Computerized Feeding Systems

Operation of Computerized Feeding Systems

The age at which calves are moved from isolated newborn pens to the group feeding pen in an automatic feeding system can have a major impact on their health. Calves need to be isolated for a minimum of 7 days before being introduced to a group pen.

The incidence of disease in dairy calves has been reported to be highest from 8 to 14 days of age (Svensson et al. 2003). In one study, calves transferred to the automatic group feeding pen at less than 8 to 12 days of age had an increased risk of respiratory disease as compared to calves transferred after 12 days of age (Svensson and Liberg 2006). To protect the health of newborn calves, we recommend keeping them in well-ventilated, individual calf pens with solid sides for 12 to 14 days before being transferred to a group of no more than 20 calves.

Interestingly, calves reared in pairs to 14 days exhibited the same social benefits of those reared in pairs from 60 hours after birth and were less fearful than individually raised calves (Jensen and Larsen, 2014).

Within group feeding pens, older, larger calves need to be separated from younger, smaller calves to decrease competition and exposure of young calves to disease.

Automatic feeding systems can potentially help identify sick calves early. Milk or replacer intakes are measured by volume, suckling intensity, and meal frequency so that caretakers can be alerted to a potential early sign of illness – decreased appetite. Direct observation of calves is still required as not all calves will decrease their feed consumption or number of visits to the feeder even when they are very ill (Maatje et al., 1993). Additionally, automatic feeding systems require a data-minded person to spend the time saved from individually caring for calves to review and follow-up on feeding data collected by the computer.

Weaning may be done at an earlier age and better managed through computer-controlled systems. The reduction of milk or milk replacer supplied to calves can be automatically controlled and delivered based on individual calves’ performance and needs over a pre-determined length of time, removing the potential for human error in milk or milk replacer feeding during the weaning process. De Passille et al. (2004) showed that grouped calves were able to be weaned earlier (35 days old) than bucket-fed calves (42 days old), resulting in approximately 18% less milk replacer fed to calves using the computer-controlled system versus bucket-fed, individually-housed calves. Starter grain was also fed automatically in this study, allowing for complete measurement of intake and full automation of the week-long weaning process once a threshold starter intake had been reached (2.2 lbs/day or 1 kg/day for two consecutive days in calves older than four weeks). Other studies have failed to show any difference in milk replacer and starter grain consumption between group and individually housed nursing calves (Kung et al., 1997).

Studies have shown variable growth performance results for nursing calves on computer-controlled feeding systems. Some studies have shown improved weight gain when calves are computer-fed (Quigley and Bearden, 1996), while some have shown no significant difference in calf growth between automatic feeders or individually fed (de Passille et al., 2004; Kung, et al., 1997), and yet others have demonstrated lower growth rates and feed intakes in automatic feeding systems when compared to calves kept individually and fed twice daily (Maatje et al., 1993). In each study, group sizes were small in comparison to industry recommendations for the number of calves on automated group feeders.

Labor for feeding and cleaning is an advantage touted by automatic calf feeders over individual nursing calf housing. Start-up costs for automatic calf feeders are quite significant, but may be sufficiently offset by savings in labor costs on larger farms. More realistically, labor is shifted from daily tasks of feeding calves and cleaning buckets to managerial tasks of monitoring calf health and performance. The reallocated management tasks can be done on a more flexible schedule, avoiding the conventional 12-hour interval associated with conventional individual feeding systems. The large, open spaces of automatic feeding barns may require less time and labor for bedding and cleaning than individual pens when designed for efficient work routines. De Passille et al. (2004) reported that computer-controlled feeders required about one-third of the labor (1.4 hours/calf) than bucket-fed calves (4 hours/calf).  Kung et al. (1997) reported time spent managing automatically-fed group-housed calves was much less (<1 minute/day/calf) than for calves kept in hutches (10 minutes/day/calf). However, in a study of 57 Irish herds, total calf care time was not different between automatic or individual feeding systems when the time spent both feeding and cleaning was considered (Gleeson, O’Brien & O’Donovan, 2008).

Housing calves in groups with about 30 to 35 square feet (2.8 to 3.3 square meters) per calf can also be a more efficient use of space in a calf barn than individual pens of 32 square feet (3 square meters) per calf with additional space in front of and behind the 4- by 8-foot (1.2 by 2.4 meter) pen for managers to work and allow for adequate ventilation. The group pen should allow for easy access to the feeding station, water, and starter grain to encourage calves to eat and drink. Long, narrow pens will create a bottleneck effect with a barrier of resting calves preventing those at the back of the pen from easily accessing feed and water.

While there are fewer individual pieces to keep clean in automated systems, attention must be given to cleaning the nipples, waterers, and starter feed troughs as they are open to contamination from the calves. The milk feeding machine must be regularly filled with replacer or pasteurized milk must be prepared and delivered. Managers need to closely monitor and clean the powder and additive outlets, calibrate powder and additive delivery, monitor and replenish cleaning solutions, examine the water supply, inspect the delivery hose and nipples, and monitor and follow up on collected calf feeding data. When properly installed, set-up and maintained, automatic feeding systems should be quite accurate in mixing and delivery of replacer or milk, but errors do occur without vigilant monitoring and regular calibration.

One computer-controlled calf feeder can typically serve two feeding stations. Each feeding station can accommodate around 20 calves.

Separate older nursing calves from younger calves to avoid competition that will prevent younger calves from accessing milk, feed, and water.

Watch for milk replacer powder or other additives that have become caked at the measuring spout on automatic feeders, resulting in incorrect delivery to the calves.

The area around the feeding stations is often wet. Application of lime to the floor around the feeders will help prevent calves from slipping on ice in freezing temperatures.

The following chart summarizes the top benefits and concerns of group nursery systems as described by a sample of 12 producers in the northeast U.S. (presented at Group-Housed Dairy Calf Systems: A Symposium for Producers and Advisors, December 1, 2011, Syracuse, New York):

Top Concerns

The four key components to successful group-rearing of nursing calves on automated feeders are:

• Colostrum (adequate quantity, quality, and timely delivery) and newborn calf care with individual rearing to 12 to 14 days of age
• Plentiful, well-bedded resting space with uninhibited access to milk, starter grain, and water with a preference for no more than 20 calves per feeding group
• Adequate ventilation for good air hygiene and control of respiratory disease
• Management focused on calf care and computer feeder monitoring and maintenance

References

Anderson, N. 2010. An Update on Milk Intake by Calves Using an Automated Feeder. Ceptor Animal Health News, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture. 18, 14-15.

Bokkers, E.A.M. and P. Koene. 2001. Activity, oral behavior and slaughter data as welfare indicators in veal calves: A comparison of three housing systems. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 75, 1-15.

de Passille, A.M., J. Rushen and D. Weary. 2004. Designing Good Environments and Management for Calves. Adv. Dairy Tech. 16, 75-89.

Gaillard, C., R. K. Meagher, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary. 2014. Social housing improves dairy calves’ performance in two cognitive tests. PLoS ONE 9.2: e90205.

Gleeson, D., B. O’Brien and K. O’Donovan. 2008. The labour input associated with calf care on Irish dairy farms. Liv. Sci. 116, 82-89.

Jensen, M.B. and L. Holm. 2003. The effect of milk flow rate and milk allowance on feeding related behavior in dairy calves fed by computer controlled milk feeders. Appl. An. Beh. Sci. 82, 87-100.

Jensen, M.B. 2004. Computer-controlled milk feeding of dairy calves: The effects of number of calves per feeder and number of milk portions on use of feeder and social behavior. J. Dairy Sci. 87,3428-3438.

Jensen, M.B., and L.E. Larsen. 2014. Effects of social contact on dairy calf behavior and health. J. Dairy Sci. 97:5035-5044.

Johnson, K., C. C. Burn, and D. C. Wathes. 2011. Rates and risk factors for contagious disease and mortality in young dairy heifers. Anim. Sci. Rev. 205:101-113

Kung, Jr., L., S. Demarco, L.N. Siebenson, E. Joyner, G.F.W. Haenlein and R.M. Morris. 1997. An Evaluation of two management systems for rearing calves fed milk replacer. J. Dairy Sci. 80, 2529-2533.

Losinger, W.C. and A. J. Heinrichs. 1997. Management practices associated with high mortality among preweaned dairy heifers. J. Dairy Res. 64, 1-11.

Maatje, K.J., J. Verhoeff, W.D.J. Kremer, A.L.M. Cruijesen and T.S. van den Ingh. 1993. Automated feeding of milk replacer and health control of group-housed veal calves. Vet. Rec. 133, 266-270.

Meagher, Rebecca K., Rolnei R. Daros, João H. C. Costa, Marina A. G. von Keyserlingk, Maria J. Hötzel, Daniel M. Weary. 2015. Effects of Degree and Timing of Social Housing on Reversal Learning and Response to Novel Objects in Dairy Calves PLoS ONE 10(8): e0132828. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0132828

Perez, E., J. P. T. M. Noordhuizen, L. A. Van Wuijkhuise, and E. N. Stassen. 1990. Management factors related to calf morbidity and mortality rates. Livest. Prod. Sci. 25:79-93.

Quigley, J.D., III, and B.J. Bearden. 1996. Growth and intake of calves fed milk replacer by nipple bottle or computer feeding system. Prof. Anim. Sci. 12, 187-191.

Svensson, C., K. Lundborg, U. Emanuelson and S.O. Olsson. 2003. Morbidity in Swedish dairy calves from birth to 90 days of age and individual calf-level risk factors for infectious diseases. Prev. Vet. Med. 58, 179-197.

Svensson, C. and P. Liberg. 2006. The effect of group size on health and growth rate of Swedish dairy calves housed in pens with automatic milk-feeders. Prev. Vet. Med. 73, 43-53.

Waltner-Toews D., S. W. Martin, and A. H. Meek. 1986a. Dairy calf management morbidity and mortality in Ontario Holstein herds. I: the data. Prev. Vet. Med., 4:103–124