Some abstracts do not have video files because ASAS was denied recording rights.

1233
A survey of management practices and producers' perceptions regarding manual and automated milk feeding systems for dairy calves

Friday, July 22, 2016: 3:30 PM
151 E/F (Salt Palace Convention Center)
Catalina Medrano-Galarza , Department of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada
Jeffrey Rushen , Faculty of Land & Food Systems, University of British Columbia, Agassiz, BC, Canada
Anne Marie de Passillé , Faculty of Land & Food Systems, University of British Columbia, Agassiz, BC, Canada
Andria Jones-Bitton , Department of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada
Trevor J. DeVries , University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada
Stephen J LeBlanc , Department of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada
Derek B Haley , Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada
Audio File Recorded Presentation (mp4)
Abstract Text:

Dairy calves are commonly housed individually and fed by manual milk feeding (MMF) methods, with buckets or bottles. Automated milk feeders (AMF) allow for more natural milk feeding frequency and volume, with calves usually housed in groups. A national online survey was developed to determine management practices for the care of milk-fed calves in Canada, and factors that influence use of MMF or the switch to AMF. A total of 670 responses were received (5.7% of all dairy farms in Canada). Of respondents, 16% used AMF and 84% used MMF. Seventy percent of farms using AMF had free-stall barns compared to only 48% for those using MMF. Interestingly, 30% of AMF farms also had automatic milking systems (AMS), compared to 8% for MMF farms. Having a herd size >80 milking cows (OR=5.1; P=0.003) and automated feed pushers (OR: 5.0; P=0.03) were associated with having an AMF among tie-stall farms. For loose-housing farms (i.e., free-stall and bedded-pack), herd size >80 milking cows (OR=2.7; P=0.004), having an AMS (OR=2.4; P=0.01), and use of cow-brushes (OR=4.5; P=0.002) were associated with having an AMF. Automated milk-fed calves were typically housed in groups of 10 to 15, while nearly 75% of the farms with MMF housed calves individually. Having group housing for milk-fed calves was associated with larger farms (>80 milking cows; OR=2.2; P<0.001), having an AMS (OR=1.8; P=0.03), and having fewer personnel looking after the calves (1 vs. 2 people: OR=1.8; P=0.009; and 1 vs. ≥3 people: OR=2.0: P=0.007). Although both AMF and MMF farms fed similar amounts of milk the first week of life (a median of 6 L/d), the cumulative volume fed in the first 4 weeks differed significantly (P<0.001), with a median of 231 vs. 182 L, respectively. Median milk allowance for AMF also peaked higher than for MMF (10 vs. 8 L/d, respectively). The 4 most important producer-identified factors that motivated producers to switch to automation were to raise better calves, offer more milk to calves, reduce labor, and improve working conditions. For MMF farms, the investment in equipment and in group housing facilities, and farm size were the primary reasons given for maintaining manual feeding methods. To conclude, AMF farms were larger, provided more milk to calves, and use more automation. These data provide insights into calf rearing practices across Canada, resulting in improved understanding of producers’ uptake, and application of technology.

Keywords:

Calves, feeding practices, automation. 

See more of: Production, management and the environment: Health and welfare
See more of: Production, Management, and the Environment
<< Previous Abstract | Next Abstract >>

American Society of Animal Science, PO Box 7410, Champaign, IL 61826-7410 E-mail: asas@asas.org, Ph. 217.356.9050, Fax 217.689.2436 All pages Copyright © 2012 ASAS. All Rights Reserved.