do that, you might as well just produce Holstein steers, because at least there is a specific market for them,” said Schwab. “The tall, black crossbreds don’t fit well into any production or marketing system.”

Many producers aim for black animals so they can qualify for Certified Angus Beef (CAB) premiums. But Schwab noted CAB quality standards specify details that a “black Holstein” animal probably won’t achieve, like 1,050-pound-or-less hot carcass weight, and superior muscling.

And while she is sympathetic to today’s economic conditions that can generate around $100 per head for “any” black calf versus about $30 for a Holstein, she is wary of long-term consequences. “If we flood the market with undesirable animals, that premium will be short-lived,” she stated. “I want to protect that value so we can continue capturing more dollars 3, 5 and 10 years down the road.”

To do so, she suggested focusing on the following characteristics when selecting beef sires to cross with Holsteins:

Breed – The natural inclination may be to reach for Angus semen to produce black calves. But the Angus breed has the largest beef registry in the country, which means it also has the greatest variability. Surprisingly, Angus also now has the highest hot carcass weight of the major beef breeds, which means a Holstein X Angus cross may very well be duplicating frame size. “Think specifically of the bull, not just the breed,” advised Schwab.
Frame size – To develop more compact animals that feed and finish more efficiently, Schwab suggested choosing moderately sized bulls, with frame scores of 5 or under.
Ribeye area – Holsteins tend to marble very well and can have excellent quality grades, but also have elongated, less-desirably-shaped ribeyes. “Select beef sires with ribeye EPDs in the top 25 percentile of the breed,because there is a high correlation between ribeye size and shape,” advised Schwab.
Muscling – Holsteins have a lower muscle-to-bone ratio, so choose bulls with higher muscle scores to enhance the beef composition characteristics – in terms of muscle size and shape -- of the offspring.
Calving ease – While selecting for moderately sized calves is a common decision, Schwab said it actually is less of a concern in beef-on-dairy breeding. “Most Holstein cows easily can lie down and have a 100-pound calf,” she stated. “You don’t need to choose from the top 10% of calving ease beef sires. The top 30-50% is a very reasonable range.”

Finally, Schwab noted beef sires should be one strategic element of a herd’s total genetic plan, and not just “cow fresheners” for repeat-service dams. “The fertility of beef sires is no better than dairy bulls, so beef breeding should not be viewed as a ‘service of last resort,’” advised Schwab.

Rather, she said carefully selected beef sires should be mated with dams based on pre-established criteria, such as genomic testing results, parity or genetic merit – with the overall quality and yield of a finished market animal in mind.

New Calf Care & Quality Assurance Program Launched

Wed, 24 Mar 2021 18:23:55 GMT

The U.S. calf-raising sector now has a program to help ensure optimal calf health and welfare via the Calf Care & Quality Assurance (CCQA) program. CCQA is the first, collaborative educational tool that provides guidelines for calf raisers. The CCQA program is a joint initiative led by NCBA’s Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) program, funded by the Beef Checkoff, and the National Dairy Farmers Assuring Responsible Management (FARM) program, managed by the National Milk Producer’s Federation (NMPF) with support from the Dairy Calf and Heifer Association, and the Beef Checkoff-funded Veal Quality Assurance (VQA) program.

“The Calf Care & Quality Assurance program not only exists to support calf raisers, but it helps the consumer understand the attention given to calves, as well,” said Dr. Brett Boyum, Dairy Production Veterinarian for Riverview, LLP and member of the CCQA task force. “Ultimately, the consumer should feel good about knowing that calf-raisers sites following this program will be raising their calves in a responsible manner with their health and welfare as the top priority.”

A reference manual sets the foundation for the CCQA program. The program has been developed understanding the diversity of calf-raising enterprises, being science and outcomes based while maintaining facility type and size neutrality. While the practices identified in the manual are not the only practices that can meet the desired outcomes, the program provides a framework that will serve as great resource for anyone working in the calf-raising industry. In addition to the manual, the CCQA program will roll out producer-focused training modules that will certify producers in the principles of excellent calf care highlighted throughout the manual later in 2021.

“This program represents a leading industry collaboration FOR the calf. It’s an impressive achievement to bring representatives from BQA, FARM, DCHA and VQA together to actively challenge and establish guidelines and standards that align with the values, commitment and passion of calf raisers, shared Stuart Hall, MRCVS, California dairy farmer and task force member. “It’s this passion for calf health and well-being that I plan to nurture using the CCQA manual as an educational tool and reference to challenge our practices and optimize our outcomes for the calf. I think we can all be proud of what we do and why we do it and confidently communicate this with the consumer.”

To learn more about The Calf Care & Quality Assurance (CCQA), please go to: calfcareqa.org.

Jared Wareham: The Rapidly Evolving Beef-On-Dairy Segment

Tue, 16 Feb 2021 17:10:15 GMT

Our industry, like all others, is rarely stifled and free from the constant forces of change. Most are hardly felt and tend to pass unnoticed. Occasionally, conditions exist for conceivable game-changing evolutions to be championed. The rapidly evolving beef-on-dairy segment has an opportunity to be the next major example our industry experiences.

Supply chain development has long been an important component within most infrastructures developed for merchandising goods. The beef industry is migrating that direction faster than most think. The dairy industry represents the potential conduit for beef supplies to migrate that much faster. The innate qualities that already exist with dairies and calf ranches, will only enhance further development with these siloed infrastructures.

Dairy females are so tightly bred that consistency and predictability within beef-sired feeder groups will be substantially greater than those in the average beef herd. In addition to the ability to integrate swift genetic change, dairies offer an infrastructure that can facilitate traceability, as well as entire bundles of cattle programing seamlessly. More often than not, this type of logistical “value-add” presents a much greater challenge for the average commercial beef ranch due to a variety of reasons.

The resulting feeder cattle populations can be fairly profitable with a much larger percentage finding its way into high-end retail and food service channels than you realize. Efforts, years in the making, are yielding refined lists of specific beef sires that ideally match Holstein performance and carcass deficiencies. This factor, however, presents the one glaring issue within the beef on dairy segment.

The difference in value between genetically superior beef-sired dairy feeders from those spawned by inferior beef bulls is substantial. The difference is so drastic that poor-quality, beef-sired dairy steers are often more costly to feed and harvest than straight-bred Holsteins. With the well-documented current economic struggles in the dairy segment, the opportunities abound to cut corners to simply make any old solid colored Angus-sired calf as cheaply as one can. Look for fail-safe measures to counteract these “dirty Holsteins” to hastily gain steam.

Finally, as male sexed semen technology advances, its ability to consistently deliver populations of steer calves will only enhance the impact these ready-made supply chains can have. Increasing steer populations by 15% to 20% over the less valuable heifers will most likely be a reality sooner rather than later. Inserting this type of advantage into vertically integrated supply systems will further enhance their industrial and economic efficiencies.
Once firmly established and regulated for counterfeit genetics, beef-on-dairy supply chains could put tremendous pressure on both commodity and premium beef channels. I have heard estimates that as many as 1.5 million head of additional beef sired dairy feeders are expected to be born in the next 18 to 20 months. This might very well be the first opportunity our industry has seen for real large-scale supply chains to be cultivated. When the potential exists for change of this size and scope to occur, it deserves our collective attention.

What’s Next for Animal Activism in 2021 and What Can We Do About It?

Fri, 18 Dec 2020 21:14:41 GMT

By Hannah Thompson-Weeman, Animal Agriculture Alliance

2020 has taken me so off guard that I am a little hesitant to even attempt to look into my crystal ball and make predictions for 2021. A year ago, I certainly would not have guessed that events and travel would come to a halt in March or that phrases like “mask up” or “social distancing” would be part of our daily conversations. As much as the past year has shown us that being flexible and adaptable is just as valuable as having thorough predictions and plans, I still believe there is merit to taking a moment to reflect on some of the trends we’ve seen this past year and consider how they may impact us moving forward.

The Animal Ag Alliance has remained focused on monitoring animal rights activism this year, and activist groups have not skipped a beat in their efforts to damage the reputation of animal agriculture. Some organizations believe the COVID-19 pandemic is the “tipping point” they need for their messages to go mainstream, and that concept combined with activists trying to take advantage of a new incoming administration means that 2021 could be an even more intense year for activism.

I think we should all be preparing for a few continued trends:

• Activist messaging involving public health and animal agriculture. Activist groups have long claimed that animal agriculture is a threat to public health and the COVID-19 pandemic has added fuel to that fire (despite there not really being any merit to attempting to tie the current outbreak to food production). Unfortunately, this narrative seems to be gaining steam with calls to “reform the food system” to prevent future pandemics. I think we are going to see more and more references to farms as “breeding grounds” for future disease outbreaks and should be focused on debunking that narrative.

• Renewed focus on sustainability. Conversations about the environmental impact of animal agriculture took a backseat for much of 2020, but in the past few months that discussion is heating back up. Restaurant chains like Panera and Chipotle have announced new labeling programs to communicate the environmental footprint of their menu options and we’re starting to hear more about the UN Food Systems Summit coming up in 2021 with an action track focused on “shifting to sustainable consumption patterns.” The animal agriculture community will need to make sure we’re continuing to communicate about our sustainability efforts as we settle into the “new normal.”

• Large-scale protests and demonstrations, including at private homes. Activist groups seem to be upping the ante in terms of protests this year, likely believing that they need to be more and more extreme to get attention. We’ve seen continued protests (despite restrictions on gatherings) everywhere from farms and plants to public health offices, with some involving trespassing and interfering with daily operations. Animal rights activist organizations have also held several protests at the private homes of animal agriculture company and organization leaders, which is a troubling new trend. These continued incidents illustrate that we cannot let farm security slip down our priority list in 2021.

Despite whatever challenges 2021 may bring, know that the Alliance team is here and has your back. Happy New Year!

Read more from Hannah Thompson-Weeman:

Things Animal Rights Activists Say: 2020 Edition

Activists Set Sights on 4-H and FFA Despite Fewer Fairs

Communication Strategy is Critical Part of Crisis Planning

Election 2020: The Upside for Agriculture

Fri, 13 Nov 2020 02:32:11 GMT

Will you be voting policy or personality this election? As Chip Flory said on AgriTalk, there’s a big separation among farm and ranch voters between policy and personality this election, and farmers and ranchers are looking at policy.

According to the latest Farm Journal Pulse Poll, 85% of ag respondents plan to vote to re-elect President Donald Trump.

Regardless of the election outcome, Pro Farmer’s Jim Wiesemeyer and Farm Journal’s John Herath say there are potential positives and negatives for agriculture in either a Trump or Biden presidency. They shared their thoughts in the DC Signal to Noise Podcast on Friday.

“There are pluses and minuses with each candidate, whether he or she be at the presidential level, representative level or the senate level,” Wiesemeyer says. “And that’s what elections are all about.”

As an analyst and reporter, Wiesemeyer tries to connect dots as far as where things may go relative to policy in the agribusiness sector. Some believe that ag-related programs shouldn’t discuss politics, but both Herath and Wiesemeyer argue policy is critical in the business of agriculture.

“What both frustrates and amuses me as analysts, is that if we say that something Trump did was a beneficial move for him, all of a sudden, it’s ‘Oh, you’re just promoting Trump.’ Or if we say something was positive or negative for Biden, we’ll get the same kind of reaction,” Herath points out. “It’s like, ‘No, we’re not saying that. We’re just saying that this particular instance of this particular move was either beneficial or not beneficial to their campaign.”

Wins for Agriculture
The overall ideology of the two political parties are undeniably different when it comes to agriculture. However, Herath says it’s important to highlight that there are wins for agriculture, no matter if Trump wins or if Biden wins.

• Climate Change: The parties will have major difference of opinions relative to how they will implement any climate change provisions, Wiesemeyer says.

“I think that really plays into the next revenue stream for agriculture that I actually see bipartisan support for,” he says. “Because eliminating CO2 emissions on the one hand, could result in regulations that are costly for producers to meet – driving up cost in a very energy-intensive sector.”

But on the flip side, the revenue-generating side is that for carbon credits and other things that agriculture can contribute, to get a revenue stream in place to offset the costs.

• Trade Policy: Wiesemeyer thinks Biden would be very cautious his first year or so on trade policy, very similar to Trump with the exception Biden would be far more positive relative to the World Trade Organization in wanting to get back into its good graces.

“I know that he eventually wants to get back into the Trans-Pacific Partnership, now called the CPTPP,” Wiesemeyer says.

However, Wiesemeyer says they are very similar regarding China – the one exception being Biden consistently says he wants to consult more with allies, whereas Trump says both Republican and Democrat administration in the past tried that and it failed. Wiesemeyer doesn’t see that changing.

• Tax Policy: When it comes to tax policy, he believes Trump would want to at least propose further tax cuts and zeroing in on the middle-class sector this time.

“If Biden were to win, and Congress is Democrat in tone, you would see an increase in corporate taxes, capital gains taxes that would impact more than a few farmers and possible changes in estate taxes relative to lower exemptions and the basis more along the lines of capital gains taxes,” Wiesemeyer says.

• Farm Policy: It all depends on who becomes the Senate and House Ag Committee Chairman because they really write the Farm Bill, Wiesemeyer says.

“Who’s going to lead the Senate Ag Committee – will it be John Bozeman from Arkansas, who would take over from Pat Roberts because he’s retiring, if the Republicans keep control of the Senate? If not, then it’s back to Debbie Stabenow, a Democrat from Michigan, and she’s a known commodity. But what a difference.

“Stabenow is known for changing farm policy relative to more urban agriculture, specialty crops, etc. She’s not nearly as southern-oriented in her focus – that’s an understatement there. Bozeman says he wants to start the debate of the Farm Bill next year, but he doesn’t want to rewrite it next year, because it just takes time.”

Who’s in Control?
Regardless of who wins the election, who controls the Senate is going to be very important for either Trump or Biden. What the president can do will largely be dictated by which party controls the chambers in Congress, especially the Senate.

“Their policies have to be approved. And even if the Democrats were to regain the Senate, by what margin? Margin is going to be very important in the Senate, especially for Biden. We know that a 50/50 vote, the Vice President breaks ties, but even with a 51/49 or a 52/48, Biden may still have trouble because there’s going to be a couple of moderate Democrats in the Senate that may not like some of the proposals coming out from the more left wing of the Democratic Party,” Wiesemeyer says.

Election-Night Coverage
Pro Farmer is teaming up with AgWeb and AgriTalk and a few guest commentators to participate in a live streaming commentary on Election Night beginning at 9 p.m. CT on what is known and not known about ballot results. The live stream will be available on both AgWeb.com and ProFarmer.com .

To prepare for the myriad number of races, we have put together some “dashboard” graphics and information detailing key issues and races for the White House, Senate and House. The following are links to those pdf documents, which will be updated as new information becomes available.

Link to White House race

Link to Senate races

Link to House races

U.S. Cattle Industry Faces Emergence of its Own Novel Virus

Fri, 13 Nov 2020 02:31:30 GMT

As if one novel virus wasn’t enough to dominate the headlines and shake up daily habits in modern times, another novel virus recently has emerged in the United States. But unlike COVID-19, this virus primarily infects cattle.

Bovine kobuvirus, or BKV, was identified for the first time in the U.S. by researchers at the University of Illinois in 2019. The virus initially was discovered in Japan in 2003, and since then has been found in eight other countries around the world, including Thailand, Hungary, the Netherlands, South Korea, Italy, Brazil, China and Egypt.

Dr. Leyi Wang, veterinary clinical medical professor at the University of Illinois, and his team discovered the virus in a fecal sample a calf less than 2 weeks old that was submitted to university’s Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory to test for enteric pathogens. Results of tests for rotavirus, coronavirus, cryptosporidium, and E. coli all were positive. The sample was negative for salmonella.

Using next-generation sequencing technology, the researchers extracted DNA from the sample and found that it closely matched the gene sequences of four bovine kobuvirus strains. The group went on to identify BKV in the intestines of two additional calves that died with diarrhea, along with two more that died of other gastro-intestinal issues, but did not have diarrhea. Wang noted that kobuvirus also can be detected in cattle without diarrhea or other clinical signs of the virus.

While there is not yet direct evidence that proves KBV causes diarrhea in calves, Wang said data from previous studies and his own team’s work suggests that to be the case. He also suspects the virus is highly prevalent in U.S. cattle herds but has been transmitted undetected, largely because virtually no one in North America is looking for it. Global studies suggest endemic prevalence of BKV. One study in Brazil showed the virus was present in 20.9% of calves less than two months of age. Another in South Korea revealed 26.7% of calves less than a month old carried BKV.

Bovine kobuvirus belongs to a family of viruses known as Picornaviradae. This virus family also includes Rhinovirus, which causes head colds and sinus infections in humans; and Poliovirus, which causes polio. It presently is not known whether or not BKV is a zoonotic organism that can pass between animals and humans.

Currently there is no treatment of vaccine for BKV in calves.

Wang emphasized the need for greater diagnostic focus on the disease. “Continued surveillance of bovine kobuvirus is urgently needed to determine how widespread it is,” he stated. “Scientists have access to only a few genetic sequences of this virus in public databases. We need to be sequencing these viruses to learn more about their genetic diversity and evolution.”

Beating Bloat in Calves

Sat, 04 Feb 2017 01:12:00 GMT

Within hours, bloat in dairy calves can go from serious to deadly.

Geof W. Smith, Department of Population Health and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University, says modern dairy practices may contribute to the problem‚Äîespecially as they relate to abomasal emptying and its contributions to bloat.

But the good news? Producers can take steps to reduce the risks and the losses.

Bloat in calves is different from that in cows.

“When adult cows bloat, free gas becomes trapped in the rumen and they become distended on the left side,” Smith says. “Bloat in young calves is caused by excessive gas accumulation in the abomasum.”

Smith says affected calves are often 5 to 10 days old‚Äîsometimes up to 21 days old.

“We see a lot of abomasal bloat, caused by free gas in the abomasum, and often the calves will bloat and die within 12-24 hours,” Smith says. “Many vets call this clostridial bloat, which is caused by a bacterial infection. But in many cases other factors are also involved.”

Smith says more aggressive feeding programs may lead to problems within calves’ digestive systems.

“The dairy industry has moved toward more liberal feeding systems that permit calves to express their genetic potential for growth, reduce age at first calving and improve milk production,” he says. “This trend in calf feeding has many benefits‚Äîand we absolutely are not saying an aggressive feeding plan should be avoided. But it could promote abomasal diseases including bloat.”

The longer the milk or milk replacer stays within the stomach, the more opportunity for bacteria to grow and bloat to develop, Smith says.

Therefore, two factors should be considered when feeding larger volumes to calves: the volume fed at one feeding, and the osmolality or the concentration of particles in a solution.

“We need to pay close attention when mixing milk replacers, to ensure they contain the proper amounts of water,” Smith says. “Cows’ milk normally has an osmolality between 280 and 290 mOsm/L.

However, recent research has shown that calves fed an oral electrolyte solution with high osmolality have a much slower abomasal emptying rate as compared to calves fed a solution with a lower osmolality.”

This high osmolality can delay gastric emptying, leading to increased gas and bloat.

Smith advises producers to avoid feeding milk replacers or oral electrolyte products with an osmolality greater than 600 mOsm/L. A brix refractometer can help to ensure proper osmolality of feedings.

Feeding frequency is also a critical factor in calf digestive health.

“When a producer feeds larger volumes in one feeding, those larger volumes can empty more slowly from the abomasum,” Smith says.

A beef calf will often nurse its mother seven or eight times per day, at 1 or 1 ¬Ω liters per feeding, Smith says.

“Of course, that’s not practical in a dairy system,” he says. So how can a dairy producer continue with a more aggressive feeding program, while maintaining digestive health in calves?

One option, Smith says, is moving from two feedings per day to three.

“Automated feeders can help a producer move to smaller, more-frequent feedings,” Smith says.

As well, during high-stress times of year, one additional feeding per day can help promote greater GI health in calves, he says.

Regardless of the feeding system used, Smith says, consistency is critical.

“Calves do well when the feeding schedule is consistent,” he says. “So feed at the same times each day, and be consistent with the milk or milk replacer used.”

By following these guidelines and keeping abomasal emptying in mind, your calves can experience greater GI health, and hopefully, cases of bloating can be few and far between.