Abstract #M399
Section: Ruminant Nutrition
Session: Ruminant Nutrition: Dairy I
Format: Poster
Day/Time: Monday 7:30 AM–9:30 AM
Location: Gatlin Ballroom
Session: Ruminant Nutrition: Dairy I
Format: Poster
Day/Time: Monday 7:30 AM–9:30 AM
Location: Gatlin Ballroom
# M399
Pre- and postweaning performance and health of dairy calves fed milk replacers vs. pasteurized waste milk.
David Ziegler*1, Hugh Chester-Jones1, David Cook2, Julian Olson2, 1University of Minnesota Southern Research and Outreach Center, Waseca, MN, 2Milk Products, Chilton, WI.
Key Words: calf performance, milk replacer, pasteurized waste milk
Pre- and postweaning performance and health of dairy calves fed milk replacers vs. pasteurized waste milk.
David Ziegler*1, Hugh Chester-Jones1, David Cook2, Julian Olson2, 1University of Minnesota Southern Research and Outreach Center, Waseca, MN, 2Milk Products, Chilton, WI.
The objectives of this study were to compare pre- (d 1 to 49) and post weaning (d 50 to 56) performance of calves fed a milk replacer (MR) formulated with similar crude protein (CP) and fat (F) concentrations to pasteurized waste milk (PWM) and a combination of PWM and a low (F) and high CP MR. One hundred five (2 to 5 d old) individually fed Holstein heifer calves (38.8 ± 0.73 kg) were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 milk treatments. Milk treatments included 1) all-milk, non-medicated MR 20% CP: 20% F fed at 0.34 kg in 2.38 L of water 2x daily from d 1 to 42 and 1x daily from d 43 to weaning at d 49 (CON); 2) all-milk, non-medicated MR 26% CP: 31% F supplemented with additional fatty acids fed as in CON (MRS); 3) pasteurized waste milk 28.4% CP: 30.1% F fed as in CON, feeding rate was adjusted daily based on measured solids (PWM); 4) PWM fed 2× daily with 0.22 kg solids supplemented with 0.12 kg of an all milk non-medicated 24% CP: 7% F MR as in CON, adjusted for solids as in PWM (WMS). Calf starter (CS;18%CP) and water were fed free choice d 1 to 56. Waste milk was collected twice a week from one farm then sampled, cooled, and pasteurized before each feeding. Calves fed PWM and WMS avg. 0.85 kg/d gain vs. 0.72 kg/d for calves fed CON and MRS (P < 0.05) for the 56 d study. Hip height gain avg.13 cm for PWM and WMS vs.11 cm for CON and MRS (P < 0.05). There were no differences in intake of milk solids, avg. 29.7 kg for 49 d. Intake of CS, d 1 to 56, was highest for WMS (48.2 kg) with CON and PWM being intermediate (avg. 38.2 kg) and MRS the lowest (31.9 kg; P < 0.05). Gain/feed was highest (P < 0.05) for PWM (0.69 kg) with MRS (0.65 kg) being intermediate and CON and WMS the lowest (P < 0.05; avg. 0.64 kg).There were no differences in daily fecal scores across treatments. Days with fecal scores = 4 and health costs were higher (P < 0.05) for MRS vs. CON, PWM and WMS. From d 57 to d 84 there were no differences in ADG across treatments. Under conditions of this study calves fed WMS had greater CS intake than CON, MRS and PWM. Calves fed MRS did not enhance performance over CON.
Key Words: calf performance, milk replacer, pasteurized waste milk