Literature DB >> 30689895

Effect of milk feeding strategy and lactic acid probiotics on growth and behavior of dairy calves fed using an automated feeding system1.

Melissa C Cantor1, Amy L Stanton2, David K Combs3, Joao H C Costa1.   

Abstract

Automated milk feeders offer flexibility to feed calves high milk allowances, to change the daily quantity of milk offered, and also to dispense additives like probiotics on an individual basis. Our objectives were to test the effects of 2 milk feeding protocols and a lactic acid bacterium probiotic on performance and behavior in calves. Heifer dairy calves (n = 96) were enrolled at birth in a 2 × 2 factorial study design comparing feeding (1) 2 milk feeding protocols and (2) a lactic acid bacterium-based probiotic program, or a placebo, using automated milk feeders. The early milk feeding strategy (EM) offered a maximum of 11 L/d on day 1 and a peak maximum allowance of 15 L/d on day 21. The late milk feeding strategy (LM) offered a maximum of 7 L/d on day 1 and increased slowly to its peak at 13 L/d on day 28. Both feeding strategies gradually weaned the calves after peak milk allowance until complete weaning at day 53, offering a total of 543 liters of milk. Probiotics or placebo were fed orally in a gel once after colostrum, and twice daily in the milk until weaning. Water and calf starter were provided ad libitum. The experimental period was divided into 3 periods: from day 1 on the automated feeder to day 28 (Period 1), from day 29 to day 53 (Period 2), and the week post-weaning (Period 3). For Period 1, the average daily gain (ADG) of the probiotic group was greater than that of the placebo group (0.84 ± 0.10 kg/d vs. 0.74 ± 0.10 kg/d, respectively), but was not different between milk feeding strategies. For Period 2, ADG was not affected by probiotic or milk feeding strategies. For Period 3, ADG was greater for EM compared to LM (1.27 ± 0.10 kg/d vs. 1.02 ± 0.10 kg/d, respectively), but not between probiotic and placebo groups. During the whole experimental period, LM calves consumed significantly more milk than the EM calves (431.84 ± 33.0 liters vs. 378.64 ± 34.2 liters, respectively). During Period 3, probiotics affected the frequency of visits to the calf starter feed bunk (37.72 ± 2.8 vs. 23.27 ± 2.8 visits per day for probiotic and placebo groups, respectively), but did not affect total time spent at the feed bunk. The supplementation of a lactic acid-based probiotic improved ADG during early life and altered some aspects of the feeding behavior of dairy calves. Calves receiving an early accelerated milk allowance had improved growth during post-weaning and consumed less milk in total, which may indicate better use of solid feed.
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  accelerated feeding program; animal welfare; group-housing nutrition; probiotic

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30689895      PMCID: PMC6396247          DOI: 10.1093/jas/skz034

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anim Sci        ISSN: 0021-8812            Impact factor:   3.159


  33 in total

Review 1.  Probiotic bacteria and intestinal epithelial barrier function.

Authors:  Christina L Ohland; Wallace K Macnaughton
Journal:  Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol       Date:  2010-03-18       Impact factor: 4.052

2.  Effect of milk replacer program on digestion of nutrients in dairy calves.

Authors:  T M Hill; H G Bateman; J M Aldrich; R L Schlotterbeck
Journal:  J Dairy Sci       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 4.034

3.  Automated measurement of changes in feeding behavior of milk-fed calves associated with illness.

Authors:  T F Borderas; J Rushen; M A G von Keyserlingk; A M B de Passillé
Journal:  J Dairy Sci       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 4.034

4.  Effect of intensified feeding of heifer calves on growth, pubertal age, calving age, milk yield, and economics.

Authors:  L E Davis Rincker; M J Vandehaar; C A Wolf; J S Liesman; L T Chapin; M S Weber Nielsen
Journal:  J Dairy Sci       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 4.034

5.  Technical note: validation of methodology for characterization of feeding behavior in dairy calves.

Authors:  E K Miller-Cushon; T J DeVries
Journal:  J Dairy Sci       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 4.034

6.  Health and growth of veal calves fed milk replacers with or without probiotics.

Authors:  H M Timmerman; L Mulder; H Everts; D C van Espen; E van der Wal; G Klaassen; S M G Rouwers; R Hartemink; F M Rombouts; A C Beynen
Journal:  J Dairy Sci       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 4.034

7.  Evaluation of data loggers, sampling intervals, and editing techniques for measuring the lying behavior of dairy cattle.

Authors:  D N Ledgerwood; C Winckler; C B Tucker
Journal:  J Dairy Sci       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 4.034

Review 8.  Invited review: effects of milk ration on solid feed intake, weaning, and performance in dairy heifers.

Authors:  M A Khan; D M Weary; M A G von Keyserlingk
Journal:  J Dairy Sci       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 4.034

Review 9.  Respiratory disease of the bovine neonate.

Authors:  Keith P Poulsen; Sheila M McGuirk
Journal:  Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 3.357

10.  Short communication: Milk meal pattern of dairy calves is affected by computer-controlled milk feeder set-up.

Authors:  M B Jensen
Journal:  J Dairy Sci       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 4.034

View more
  2 in total

1.  Parenteral Antimicrobial Treatment Diminishes Fecal Bifidobacterium Quantity but Has No Impact on Health in Neonatal Dairy Calves: Data From a Field Trial.

Authors:  Olivia C O'Keefe; Dale A Moore; Craig S McConnel; William M Sischo
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2021-03-31

2.  Detection of the Core Bacteria in Colostrum and Their Association with the Rectal Microbiota and with Milk Composition in Two Dairy Cow Farms.

Authors:  Bin Chen; Guangfu Tang; Weiqing Guo; Jie Lei; Junhu Yao; Xiurong Xu
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2021-11-24       Impact factor: 2.752

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.