|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 214
Nutrient
Requirements
(J of the Young Calf
From birth until weaning to dry feed, the calf undergoes
tremendous physiologic and metabolic changes (Toullec
and Guilloteau, 19891. During the preruminant stage,
digestion and metabolism are similar to those of nonrumi-
nant animals in many respects. Thus, dietary requirements
are best met with high-quality liquid diets formulated from
sources of carbohydrates, proteins, and fats that are
digested efficiently. The most critical period is the first
2-3 wk of life, during which time the calms digestive system
is immature but developing rapidly with regard to digestive
secretions and enzymatic activity (Toullec and Guilloteau,
1989; Davis and Drackley, 19981.
Calves raised for purposes other than veal production
should be encouraged to consume dry feed at an early age
to stimulate development of a functional rumen. Develop-
ment of the ruminal epithelial tissue that is responsible for
absorption of volatile fatty acids (VFA) depends on the
presence of the VFA, particularly butyrate (Sander et al.,
19591. The chemical composition and physical form of the
starter feed are important characteristics (Warner, 19911.
The starter should be relatively high in readily fermentable
carbohydrates but adequate in digestible fiber to support
the fermentation necessary for proper ruminal tissue
growth (Brownlee, 1956; Flatt et al., 1958; Williams and
Frost, 1992; Greenwood et al., 19971. The rumen and its
microbial population are immature at this stage (Anderson
et al., 1987a,b) and ruminal cellulose digestibility is limited
(Williams and Frost, 19921. Consequently, long hay is not
as effective as concentrates in developing a functional
rumen and limits metabolizable energy intake in young
calves (Stobo et al., 19661. Long hay should not be fed
to calves until after weaning (Quigley, 1996a; Davis and
Drackley, 19981. Nevertheless, adequate particle size of
starter feed whether pelleted, ground, ortexturized is
important to prevent abnormal development and keratini-
zation of ruminal papillae and to prevent impaction of fine
particles between papillae (McGavin and Morrill, 1976;
Greenwood et al., 1997; Beharka et al., 19981.
With respect to the nutrient requirements of the calf,
three phases of development related to digestive function
are recognized (Davis and Clark, 19811:
· Liquid-feeding phase. All or essentially all the nutrient
requirements are met by milk or milk replacer. The quality
of these feeds is preserved by a functional esophageal
groove, which shunts liquid feeds directly to the abomasum
and so avoids microbial breakdown in the reticulo-rumen
(Orskov, 19721.
· Transition phase. Liquid diet and starter both contrib-
ute to meeting the nutrient requirements of the calf.
· Ruminant phase. The calf derives its nutrients from
solid feeds, primarily through microbial fermentation in
the reticulo-rumen.
This chapter discusses nutrient requirements of calves in
each of those phases.
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS OF CALVES
Energy requirements of calves, like those of other ages
and classes of cattle, can be expressed in numerous ways
(see Chapter 21. Regardless of the system preferred, it is
imperative to understand where the major losses of energy
occur as the energy-yielding components of the diet
undergo digestion and metabolism. If the efficiencies of
conversion of gross energy to digestible energy or metabo-
lizable energy and of conversion of metabolizable energy
to net energy (both NEM and NEG) are known, users can
select the system that best fits their needs.
In this edition, the energy requirements of calves have
been derived on the basis of metabolizable energy; how-
ever, requirements and feed composition also are given in
units of net energy and digestible energy for those who
prefer to use those systems.
Data on energy requirements are organized around
replacement calves fed only milk or milk replacer (Table
10-11; calves fed milk and starter feed or milk replacer and
214
OCR for page 215
Nutrient Requirements of the Young Calf 215
TABLE 10-1
Replacer
Daily Energy and Protein Requirements of Young Replacement Calves Fed Only Milk or Milk
Energy
Protein
Live Weight Gain Dry Matter NEMb NEGC MEd DEe ADPf CPg Vitamin Ah
(kg) (g) Intakea (kg) (Meal) (McCoy) (McCoy) (Meal) (g) (g) (IU)
25 0 0.24 0.96 0 1.12 1.17 18 20 2,750
200 0.32 0.96 0.26 1.50 1.56 65 70 2,750
400 0.42 0.96 0.60 2.00 2.08 113 121 2,750
30 0 0.27 1.10 0 1.28 1.34 21 23 3,300
200 0.36 1.10 0.28 1.69 1.76 68 73 3,300
400 0.47 1.10 0.65 2.22 2.31 115 124 3,300
40 0 0.34 1.37 0 1.59 1.66 26 28 4,400
200 0.43 1.37 0.31 2.04 2.13 73 79 4,400
400 0.55 1.37 0.72 2.63 2.74 120 129 4,400
600 0.69 1.37 1.16 3.28 3.41 168 180 4,400
45 0 0.37 1.49 0 1.74 1.81 28 30 4,950
200 0.46 1.49 0.32 2.21 2.30 76 81 4,950
400 0.59 1.49 0.75 2.82 2.94 123 132 4,950
600 0.74 1.49 1.21 3.50 3.64 170 183 4,950
50 0 0.40 1.62 0 1.88 1.96 31 33 5,500
200 0.45 1.62 0.34 2.37 2.47 78 84 5,500
400 0.63 1.62 0.77 3.00 3.13 125 135 5,500
600 0.78 1.62 1.26 3.70 3.86 173 185 5,500
eddy matter intake necessary to meet ME requirements for calves fed milk replacer composed primarily of milk proteins and containing ME at 4.75 Mcal/kg of day matter.
bNEM (Meal) = 0.086 LW075, where LW is live weight in kilograms.
ONES (Meal) = (0.84 LW0355 X LWGi2) X 0.69, where LW and LWG (live weight gain) are in kilograms.
l
aME (Meal) = 0.1 LW075 + (0.84 LW0355 X LWGi2), where LW and LWG are in kilograms.
eDE (Meal) = ME/0.96.
fADP(apparent digestible prote~n,gid) = 6.25[1/BV(E + G + M X D)—M X D].BV(biologiCvalue)isassumedtobeO.8.E(endogenousunnalynitrogen)isO.2LW°75/d,
where LW is in kilograms. M (metabolic fecal nitrogen) is 1.9 g/kg of dry matter intake (D). G (nitrogen in live weight gain) is 30 g/kg of LWG.
gCP (crude protein) = ADP/0.93. The digestibility of undenatured milk proteins is assumed to be 93 percent.
hVitamin A (IU) = 110 IU/kg of LW. See Chapter 7.
starter feed (Table 10-21; calves reared for veal on only
milk or milk replacers (Table 10-31; and weaned replace-
ment calves to 100 kg of body weight fed starter or grower
diets (Table 10-41. The amount of liquid feed (milk or milk
replacer) offered to replacement calves is restricted to
encourage intake of dry feed (starter), but calves reared for
veal are fed milk or milk replacer at near ad libitum intakes.
Young Replacement Calves Fed
Milk or Milk Replacer Only
The energy requirements of young calves fed only milk
or milk replacer and weighing 25-50 kg are given in Table
10-1. On the basis of available data, NEM is set at 0.086
Mcal/kg075 of live weight (LOO) daily as in the previous
edition of this publication (National Research Council,
19891. This equates reasonably well with estimates of fast-
ing metabolism of young milk-fed calves that are limited
in activity (see chapter 4 of Davis and Drackley, 19981.
The efficiency of use of metabolizable energy (ME) from
milk or milk replacer to meet maintenance requirements
is set at 86 percent. Consequently, maintenance ME is
defined as 0.100 Mcal/kg075 daily. The values for ME and
efficiency of ME use for maintenance are within the range
of values in the scientific literature (Van Es et al., 1969;
Johnson and Elliott, 1972a,b; Holmes and Davey, 1976;
Okamoto et al., 1986; Arieli et al., 1995; Gerrits et al.,
19961. The Agricultural Research Council (ARC) specified
an ME requirement of 0.102 Mcal/kg075 daily, with an
efficiency of use of ME for maintenance of 85 percent
(Agricultural Research Council, 19801.
Requirements for ME were calculated with the equation
derived by Toullec (1989) as follows:
ME requirement (Meal/d) = 0.1 LW075
+ (0.84 LW0355~¢LWG~.2>
(10-1)
where LW and daily liveweight gain (LWG) are in kilo-
grams. The first portion of the equation sets the ME
required for maintenance at 100 kcal/kg075 per day. The
second portion of the equation is used to derive the ME
required for LWG, which is a function of both body size
(LOO) and rate of gain (LWG). This equation was derived
on the basis of an efficiency of conversion of ME to NEG
of 69 percent for calves fed only milk or milk replacer,
which is consistent with most published values (Gonzalez-
;Jimenez and Blaxter, 1962; Van Es et al., 1969; Johnson
and Elliott, 1972a,b; Vermorel et al., 1974; Webster et al.,
1975; Donnelly and Hutton, 1976a,b; Holmes and Davey,
1976; Neergard, 1976; Toullec, 1989; Gerrits et al., 19961.
The energy content of LWG predicted by equation 10-1
is 1556 kcal/kg LWG for a 40-kg calf gaining 200 g/d, and
2567 kc al/kg LWG for a 75-kg calf gaining 800 g/d. Values
OCR for page 216
Live Weight Gain
(kg) (g)
216 Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle
TABLE 10-2 Daily Energy and Protein Requirements of Calves Fed Milk and Starter or Milk Replacer and Starter
Energy
Dry Matter
Intakea (kg)
NEMb
(Meal)
NEGC
(Meal)
o
0.28
0.65
o
0.30
0.68
o
0.31
0.72
1.16
o
0.32
0.75
1.21
o
0.34
0.77
1.26
1.78
o
0.35
0.80
1.30
1.84
o
0.36
0.83
1.34
1.90
Protein
MEd
(Meal)
1.34
1.77
2.33
1.50
1.96
2.55
1.66
2.14
2.76
3.44
1.81
2.31
2.96
3.67
1.96
2.48
3.15
3.89
4.69
2.11
2.64
3.33
4.10
4.93
2.25
2.80
3.51
4.31
5.16
DEe
(Meal)
ADPf
(g)
CPg
(g)
26
84
141
29
87
145
33
90
148
205
36
93
151
209
38
96
154
212
270
41
99
157
215
273
44
102
159
217
275
Vitamin Ah
(IU)
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
o
200
400
200
400
200
400
600
200
400
600
o
200
400
600
800
200
400
600
800
o
200
400
600
800
0.32
0.42
0.56
0.36
0.47
0.61
0.40
0.51
0.66
0.83
0.44
0.56
0.71
0.88
0.47
0.60
0.76
0.94
1.13
0.51
0.63
0.80
0.99
1.18
0.54
0.67
0.84
1.04
1.24
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.37
1.37
1.37
1.37
1.49
1.49
1.49
1.49
1.62
1.62
1.62
1.62
1.62
1.74
1.74
1.74
1.74
1.74
1.85
1.85
1.85
1.85
1.85
1.43
1.89
2.49
1.61
2.09
2.73
1.78
2.29
2.95
3.68
1.94
2.47
3.16
3.93
2.10
2.65
3.37
4.17
5.02
2.25
2.83
3.57
4.39
5.27
2.41
3.00
3.76
4.61
5.52
23
72
122
25
75
125
25
78
128
178
31
80
130
180
33
83
133
183
233
36
85
135
185
236
38
88
138
188
238
3,300
3,300
3,300
3,850
3,850
3,850
4,400
4,400
4,400
4,400
4,950
4,950
4,950
4,950
5,500
5,500
5,500
5,500
5,500
6,O50
6,O50
6,O50
6,O50
6,O50
6,600
6,600
6,600
6,600
6,600
aThese data apply to calves fed milk replacer (MR) plus starter. MR contains ME at 4.75 Mcal/kg of DM and starter ME at 3.28 Mcal/kg. It is assumed that MR provided
60 percent and starter 40 percent of dry matter intake; thus, dry matter consumed contained ME at 4.16 Mcal/kg. The DMI here is the total necessary to meet ME
requirements and is not intended to predict voluntary intake.
NEM (Meal) = 0.086 LW075, where LW is live weight in kilograms.
ONES (Meal) = (0.84 LW0355 X LWGi2) X 0.69, where LW and LW gain (LWG) are in kilograms.
TIME (Meal) was computed as follows:
ME (maintenance) = NEM/0.825. Efficiency of use of ME for maintenance (0.825) was computed as average of efficiencies of 0.86 for MR and 0.75 for starter, weighted
according to proportions of ME supplied by each feed.
ME (gain) = NEJO.652. Efficiency of use of ME for gain (0.652) was computed as weighted average of efficiencies of 0.69 and 0.57 for MR and starter, respectively.
eDE (Meal) = ME/0.934. Efficiency of conversion of DE to ME is assumed to be 0.96 for MR and 0.88 for starter.
fADP (apparent digestible protein, g/d) = 6.25 [1/BV(E + G + M X D)- M X D]. BV (biologic value) = 0.764 (weighted average of MR = 0.8 and starter = 0.70);
E (endogenous urinary nitrogen, g ) = 0.2LW°75; G (nitrogen content of gain, g) = 30 g/kg gain; M (metabolic fecal nitrogen, g/d) = 2.46 X dry matter intake, D, kg).
Metabolic fecal nitrogen for MR assumed to be 1.9 g/kg of DMI and for starter 3.3 g/kg of DMI.
gCP (crude protein, g) = ADP/0.8645. Digestibility of protein was assumed to be weighted average of 93 percent for MR and 75 percent for starter; MR was assumed
to contain 21 percent CP and starter 18 percent CP.
hVitamin A (IU) = 110 IU/kg of LW. See Chapter 7.
predicted by this equation are similar to those in the 1989
edition of this publication for smaller calves at low rates
of gain (1460 kc al/kg LWG for a 40-kg calf gaining 200 g/
d) but are substantially higher than the 1989 edition for
larger calves at higher rates of gain (1869 kcal/kg LWG
for a 75-kg calf gaining 800 g/d). Values predicted by the
present equation agree well with available experimental
data on body composition of dairy calves (Webster et al.,
1975; Donnelly and Hutton, 1976b; Holmes and Davey,
1976; Neergard, 1976; Gerrits et al., 19961. Data for com-
position of LWG for dairy calves of current genotypes
would be useful for future refinement of requirements
for growth.
The ME requirements given in Table 10-1 for calves
weighing 30-60 kg and gaining at different rates are in
close agreement with most published data. The digestible
energy (DE) values in Table 10-1 are calculated from ME,
assuming an efficiency of 96 percent for conversion of DE
to ME (Neergard, 1976; National Research Council, 1989;
Toullec, 1989; Gerrits et al., 19961. Users that desire
requirements for higher rates of gain than included in
Table 10-1 for calves fed milk or milk replacer only should
refer to Table 10-3.
Users should be aware that ME requirements for main-
tenance may be underestimated for calves during the first
week of life because of the high and variable basal meta-
OCR for page 217
Nutrient Requirements of the Young Calf 217
TABLE 10-3 Daily Energy and Protein Requirements of Veal Calves Fed Only Milk or Milk Replacer
Energy
Protein
Live Gain Dry Matter NEMb NEGC MEd DEe ADPf CPg Vitamin Ah
Weight (kg) (g) Intakea (kg) (Meal) (Meal) (Meal) (Meal) (g) (g) (IU)
40 0 0.34 1.37 0 1.59 1.66 26 28 4,400
300 0.49 1.37 0.51 2.32 2.42 97 104 4,400
600 0.69 1.37 1.16 3.28 3.41 168 180 4,400
50 0 0.40 1.62 0 1.88 1.96 31 33 5,500
300 0.56 1.62 0.55 2.67 2.79 102 109 5,500
600 0.78 1.62 1.26 3.71 3.86 172 185 5,500
900 1.02 1.62 2.05 4.85 5.05 244 262 5,500
60 0 0.45 1.85 0 2.16 2.25 35 38 6,600
300 0.63 1.85 0.58 3.00 3.13 106 114 6,600
600 0.86 1.85 1.34 4.10 4.27 177 190 6,600
900 1.12 1.85 2.18 5.32 5.54 248 267 6,600
70 0 0.51 2.08 0 2.42 2.52 39 42 7,700
300 0.70 2.08 0.62 3.32 3.45 110 119 7,700
600 1.94 2.08 1.42 4.48 4.66 181 195 7,700
900 1.21 2.08 2.31 5.76 6.01 253 272 7,700
1,200 1.50 2.08 3.26 7.14 7.44 324 348 7,700
80 0 0.56 2.30 0 2.68 2.79 44 47 8,800
300 0.76 2.30 0.65 3.61 3.76 115 123 8,800
600 1.02 2.30 1.49 4.83 5.03 186 200 8,800
900 1.30 2.30 2.42 6.18 6.44 257 276 8,800
1,200 1.61 2.30 3.42 7.63 7.95 328 353 8,800
90 0 0.62 2.51 0 2.92 3.04 48 51 9,900
300 0.82 2.51 0.68 3.90 4.06 119 128 9,900
600 1.09 2.51 1.55 5.17 5.39 190 204 9,900
900 1.38 2.51 2.55 6.62 6.85 263 283 9,900
1,200 1.70 2.51 3.56 8.09 8.42 332 357 9,900
100 0 0.67 2.72 0 3.16 3.29 52 55 11,000
300 0.88 2.72 0.70 4.18 4.35 122 132 11,000
600 1.16 2.72 1.61 5.50 5.72 194 208 11,000
900 1.46 2.72 2.62 6.96 7.25 265 285 11,000
1,200 1.80 2.72 3.70 8.52 8.88 336 362 11,000
1,500 2.14 2.72 4.84 10.17 10.59 408 438 11,000
110 0 0.72 2.92 0 3.40 3.54 55 60 12,100
300 0.94 2.92 0.72 4.45 4.63 126 136 12,100
600 1.22 2.92 1.66 5.81 6.05 198 212 12,100
900 1.54 2.92 2.71 7.32 7.63 269 289 12,100
1,200 1.88 2.92 3.83 8.94 9.32 340 366 12,100
1,500 2.24 2.92 5.00 10.65 11.09 412 443 12,100
120 0 0.76 3.12 0 3.63 3.78 59 64 13,200
300 0.99 3.12 0.75 4.71 4.91 130 140 13,200
600 1.29 3.12 1.72 6.12 6.39 201 217 13,200
900 1.62 3.12 2.80 7.68 8.00 273 293 13,200
1,200 1.97 3.12 3.69 9.34 9.74 329 353 13,200
1,500 2.34 3.12 5.16 11.10 11.56 416 447 13,200
130 0 0.81 3.31 0 3.85 4.01 63 67 14,300
300 1.05 3.31 0.77 4.97 5.17 134 144 14,300
600 1.35 3.31 1.77 6.41 6.68 205 220 14,300
900 1.69 3.31 2.88 8.02 8.35 276 297 14,300
1,200 2.05 3.31 4.06 9.74 10.14 348 374 14,300
1,500 2.43 3.31 5.31 11.54 12.02 420 451 14,300
140 0 0.86 3.50 0 4.07 4.24 66 71 15,400
300 1.10 3.50 0.79 5.22 5.43 137 148 15,400
600 1.41 3.50 1.82 6.70 6.98 209 224 15,400
900 1.76 3.50 2.95 8.35 8.70 280 301 15,400
1,200 2.13 3.50 4.17 10.11 10.53 352 378 15,400
1,500 2.52 3.50 5.45 11.97 12.45 423 455 15,400
150 0 0.90 3.69 0 4.29 4.46 70 75 16,500
300 1.15 3.69 0.81 5.46 5.69 141 152 16,500
600 1.47 3.69 1.86 6.98 7.27 212 228 16,500
900 1.82 3.69 3.02 8.67 9.03 284 305 16,500
1,200 2.21 3.69 4.27 10.48 10.91 355 382 16,500
1,500 2.61 3.69 5.58 12.38 12.90 427 459 16,500
aThe DMI necessary to meet ME requirements when veal calves are fed a milk replacer containing ME at 4.75 Mcal/kg of DM.
bNEM (Meal) = 0.086 LW075, where LW is live weight in kilograms.
CNEG (Meal) = (0.84 LW0355 X LWGi2) X 0.69, where LW and LW gain (LWG) are in kilograms.
IMP (Meal) = ().1 LAW' + (0.84 LW0355 X LWGi2), where LW and LWG are in kilograms.
eDE (Meal) = ME/0.93.
fADP (apparent digestible protein, g/d) = 6.25 [1/BV(E + G + M X D)—M X D]. BV (biologic value) is assumed to be 0.8. E (endogenous urinary nitrogen) is 0.2
LW075/d, where LW is in kilograms. M (metabolic fecal nitrogen) is 1.9 g/kg of dry matter intake (D). G (nitrogen in live weight gain) is 30 g/kg LWG.
gCP (crude protein) = ADP/0.93. The digestibility of undenatured milk proteins is assumed to be 93 percent.
hVitamin A (IU) = 110 IU/kg of LW. See Chapter 7.
'7 _ . . . ~ - -
OCR for page 218
218 Nutrient Requirements of Dairy CattIe
TABLE 10-4 Daily Energy and Protein Requirements of Weaned (Ruminant) Calvesa
Energy
Protein
Live Weight Gain Day Matter NEMb NEGC MEd DEe ADpf CPg Vitamin Ah
(kg) (g) Intake (kg) (Meal) (McCoy) (Meal) (McCoy) (g) (g) (IU)
50 0 0.70 1.62 0 2.16 2.58 40 53 5,500
400 1.13 1.62 0.77 3.51 3.92 151 201 5,500
500 1.27 1.62 1.01 3.93 4.35 179 238 5,500
600 1.86 1.62 1.26 4.36 4.77 207 276 5,500
60 0 0.80 1.85 0 2.47 2.89 46 61 6,600
400 1.26 1.85 0.83 3.92 4.33 156 209 6,600
500 1.41 1.85 1.08 4.36 4.77 185 246 6,600
600 1.56 1.85 1.34 4.83 5.23 213 284 6,600
700 1.71 1.85 1.62 5.31 5.70 241 322 6,600
800 1.87 1.85 1.90 5.80 6.19 269 359 6,600
70 0 0.90 2.08 0 2.77 3.19 51 68 7,700
400 1.39 2.08 0.87 4.31 4.71 163 217 7,700
500 1.54 2.08 1.14 4.77 5.17 191 254 7,700
600 1.70 2.08 1.42 5.26 5.66 219 292 7,700
700 1.86 2.08 1.71 5.77 6.16 247 330 7,700
800 2.03 2.08 2.00 6.29 6.67 275 367 7,700
80 0 0.99 2.30 0 3.07 3.48 57 75 8,800
400 1.51 2.30 0.92 4.67 5.07 168 224 8,800
500 1.66 2.30 1.20 5.16 5.56 196 262 8,800
600 1.83 2.30 1.49 5.68 6.07 225 300 8,800
700 2.00 2.30 1.79 6.21 6.59 253 337 8,800
800 2.18 2.30 2.10 6.75 7.13 281 375 8,800
90 0 1.16 2.51 0 3.35 3.76 62 82 9,900
600 2.09 2.51 1.55 6.07 6.46 231 309 9,900
700 2.28 2.51 1.87 6.62 7.00 260 346 9,900
800 2.48 2.51 2.19 7.19 7.57 288 385 9,900
900 2.68 2.51 2.52 7.78 8.15 317 423 9,900
100 0 1.25 2.72 0 3.63 4.04 68 90 11,000
600 2.22 2.72 1.61 6.45 6.83 237 316 11,000
700 2.42 2.72 1.94 7.02 7.40 265 354 11,000
800 2.63 2.72 2.27 7.62 7.99 294 392 11,000
900 2.84 2.72 2.62 8.22 8.59 323 430 11,000
aThese data apply to small-breed female calves from 50 to 80 kg gaining 0.4 to 0.5 kg/d arid large-breed calves from 60 to 100 kg gaining from 0.6 to 0.9 kg/d.
bNEM (Meal) = 0.086 LW075 (NRC 1989), where LW is live weight in kilograms.
ONES (Meal) = (0.84 LW0355 X LWGi2) X 0.69, where LW and LW gain (LWG) are in kilograms.
~ME, maintenance (Meal) = NEM/0.75. ME values of diets (Meal/kg of DM) are 3.10 for calves weighing 60, 70, and 80 kg and 2.90 for calves weighing 90 and 100 kg.
ME, gain (Meal) = NEG/0.57.
Sum of ME values for maintenance Flus vain equals total ME requirement.
~ O ~
eDE (Meal) = (ME + 0.45) /1.01 (see Chapter 2).
JADP (apparent digestible protein, g/d) as follows: ADP (g/d) = 6.25 [1/BV(E + G + M X D)—M X D] where BV is biologic value set at 0.70; E (endogenous urinary
nitrogen) = 0.2LW°75; G is nitrogen content of gain, assuming 30 g/kg of gain; and M is metabolic fecal nitrogen computed as 3.3 g/kg of dry matter consumed (D).
gCP (crude protein) calculated as ADP/0.75.
hVitamin A (IU) = 110 IU/kg of LW. See Chapter 7.
boric rate observed during this time (Roy et al., 1957;
Vermorel et al., 1983; Okamoto et al., 1986; Schrama et
al., 1992; Ortigues et al., 1994; Arieli et al., 19951. Further-
more, because the digestive tract is immature and develop-
ing rapidly, the metabolizability of diets may be lower
during this time (Schema et al., 1992; Arieli et al, 1995),
thereby overestimating dietary energy supply. The net
result of these effects is that LWG of calves during the
first week of life may be considerably less than the pre-
dicted energy-allowable gains shown in Table 10-1. As
more data become available it may become possible in
future editions to model these effects.
Energy requirement values for young calves in this edi-
tion represent several improvements over the previous edi-
tion (National Research Council, 19891. First, tabulated
values in this edition are derived directly from the equa-
tions presented, in contrast with values given in the tables
of the 1989 edition that could not be calculated from the
information provided. Second, as discussed above, values
for the energy content of body weight gain (NEG) in this
edition agree more closely with available data on calves
derived from slaughter experiments; values in the 1989
edition were too low (see Davis and Drackley, 19981. Third,
the equations used to derive the NEM and NEG values for
milk or milk replacers in the previous edition were those
of Garrett (see National Research Council, 1989) estab-
lished for feedlot cattle fed diets with ME content of 2.19-
2.86 Mcal/kg of dry matter (DM). Those equations result
in erroneously low NE values for diets of milk or milk-
derived products. Garrett (1980) cautioned against using
OCR for page 219
Nutrient Requirements of the Young Calf 219
the established equations to derive NE values for foodstuffs
with ME values outside the range stated above. A different
approach has been taken in this edition to derive the NE
values for liquid diets and starter.
Young Replacement Calves Fed Milk and Starter Feed
or Milk Replacer and Starter Feed
Under good management on dairy farms, calves should
be consuming appreciable nutrients from starter feed by
the second week of life. To encourage early consumption
of calf starter, calves should be given free access to water
and a nutritious, highly palatable starter feed from the first
week of life until they are weaned. Consumption of starter
feed is critical to development of an active, functioning
rumen. Fermentation products, principally butyrate, from
fermentation of solid feeds in the developing rumen are
responsible for development of functional ruminal epithe-
lial tissue (Sander et al., 19591.
Deriving the energy requirements of calves fed a combi-
nation diet (liquid plus dry feed) requires the application
of basic knowledge from related areas because there are
few data on the subject. Only one study, which used three
calves per treatment, has examined this question directly
by using calorimetry (Holmes and Davey, 19761. The main-
tenance requirement and efficiency of use of ME by calves
did not differ appreciably between an all-milk diet and a
diet consisting of milk and dry feed.
Regardless of the diet fed, the NE required for mainte-
nance and gain should not change. Efficiencies of utiliza-
tion of ME for maintenance and gain will be somewhat
lower for starter feeds than for milk or milk replacer
(National Research Council, 19781. As described for Table
10-1, calves use the ME from milk or milk replacer with
efficiencies of 86 percent and 69 percent for maintenance
and gain, respectively. Efficiency of ME use from milk or
milk replacer is assumed not to change when starter also
is consumed. The previous edition of this publication
(National Research Council, 1989) used the equations of
Garrett (1980) to derive the efficiencies of utilization of ME
(percent) from starter for maintenance (km) and gain (kg):
km = 51.045 ME — 10.836 ME2
+ 0.754 ME3 - 7.35 (10-2)
kg = 76.149 ME — 15.755 ME2
+ 1.062 ME3 - 69.7 (10-3)
where ME is expressed as Mcal/kg DM.
However, these data were for older growing cattle fed
feedlot diets and are not appropriate for young calves. For
example, the Garrett (1980) equations yield efficiencies of
ME use for maintenance and gain of 69.4 and 46.4 percent,
respectively, for a starter containing 3.1 Mcal ME/kg DM.
These efficiencies are lower than those calculated from
experimental data (Holmes and Davey, 1976) and used
in other systems (Agricultural Research Council, 19801.
Furthermore, the Garrett (1980) equations were developed
using ME values calculated as 0.82 DE (National Research
Council, 19891. Because methane production is minimal
even in young calves consuming 44 percent of their ME
from concentrates (Holmes and Davey, 1976), these
derived ME values are too low when compared with experi-
mental data (Spanski et al., 19971. Consequently, the use
of the Garrett (1980) equations for young calves has been
discontinued in this edition.
The Agricultural Research Council (1980) calculated
efficiencies of ME use for maintenance and gain as a func-
tion of the metabolizability (ME/GE, or "q") of the diet.
Over the range of ME concentrations expected for calf
starters and growers (2.5-3.4 Mcal/kg), the efficiency of
ME use for maintenance would vary from only about 72
to 77 percent, and that for gain from 50 to 59 percent. In
this edition, efficiencies of ME use from dry feeds for
maintenance and gain were fixed at 75 and 57 percent,
respectively. The efficiency of use of ME from the total
diet is then calculated as the average of individual eff~cienc-
ies for milk and starter, weighted according to their contri-
bution to the total ME in the diet.
In the example given in Table 10-2, it was assumed that
a calf at about 2 wk of age would consume on the average
a diet in which 60 percent of DM intake (DMI) is derived
from milk replacer (ME at 4.75 Me al/kg of DM) and 40
percent from starter (ME at 3.28 Mcal/kg of DM). In this
diet, milk-replacer supplies 68 percent of the total ME,
and starter supplies 32 percent. Consequently, the overall
efficiencies for use of ME in the combined diet (milk
replacer plus starter) are 82.5 and 65.2 percent for mainte-
nance and gain, respectively, calculated as the weighted
average (weighted by contribution to the total ME supply)
of the individual efficiencies. The computer model
included with this edition calculates these values for varied
proportions of DMI from milk and starter or milk replacer
and starter.
A comparison of the ME requirement of a 50-kg calf
gaining 400 g/d when fed only milk or milk replacer (see
Table 10-1) with the ME requirement of the same calf fed
milk and starter or milk replacer and starter (Table 10-2)
reveals a relatively small difference (3.00 vs 3.15 Mcal/d).
The ME requirements given here for calves consuming
both starter and milk or milk replacer are markedly lower
than those given in the 1989 edition (5.90 Mcal/d) but are
similar to those given by Roy (19801. A comparison of
LWG predicted by this model with actual performance of
calves receiving both milk or milk replacer and starter
in 16 published research studies reveals good agreement
(Stewart and Schingoethe, 1984; Jenny et al., 1991; laster
et al., 1992; Reddy et al., 1993; Akayezu et al., 1994; Quigley
et al.. 1994a Abdelgadir and Morrill, 1995; Quigley et al.,
OCR for page 220
220 Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle
1995; Abdelgadir et al., 1996a, b; Quigley, 1996b; Quigley
and Bernard, 1996; Quigley and Welborn, 1996; Terui et
al., 1996; Quigley et al., 1997b; Lammers et al., 19981.
Table 10-2 also presents requirements for energy in
units of DE. Values for DE were calculated as ME/0.934,
representing the weighted average of conversion of DE to
ME for milk or milk replacer (0.96) and starter (0.881. The
conversion from ME to DE for starter was calculated as
(ME + 0.451/1.01 (National Research Council, 1989), as
described in Chapter 2 (also see later discussion on energy
values for feeds).
The DMI listed in Tables 10-1 through 10-4 have been
computed as the amount of DM necessary to provide the
ME requirement. Consequently, these should not be con-
strued to be predictions of voluntary feed intake. An analy-
sis of literature data presented elsewhere (see chapter 16
of Davis and Drackley, 1998) predicts that intake of DM
from starter increases from about 0.8-1.0 percent of BW
at 3 wk of age to about 2.8-3.0 percent of BW at 8 wk of age.
Veal Calves
The calculations used to derive the ME requirements
for veal calves (Table 10-3) are the same as those for milk-
fed replacement calves (Table 10-11. Veal calves are fed
essentially for ad libitum intake, so rates of gain will be
higher than those of limit-fed replacement calves. The ME
and DM requirements given here agree closely with those
reported by Webster et al. (1975) on the basis of an energy-
balance study with veal calves.
Ruminant Calves (Large-Breed and Small-Breed
FemalesJ from Weaning to Body Weight of 100
Kilograms
In the previous edition of Nutrient Requirements of
Dairy Cattle, (National Research Council, 1989) no infor-
mation was given on the nutrient requirements of calves
from weaning to 100 kg of body weight even though this
is a critical period in the life ofthe replacement calf. Similar
to calves consuming milk and starter, very few research
data determined by calorimetry or comparative slaughter
studies exist for this class of cattle. However, the subcom-
mittee believes that estimates should be made. Methods
used in this edition to establish requirements for growth
of heifers from 100 to 500 kg of body weight could not be
extrapolated accurately to calves weighing less than 100
kg. Given the paucity of data on tissue growth and nutrient
use for this class of calves, estimated requirements have
been derived using the same methodology as described
already for younger calves. Users will note that require-
ments for ruminant calves weighing less than 100 kg do
not merge smoothly into requirements for larger calves.
Energy-allowable LWG was predicted using this model
from LW and estimated ME intakes from 25 treatments
in 19 published studies (Stewart and Schingoethe, 1984;
Beharka et al., 1991; Chester-;[ones et al., 1991; Jenny et
al., 1991; Quigley et al., 1991; Quigley et al., 1992; Reddy
et al., 1993; Akayezu et al., 1994; Jackson and HemLen,
1994; Kuehn et al., 1994; Maiga et al., 1994; Quigley et
al., 1994a; Abdelgadir and Morrill, 1995; Abdelgadir et al.,
1996a,b; Quigley, 1996b; Terui et al., 1996; Kincaid et al.,
19971. Comparisons were expressed as predicted/observed;
the mean was 1.04. Twelve predicted values were greater
than observed, twelve were less than observed, and one was
equal. As more research information becomes available,
future editions of this publication may be better able to
define requirements for this group of calves. However, in
comparing requirements established here with literature
data on average daily gains, the methodology presented in
this edition adequately predicts gains of large-breed calves
up to 100 kg and small-breed calves to 80 kg.
Table 10-4 shows the requirements of weaned calves
weighing 50-100 kg and gaining at various rates. Calves
weighing 50-80 kg were assumed to be fed a starter con-
taining ME at 3.1 Meal of ME per kg of DM, and those
weighing 90-100 kg a starter or grower containing ME at
3.0 Meal per kg of DM. Given the paucity of data, no
distinction is made between large and small breed calves.
Similarly, no distinction is made between male and female
calves since differences are negligible before about 100 kg
LW (National Research Council, 19781.
Elects of Environmental Temperature on Energy
Requirements of Young Calves
The calf is born with limited body energy reserves and
only modest insulation afforded by hair coat and body fat.
A newborn calf is estimated to have enough body energy
stores in the form of fat and glycogen to last no more than
about 1 d under very cold conditions (Alexander et al.,
1975; Okamoto et al., 1986; Rowan, 19921.
Energy standards are based on the premise that the
animal is in a thermoneutral environment during measure-
ments of energy transformations. In such an environment,
the animal is not required to elicit specific heat-conserving
or heat-dissipating mechanisms to maintain core body tem-
perature (National Research Council, 19811. The thermo-
neutral zone shifts depending on many factors, the more
important factors being age, amount of feed intake, amount
of subcutaneous fat, and length and thickness of hair coat.
The thermoneutral zone in very young calves ranges from
15-25°C. Thus, when the environmental temperature
drops below 15°C, which is referred to as the lower critical
temperature, the calf must expend energy to maintain its
body temperature. In practical terms, the maintenance
energy requirement is increased. For older calves and
OCR for page 221
Nutrient Requirements of the Young Calf 221
calves at greater feed intakes, the lower critical tempera-
ture may be as low as—5 to—10°C (Webster et al., 19781.
Data in Table 10-5 illustrate the effects of a decrease
in environmental temperature below the lower critical tem-
perature of the calf on energy requirements for mainte-
nance. The values were calculated from research data of
Schrama (19931. Note in the example given in Table 10-5
that if the lower critical temperature is 10°C and the effec-
tive ambient temperature is 0°C, the maintenance energy
requirement is increased by 27 percent. This calculation
agrees with experimental findings (Scibilia et al., 19871.
Effects of cold stress in increasing maintenance require-
ments have been incorporated into the computational
model provided with this publication.
It is clear from these and other data that calves, especially
very young calves, should be fed extra energy during cold
weather to satisfy the increase in maintenance energy
requirements. That can be accomplished by increasing the
amount of liquid diet being fed, by adding additional milk
solids to the liquid diet, or by incorporating additional fat
into the liquid diet (Schingoethe et al., 1986; Scibilia et
al., 1987; [aster et al., 19901. However, additional fat in
milk replacer or starter decreases starter intake (Kuehn et
al., 1994), which negates at least a portion of the increased
energy density from fat supplementation. If additional sol-
ids are fed, the DM concentration of milk replacer should
not exceed 20 percent to avoid problems with excessive
mineral intake (Jenny et al., 1978; Ternouth et al., 1985),
and supplemental water should be provided. The availabil-
ity of free water is critically important to starter intake
(Kertz et al., 19841; provision of warm water 2-3 times
daily during cold weather may help to stimulate starter
feed intake, which also would help to counteract cold stress.
PROTEIN REQUIREMENTS OF CALVES
In contrast with the 1978 edition of Nutrient Require-
ments of Dairy Cattle (National Research Council, 1978),
the 1989 edition provided little information on the protein
requirements of young calves weighing less than 100 kg.
The tabular data given for protein requirements in the
1989 edition could not be reproduced with information
provided (see chapter 9 of Davis and Drackley, 19981. The
present edition computes the protein requirement of calves
weighing up to 100 kg with the factorial method of Blaxter
and Mitchell (19481.
The requirement is partitioned into components of
maintenance and gain. Maintenance constitutes obligatory
nitrogen (N) losses in urine and feces, whereas gain per-
tains to N stored in tissues. The protein requirement is
expressed in terms of apparent digestible protein (ADP,
g/d) and is computed as follows:
ADP, g/d = 6.25 L1/BV (E + G + M x D)
—M x D]
(10-4)
where BV = biological value (discussed below). Endoge-
nous urinary N (E, g/d) is computed as 0.2LW°75 (Agricul-
tural Research Council, 1980), where live weight (LOO) is
in kilograms. This value is somewhat higher than that (0.165
LW075) computed with the formula (2.75 g of net protein
per kilogram LW°~) given in the 1989 National Research
Council publication; however, both are within the range
of values in the scientific literature (Blaxter and Wood,
1951; Cunningham and Brisson, 1957; Roy, 19701. The
amount of N in gain (G) is assumed to be constant at 30
g N/kg LWG, which is in the range of values reported by
others (Blaxter and Wood, 1951; Roy, 1970; Donnelly and
Hutton, 1976b; National Research Council, 1978; Davis
TABLE 10-5 Effect of Environment on Energy Requirement of Young Calvesa
Environmental Increase in Maintenance Energy Maintenance Energy Requirement Increase in ME
Temperature Requirement (kcal of NEM/day) (kcal of ME/day)b Required for Maintenance
Birth to 3 wk Birth to 3 wk Birth to 3 wk
F °C of agec >3 wk of aged of agec >3 wk of aged of agec >3 wk of aged
68 20 0 0 1,735 1,735 0 0
59 15 187 0 1,969 1,735 13 0
50 10 373 0 2,203 1,735 27 0
41 5 560 187 2,437 1,969 40 13
32 0 746 373 2,671 2,205 54 27
23 - 5 933 568 2,905 2,437 68 40
14 - 10 1,119 746 3,139 2,671 86 54
5 - 15 1,306 933 3,373 2,905 94 68
- 4 - 20 1,492 1,119 3,607 3,139 108 81
13 - 25 1,679 1,306 3,834 3,373 121 94
22 - 30 1,865 1,492 4,O66 3,607 134 107
Calculated for calf weighing 45.35 kg (100 lbs; 17.35 kg075). Extra heat production = 2.15 kcal/kg075 per day for each degree decrease in environmental temperature
below lower critical temperature (Schema, 1993). Because heat production is in terms of net energy (NE), metabolizable energy (ME) was computed as ME = NE/0.8.
Maintenance energy requirement 100 kcal/kg075 per day.
Calves from birth to 3 wk of age have lower critical temperature in range of 15-25 °C. Data above were calculated on basis of lower critical temperature 20° C.
Data for calves older than 3 wk of age were calculated on basis of lower critical temperature 10° C.
OCR for page 222
222 Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle
and Drackley, 19981. Insufficient data were available to
describe changes in N content of LW gain as a function
of increasing growth rate. Metabolic fecal N (M) is set as
1.9 g/kg of dry matter consumed (D) from milk or milk
replacer and 3.3 g/kg of starter DM consumed (Roy, 19801;
these values are additive for calves fed both milk and
starter.
Loss of N in scurf (hair and skin) is ignored in the present
edition. The 1989 edition calculated the loss as 0.032 g of
N/kg of LW06, which equates to a daily loss of 0.33 g of
N for a 50-kg calf. In practice, this loss is compensated by
the higher endogenous N losses predicted in the present
edition (3.76 g of N for a 50-kg calf than in the 1989
edition (3.10 g of N).
The biological value (BV) of milk proteins, equated to
the efficiency of N use for growth above maintenance, is
assigned a value of 0.80 (Donnelly and Hutton, 1976a).
The same factor is assumed to apply for efficiency of use
of dietary protein for maintenance functions. This value
was determined at limiting protein intakes and assumes
that the diet being fed is properly balanced for all essential
nutrients and that energy intake is sufficient to support
protein synthesis. Protein intake must not be in excess of
that required for the targeted gain allowed by energy
intake. The BV decreased as protein intake was increased
in the studies of Donnelly and Hutton (1976a). The 1978
National Research Council publication used a value of 0.77.
Recent studies by Terosky et al. (1997) found that apparent
BV for milk replacers containing 21 percent CP from skim
milk protein, whey protein concentrate, or mixtures of the
two ranged from 0.692 to 0.765. Estimates oftrue biological
value (corrected for endogenous N loss and metabolic fecal
N) from that study are in excess of 0.80.
The conversion of CP to ADP was assumed to be 93
percent for milk proteins (Agricultural Research Council,
1980), which is slightly higher than the value for conversion
of dietary CP to absorbable amino acids (91 percent) used
in an earlier edition of this publication (National Research
Council, 19781. Users should note that requirements for
ADP and crude protein (CP) have been established on the
basis of diets containing milk proteins with high digestibility
and BV; calves might not use alternative, nonmilk proteins
in milk replacers at these high efficiencies, and appropriate
adjustments may need to be made when such protein
sources are used to ensure adequate supply of amino acids
for growth (Davis and Drackley, 19981. Furthermore,
because digestion of even high-quality milk proteins is
immature during the first 2-3 weeks of age (Arieli et al.,
1995; Terosky et al., 1997), the value of milk proteins may
be overestimated during the early liquid-feeding period.
Similar to the situation for energy requirements, however,
the subcommittee concluded that information was insuff~-
cient to model increasing CP digestibility in the young calf.
The BV of absorbed proteins supplied by starter is set
at 0.70 (National Research Council, 19781. Calves fed milk
plus starter and weaned calves (fed starter only) derive
a portion of their protein needs from microbial protein
produced in the rumen. However, insufficient data were
available to allow calculations of the amounts of rumen-
degradable protein (RDP) or rumen-undegradable protein
(RUP) supplied with any degree of confidence; thus, the
factorial approach using ADP was adopted for calves
weighing up to 100 kg. Requirements also are presented
in terms of CP. The conversion of CP to ADP is assumed
to be 75 percent for starter and grower feeds (Agricultural
Research Council, 19801. Quigley et al. (1985) found that
an average of 58 percent of the protein reaching the aboma-
sum of weaned calves was of microbial origin; flows of N
to the abomasum were not reported. Assuming that N flow
to the abomasum approximated N intake, that microbial
CP is 80 percent true protein that is 80 percent digestible
(National Research Council, 1989), and that undegraded
feed proteins are 80 percent digestible (National Research
Council, 1989) leads to a conversion of CP to ADP of
about 71 percent; adoption of the slightly higher value of 75
percent from Agricultural Research Council (1980) leads to
better agreement with literature data. The BV and conver-
signs of ADP to CP for calves fed starter and milk or starter
and milk replacer are assumed to be additive on the basis
of the relative amounts of CP supplied by starter and milk
(or milk replacer).
Examples of requirements for ADP and CP for calves
fed milk or milk replacer only, milk replacer plus starter,
veal calves, and weaned (ruminant) calves are found in
Tables 10-1, 10-2, 10-3, and 10-4, respectively.
MINERAL AND VITAMIN
REQUIREMENTS OF CALVES
Detailed information on the specific roles of mineral
elements and vitamins in the nutrition and metabolism of
dairy cattle is presented in Chapters 6 and 7. Since the
last edition (National Research Council, 1989), there have
been few definitive studies of and few problems associated
with the field application of the previous recommendations
that warrant making major changes in recommendations
for most mineral elements or vitamins in Flints of amen
1 _~1 .1 . 1 1
~ J _ ~ _ _ ~
calves. changes that have been made in the recommenda-
tions are discussed below.
Minerals
The recommended dietary concentrations of mineral
elements and vitamins are shown in Table 10-6. For cal-
cium and phosphorus recommended concentrations in
milk-replacer diets were increased compared with those
OCR for page 223
Nutrient Requirements of the Young Calf 223
TABLE 10-6 Mineral and Vitamin Concentrations Recommended for Diets of Young Calves, Compared with
Average for Fresh Whole Milk (DM basis)
Nutrients Milk Replacerb Starter Feed Grower Feed Whole Milk
Minerals
Ca (%) 1.00 0.70 0.60 0.95
P (%) 0.70 0.45 0.40 0.76
Mg (%) 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.10
Na (%) 0.40 0.15 0.14 0.38
K (%) 0.65 0.65 0.65 1.12
cl (%) 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.92
S (%) 0.29 0.20 0.20 0.32
Fe (mg/kg) 100C 50 50 3.0
Mn (mg/kg) 40 40 40 0.2-0.4
Zn (mg/kg) 40 40 40 15-38
Cu (mg/kg) 10 10 10 0.1-1.1
I (mg/kg) 0.50 0.25 0.25 0.1-0.2
Co (mg/kg) 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.004-0.008
Se (mg/l~g) 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.02-0.15
Vitamins
A (IU/kg of DM) 9,000 4,000 4,000 11,500
D (IU/kg of DM) 600 600 600 307
E (IU/kg of DM) 50 25 25 8
aB-complex vitamins are necessary only in milk-replacer diets. Required concentrations (mg/kg of DM): thiamin, 6.5; riboflavin, 6.5; pyndox~ne, 6.5; pantothenic acid,
13.0; niacin, 10.0; biotin, 0.1; folio acid, 0.5; Bra, 0.07; choline, 1,000.
b Required concentrations specified for milk replacer fed at 0.53 kg of DM per day to 45-kg calf. Assuming ME content of 4.75 Mcal/kg, this amount of milk replacer
would provide energy-allowable growth of 0.3 kg/d. Concentrations of minerals and vitamins specified will provide adequate daily amounts of minerals and vitamins as defined
in Chapters 6 and 7 and in text of this chapter. User is cautioned that feeding larger or smaller amounts of milk replacer, or same amount of milk replacer to larger or
smaller calf, changes expected growth arid, consequently, requirements for many vitamins and minerals.
CFor veal calves, decrease to less than 50 mg/kg of DM.
Of National Research Council (1989), from 0.7 to 1.0 per-
cent for calcium and from 0.6 to 0.7 percent for phospho-
rus. Recommended concentrations are closer to those
found in whole milk (see Table 10-61. Previous calcium
recommendations were made considering a fat content in
milk replacer of 10 percent, whereas a majority of commer-
cial milk replacers today contain fat at 18-22 percent.
Higher dietary fat results in increased loss of calcium in
the feces because of soap formation between calcium and
long-chain fatty acids in the gut (Toullec et al., 19801.
The recommended content of sodium in milk replacer
was increased from 0.10 to 0.40 percent and from 0.20 to
0.25 percent for chloride (Table 10-61. The committee is
unaware of any problems in young calves posed by the
previous recommendations for sodium and chloride, but
whole milk and most milk replacers that contain milk prod-
ucts usually are substantially higher in sodium and chloride
than even the new recommendations, thus making practical
deficiencies unlikely. As stated earlier, the solids content
of milk replacers should be maintained less than 20 percent
and free drinking water should be available to avoid prob-
lems with excessive intakes of sodium and chloride.
The potassium requirement was left unchanged at 0.65
percent of DM for milk-replacer, starter, and grower diets.
Well et al. (1988) compared dietary potassium concentra-
tions of 0.55, 0.84, 1.02, and 1.32 percent of DM for calves
from 4 to 14 wk of age. They detected no differences in
feed intake, average daily gain, or mineral status among
treatments. In a second trial, Well et al. (1988) compared
dietary potassium concentrations of 0.34 and 0.58 percent
for calves from 6 to 14 wk of age. Feed intake and live
weight gain were greater for calves fed 0.58 percent potass-
ium. The authors concluded that potassium requirement
of growing dairy calves was "within the range of 0.34 to
0.58 percent," but no concentrations between 0.58 and
0.84 percent were tested. Consequently, the subcommittee
concluded that there was insufficient evidence to decrease
the requirement from the current value of 0.65 percent
of DM.
Requirements for most of the trace minerals are
unchanged from the previous edition of Nutrient Require-
ments of Dairy Cattle (National Research Council, 19891.
The required concentrations of iodine were increased from
0.25 mg/kg to 0.50 mg/kg on the basis of information
described in Chapter 6, although, as in the situation with
sodium and chloride, no indication of deficiency has been
noted under practical conditions. The content of cobalt
was increased slightly, from 0.10 to 0.11 mg/kg, to be
consistent with requirements for other classes of cattle
(Chapter 61. Recommended contents of most macromin-
Oral elements in milk replacer and starters are close to
those of whole milk, whereas recommendations for many
of the trace mineral elements are higher than those found
in milk, to prevent deficiencies. Caution should be exer-
cised in making drastic changes in dietary concentrations
of a specific mineral element without being aware of the
OCR for page 224
224 Nutrient Requirements of Dairy CattIe
possible effects of such changes on the status of other
mineral elements (McDowell, 1992~.
Vitamins
VITAMIN A
The subcommittee has markedly increased require-
ments for vitamin A in all classes of dairy cattle for reasons
discussed in Chapter 7. The requirement for vitamin A in
calves was increased from 42.4 (National Research Council,
1989) to 110 IU/kg of LW in the present edition. Eaton
et al. (1972) suggested, on the basis of changes in cerebro-
spinal fluid pressure, that the requirement for vitamin A
should be 96.7 IU/kg of LW for growing Holstein calves.
In the Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle (National
Research Council, 1989), these data were discussed, but
the requirement was not increased; the subcommittee
stated that "if substantial evidence for a higher vitamin A
requirement is forthcoming, the requirement should be
raised." Data from Swanson et al. (2000) demonstrated
that an intake of about 134 IU/kg of LW (9,000 IU/kg of
DM) maintained liver vitamin A stores in male Holstein
calves fed milk replacer, whereas 93 IU/kg or less resulted
in decreases in liver concentrations of vitamin A. Calves
in that study had received adequate colostrum after birth,
were healthy, and were housed under nonstressful environ-
mental conditions throughout the study. No clinical mea-
sures were affected in that study, even at vitamin A intake
(34 IU/kg of LW) less than the previous requirement.
However, the liver concentration of vitamin A is believed
to be a much more sensitive indicator of vitamin A status
than measures used previously to establish requirements.
The new requirement was set to be the same as for other
classes of cattle and is between the estimates made by
Eaton et al. (1972) and Swanson et al. (2000~. Required
concentrations have been increased to 9,000 IU/kg of DM
for milk replacer and 4,000 IU/kg of DM for starter and
grower diets in the present edition. The concentration
recommended here for starter or grower feeds will provide
required amounts of vitamin A for weaned calves weighing
less than 100 kg and gaining 400-900 g/d (Table 10-4~.
The presumed safe limit for vitamin A is 66,OOO IU/kg of
dietary DM for lactating and nonlactating cattle (National
Research Council, 1987), but safe limits specifically for
young calves have not been established. Supplementation
levels of several times the requirement established in the
present edition are common in commercial milk replacers
(Tomkins and [aster, 19911. Data to firmly support such a
practice are not available. Eicher et al. (1994) found
improved fecal consistency in calves fed milk replacer that
contained vitamin A at 87,OOO IU/kg, with no effect on
vitamin E status. In contrast, several studies have reported
adverse effects of high vitamin A on vitamin E status and
on other measures of calf health and growth (see Nonnecke
et al., 19991. Calves fed a milk replacer containing vitamin
A at 44,000 IU/kg of DM rapidly accumulated vitamin A
in liver but showed no signs of toxicity during 28 days
of feeding (Swanson et al., 2000~. Supplementation with
vitamin A in amounts greater than recommended in the
present edition cannot be justified on the basis of available
data. In particular, caution should be observed in formula-
tion of milk replacers for veal calves and for replacement
calves in accelerated-growth schemes to avoid potential
problems with excessive vitamin A intake.
VITAMIN E
The requirement for vitamin E for calves continues to
be debated. Requirements for vitamin E were increased
substantially for lactating and dry cows in the present edi-
tion (Chapter 7~. The subcommittee has increased the
requirement for vitamin E for calves by 25 percent, from
40 IU/kg of dietary DM to 50 IU/kg. The decision to
increase the vitamin E requirement represents a compro-
mise until more-def~nitive data are available. The increase
is based on two main factors. First, although 40 IU/kg of
DM is adequate to prevent classic signs of deficiency, such
as muscular dystrophy or retardation of growth of calves
in controlled systems, calves under conditions of stress
more typical in practice might require higher intakes of
vitamin E to augment the immune system. Vitamin E sup-
plementation improved immune-system responses, as mea-
sured by lymphocyte stimulation indexes, IgM concentra-
tions, serum cortisol concentrations, and antibody response
to a booster vaccine (Ready et al., 1986, 1987b). Indicators
of cell-membrane damage (serum creatine kinase, glutamic
oxalacetic transaminase, and lactic acid dehydrogenase)
suggested that Vitamin E supplementation protected mem-
branes from oxidative damage (Ready et al., 1986, 1987b).
Vitamin E functions as an antioxidant and interacts with
selenium to maintain the structural integrity of tissues
(Combs, 1992; McDowell, 19921.
Reddy et al. (1987a) suggested on the basis of a study
in which calves were supplemented with 125, 25O, or 500
IU of vitamin E per day that the requirement was about
2.4 IU/kg of body weight. However, no supplementation
levels lower than 125 IU/d were tested, and numbers of
animals were insufficient to determine clinical responses.
The subcommittee felt that, in the absence of large-scale
dose-response studies to determine clinical responses, such
a large increase was not justified. Furthermore, increased
requirements for dry cows should increase concentrations
of vitamin E in colostrum (Quigley and Drewry, 1998),
which could provide more vitamin E to calves than was
consumed by calves in the Kansas State University studies.
Second, the relationship of vitamin E with other dietary
nutrients must be considered. For the young calf, dietary
OCR for page 225
Nutrient Requirements of the Young Calf 225
vitamin E should be balanced with the content of essential
fatty acids (1.5-2.5 IU of vitamin E per gram of linoleic
acid; Stobo, 1983) to prevent oxidative stress from
increased intake of polyunsaturated fatty acids, as in young
nonruminant animals. With typical daily intakes of 10-15 g
of linoleic acid from milk replacers, 15-38 IU of vitamin
E daily would be necessary, according to guidelines of
Stobo (19831. To supply adequate vitamin E to meet this
guideline for a calf fed 600 g of milk-replacer DM daily,
vitamin E content would need to be 25-63 IU/kg of DM.
Some evidence suggests that increased vitamin A in the
diet decreases the bioavailability of vitamin E (see Non-
necke et al., 19991. Consequently, the moderate increase
in the vitamin E requirement also is justified because of
the substantially increased vitamin A requirement. Diar-
rhea and gut infections decrease fat digestion and hence
lower the absorption of the fat-soluble vitamins A, D, and
E. Given the widespread occurrence of digestive distur-
bances in young calves before weaning, the increases in
recommendations for both vitamin A and vitamin E should
be beneficial in practical situations. The subcommittee
recognizes that the requirement for vitamin E might need
to be adjusted in future editions if data from large-scale
dose-response studies become available.
VITAMIN D AND WATER-SOLUBLE VITAMINS
Requirements for vitamin D were not changed from the
1989 edition (Table 10-61. Water-soluble vitamins must be
included in the milk-replacer diet of calves (see Table 10-
61. Once the calf is weaned to dry feed, there is no evidence
that these vitamins need to be supplemented to the diet,
inasmuch as the microorganisms in the digestive tract syn-
thesize ample amounts to meet the needs of the calf.
FEED-COMPOSITION DATA WITH
APPLICATION TO DIET FORMULATIONS
FOR CALVES
Values for digestible energy and metabolizable energy
for foodstuffs for calves in the National Research Council
(1989) are realistic compared with known gross energy and
digestibility data and agree closely with values assigned
by other sources. However, as pointed out earlier in this
chapter, the NEM and NEG values for milk, milk byprod-
ucts, and milk replacers given in the 1989 edition were
too low according to reported efficiencies of use of ME by
young milk-fed calves (see chapter 9 in Davis and Drackley,
19981. The problem arose from the inappropriate use of
the equations derived by Garrett (1980) from growth stud-
ies with feedlot cattle to derive the net energy of liquid
diets for nonruminant calves. A different approach has
been taken in the present edition to establish the net energy
values for calf diets.
Gross energy (GE) values have been calculated from
data on composition and heat of combustion. For milk and
milk-derived ingredients used in milk replacers,
GE (Meal/kg) = 0.057 CP% + 0.092 fat%
+ 0.0395 lactose%, (10-5)
where lactose was calculated as 100—CP%—fat%—ash%;
all components are expressed on a DM basis. For whole
milk, milk replacers, and milk-derived ingredients, DE was
calculated as 0.97 GE. For all milk and milk products,
including milk replacers, ME was calculated as 0.96 DE.
Values calculated by these methods agree closely with those
in the previous edition of this publication (National
Research Council, 19891.
The NEM values for milk, milk-derived ingredients, and
milk replacers is calculated as 0.86 ME, consistent with
the NEM requirements discussed earlier. This is similar to
the value of 0.85 used by the Agricultural Research Council
(19801. The approach used to derive values for NEG for
milk and milk-derived ingredients is based on the relation-
ship between the metabolizability (q) of the diet (ME/GE)
and the efficiency of use of ME for maintenance and gain
(Agricultural Research Council, 19801. The NEGvalues for
milk-based diets can then be estimated as follows (Agricul-
tural Research Council, 19801:
NEG = (0.38q + 0.337) ME (10-6)
Values for q have been computed and are included in
Table 10-7, which provides composition data for ingredi-
ents used in milk replacers. The values for NEM and NEG
calculated by these methods agree well with efficiencies
of use of ME of 80 and 69 percent for maintenance and
gain, respectively, determined by others (Roy, 1980; Toul-
lec, 19891.
A slightly different procedure was used to calculate NEM
and NEG values for ingredients used in starter and grower
diets. For all nonmilk ingredients,
GE (Meal/kg) = 0.057 CP%
+ 0.094 ether extract (EE)%
+ 0.0415 carbohydrate% (10-7)
where carbohydrate was calculated as 100—CP%—fat%
— ash%. The DE values were calculated as the sum of
the products of digestible CP, EE, and carbohydrates
multiplied by their heats of combustion; this is the
approach described in Chapter 2 to calculate energy values
for feeds fed to other classes of dairy cattle in this edition.
Values for ME were calculated with the approach in the
previous edition (National Research Council, 1989), except
that the equation was corrected to reflect increased eff~-
ciency of use of fat:
OCR for page 226
226 Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle
TABLE 10-7 Energy, Protein, Calcium, and Phosphorus Concentrations in Feedstuffs Commonly Used in
Formulation of Milk Replacers for Young Calvesa
GE DE ME NEM NEG CP EE Ca P Ash
International DM (Meal/kg (Mcal/l~g (Mcalikg ME/GE (Meal/kg (Mcal/l~g
Feed Feed Number (%) of DM) of DM) of DM) (q) of DM) of DM) % of DM
Whole milk 5-01-168 12.5 5.76 5.59 5.37 0.93 4.62 3.70 25.4 30.8 1.00 0.75 6.3
Skim milk, fresh 5-01-170 10 4.31 4.19 4.02 0.93 3.46 2.77 35.5 0.3 1.35 1.02 6.9
Skim milk, powder 5-01-175 94 4.38 4.25 4.08 0.93 3.51 2.82 37.4 1.0 1.29 1.08 6.9
Whey-powder 4-01-182 93 3.92 3.80 3.65 0.93 3.14 2.52 13.5 1.0 0.76 0.68 8.1
Whey protein concentrate 93 4.48 4.35 4.17 0.93 3.59 2.88 37.1 2.2 0.54 0.60 6.0
Whey, fresh 4-08-134 7 3.89 3.78 3.62 0.93 3.12 2.50 14.2 0.7 0.73 0.65 8.7
Whey, delactosed 4-01-186 93 3.65 3.54 3.40 0.93 2.92 2.34 17.9 0.7 1.71 1.12 16.5
Whey permeate 98 3.66 3.55 3.41 0.93 2.93 2.35 3.7 0 1.77 0.97 9.0
Casein 5-01-162 91 5.45 5.29 5.08 0.93 4.37 3.50 92.7 0.7 0.40 0.35 4.0
aData from NRC (1989); Toullec (1989); Tomkins and Jaster (1991). Calculations are described in text.
ME = (1.01 x DE — 0.45)
+ 0.0046 (EE — 3) (10-8)
where ME and DE are Mcal/kg and EE is percent of
dietary DM. These ME values are analogous to ME values
at maintenance for older cattle (Chapter 2) and are more
consistent with known efficiencies of conversion of DE to
ME, given that methane production in young calves is
extremely low (Gonzlalez-;[imenez and Blaxter, 1962;
Holmes and Davey, 1976). Values for NEM and NEGwere
calculated as described in the section on energy require-
ments earlier in this chapter. For NEM and NEG, ME as
calculated above was multiplied by the respective eff~cienc-
ies of 0.75 for maintenance and 0.57 for gain. These eff~-
ciencies are similar to those estimated by others from the
metabolizability (q) of ingredients. For example, Agricul-
tural Research Council (1980) calculated NEM as (0.287q
+ 0.554)ME and NEG as (0.78q + 0.006)ME. For a calf
starter with q = 0.7O, efficiencies for maintenance and
gain would be 75 and 55 percent when calculated with the
Agricultural Research Council equations.
Table 10-8 presents composition data on examples of
three typical milk replacers, a starter diet, and a grower
diet for calves. The values presented for NEM and NEG
content are considerably higher for all feeds than those
calculated with the previous methods (National Research
Council, 1989). The computer model automatically calcu-
lates ME, NEM, and NEGconcentrations for feeds used for
young calves. Users are cautioned that the requirements
and feed values are designed to be used together. Use of
NEM and NEG values from previous editions with the pres-
ent growth model, or vice versa, will result in erroneous
predictions.
Values for total digestible nutrients (TDN) are not given
for calf requirements or feeds in this edition. If desired,
TDN can be calculated as described for feeds for other
classes of cattle (see Chapter 2). For milk, milk replacer,
and milk ingredients,
TDN = 0.93 CP + (EE x 2.25)
+ 0.98 (100—CP—EE—Ash) - 7 (10-9)
OTHER ASPECTS OF CALF NUTRITION
Fetal Nutrition
Although severe undernutrition can impair normal fetal
development (National Research Council, 1968), the
developing fetal calf is afforded a high priority for maternal
nutrients. Moderate underfeeding of either protein or
energy did not result in measurable changes in calf birth
weight, viability, or health (Davis and Drackley, 1998;
Quigley and Drewry, 1998). Prolonged restriction of pro-
tein or energy during gestation decreased thermogenic
abilities of beefcalves at birth (Carstens et al., 1987; Ridder
et al., 1991).
Maternal deficiencies of phosphorus, manganese, cobalt,
copper, zinc, and selenium can result in deficiencies in the
fetus and newborn calf (National Research Council, 1968).
The fetus has the ability to concentrate some of these
minerals, particularly copper (Hidiroglou and Knipfel,
1981) and selenium (Van Saun et al., 1989a), providing
some protection against marginal deficiencies in the
mother. Selenium supplementation of pregnant cows
increased selenium reserves in the newborn calves (Abdel-
rahman and Kincaid, 1995). Placental transfer of vitamin
E to the developing fetus is low, although the fetal calf
appears to have some ability to concentrate vitamin E from
the dam (Van Saun et al., 1989b). The calf is born with a
low vitamin E status and is highly dependent on intake of
colostrum and then milk or milk replacer to obtain needed
vitamin E during early postnatal life. If diets for pregnant
cows are balanced to meet recommendations for pregnancy
and maternal growth (see Chapters 6 and 7), as well as for
optimal transition success (see Chapter 9), nutrient supply
should be adequate for normal growth and development
OCR for page 227
Nutrient Requirements of the Young Calf 227
TABLE 10-8 Energy, Protein, Fiber, and Mineral Composition of Three Milk Replacers (MR), a Starter Feed, and a
Grower Feed for Young Calves
GEa DEa MEa NEM NEG
(Meal/kg (Meal/kg (Meal/kg (Meal/kg (Meal/kg CP EE ADF NDF Ca P
Feed DM) of DM) of DM) of DM) of DM) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
MR-1 4.61 4.47 4.29 3.69b 2.96C 22 10 1.0 0.70
MR-2 5.10 4.95 4.75 4.09b 3.28C 20 20 1.0 0.70
MR-3 5.07 4.91 4.72 4.o6b 3.26C 18 20 1.0 0.70
Starter 4.49 3.69 3.28 2.46d l.78e 18 3 11.6 12.8 0.7 0 45
Grower 4.36 3.65 3.24 2.43d 1.6le 16 3 8.0 18.0 0.6 0.40
a energy values calculated as follows:
Gross energy (GE) is calculated from composition and heat of combustion. For milk replacers, GE (kcal/kg) =
grower, GE (kcal/kg) = 0.057 CP + 0.092 EE + 0.0415 carbohydrate.
For MR, digestible energy (DE) = 0.97 GE. For starter and grower, DE is calculated as sum of digestible protein, fat, and carbohydrates, each multiplied by heat of combustion.
For MR, metabolizable energy (ME) calculated as 0.93 GE (ME/GE of whole milk has been measured at 0.93; Roy, 1980). For starter and grower feeds, ME = (1.01 X
DE—0.45) + (0.0046EE —3) (see text and Chapter 2).
bNEM = 0.86 ME. See text for details.
CNEG = (0.38q + 0.337) X ME. Based on q of 0.93 y~elding an eff~ciency of 0.69 for ME use (ARC, 1980).
~NEM = ME X 0.75.
eNEG = ME X 0.57.
- 0.057 CP + 0.092 fat + 0.0395 lactose. For starter and
of the fetal calf (Davis and Drackley, 1998; Quigley and
Drewry, 1998).
Colostrum
Calves are born with negligible circulating concentra-
tions of immunoglobulins (McCoy et al.,19701. Early provi-
sion of high-quality colostrum in amounts suff~cient to pro-
vide at least 100 g of IgG is critical to calf survival and
well-being (Davis and Drackley, 1998; Quigley and
Drewry, 19981. The immunoglobulin content of colostrum
is highly variable (Pritchett et al., 19911; therefore, to max-
imize the likelihood of obtaining suff~cient IgG, it is recom-
mended that calves be fed at least 3 L of colostrum from
multiparous cows within an hour afterbirth. Holstein calves
can be administered as much as 3.8 L of colostrum in a
single feeding after birth to ensure delivery of suff~cient
IgG (Besser et al., 1991; Hopkins and Quigley, 19971.
In addition to disease protection, earlyprovision of colos-
trum is important as a source of nutrients (Davis and
Drackley, 1998; Quigley and Drewry, 19981. Because sup-
plies of endogenous fuels are exhausted within hours with-
out feed (Okamato et al., 1986; Rowan, 1992), the carbohy-
drate, fat, and protein in colostrum are essential as fuels
for the newborn. Most of the essential minerals and vita-
mins are substantially more concentrated in colostrum than
in milk (Foley and Otterby, 19781. Consumption of ade- Water and Electrolytes
quate amounts of colostrum by the newborn calf, followed
by consumption of milk or milk replacer that is adequate
in mineral and vitamin content, is important to compensate
for any maternal inadequacies during gestation. Increasing
evidence in calves and other species indicates that colos-
trum also provides a number of hormones and growth
factors necessary to stimulate growth and development of
the digestive tract and other organ systems (Hammon and
Blum, 19981.
Commercial products containing immunoglobulins may
be useful to supplement poor-quality colostrum (Gerry et
al., 1996; Morin et al., 1997; Arthington et al.,20001. Other
products are designed to be injected to increase serum
immunoglobulins in calves (Quigley and Welborn, 19961.
At present, none of the commercially available supple-
ments or substitutes can completely replace colostrum in
providing passive immunity to calves (Arthington et al.,
20001. High-quality colostrum should be provided when-
ever possible; supplements are of little additional value
when sufficient amounts of high-quality colostrum are
administered (Hopkins and Quigley, 19971. Development
of products that can deliver suff~cient biologically active
immunoglobulins to the newborn calf might be increasingly
important for use in biosecurity programs to control conta-
gious diseases, such as ;[ohne's disease, in which it would
be desirable to avoid the feeding of any colostrum or whole
milk to calves. Although the nutritional aspects of colos-
trum probably could be replaced by a properly formulated
milk replacer, the consequences of the absence of the
growth factors and hormones normally consumed in colos-
trum are not known.
Water is the most important nutrient and, although
essential, is often overlooked. Too often, it is assumed that
if a calf is being fed a liquid diet, its needs for water will
be satisf~ed. Fresh water, in addition to water consumed
as part of the diet, is essential for optimal growth and
consumption of dry feed (Leaver and Yarrow, 1972; Kertz
et al., 19841.
OCR for page 228
228 Nutrient Requirements of Dairy CattIe
Aside from constituting 70-75 percent of the weight of
the calf, water plays important roles as a solvent for nutri-
ents, a thermoregulator, and an osmoregulator (Davis and
Drackley, 19981. Calves, because of their greater propen-
sity to develop digestive disturbances (diarrhea), experi-
ence greater problems with water balance than do older
animals.
During incidents of diarrhea, 10-12 percent of body
weight can be lost as water. The water loss in feces carries
with it major losses of the electrolytes sodium, chloride,
and potassium (Lewis and Phillips, 1978; Phillips, 19851.
Such losses of water and electrolytes result in severe dehy-
dration and electrolyte imbalances, which if not rapidly
corrected will result in death. In fact most deaths associated
with diarrhea occur from these phenomena rather than
directly from infectious agents (Booth and Naylor, 19871.
Recent evidence indicates that electrolyte disturbances are
more important than dehydration itself in causing death
from diarrhea (Walker et al., 19981.
At the first signs of diarrhea, a calf should be started
on oral rehydration (Davis and Drackley, 19981. Current
information suggests that the calf should continue to
receive a portion of, if not all, its regular feeding of milk or
milk replacer with the oral electrolyte product (McGuirk,
1992; Garthwaite et al., 1994) as long as it is alert and
willing to drink. Calves that are severely dehydrated,
recumbent, or acidemic will require intravenous fluid ther-
apy for recovery.
Milk Replacers
Milk replacers are used on a majority of dairy farms
in the United States (Heinrichs et al., 19951. Substantial
changes in milk-replacer formulation have occurred since
the last edition of this publication (National Research
Council, 19891. Increases in market prices for dried skim
milk, coupled with development of low-temperature ultra-
f~ltration techniques for preparation of high-quality whey
protein concentrates, have led to the almost complete
replacement of dried skim milk with whey-derived prod-
ucts (Davis and Drackley, 19981. Milk-replacer formula-
tions generally are classified as all-milk protein or as alter-
native protein. Milk replacers of all-milk protein contain
whey protein concentrate, dried whey, and delactosed
whey as protein sources. Many alternative-protein formula-
tions are available, in which portions of the milk proteins
(typically 50 percent) are replaced with lower-cost ingredi-
ents, such as soy protein concentrate, soy protein isolates,
animal plasma or whole-blood proteins, and modified
wheat gluten (Davis and Drackley, 19981. Examples of
formulations and a review of recent research can be found
in chapter 14 of Davis and Drackley (19981. Aspects of
milk replacer use also have been reviewed by Heinrichs
(1994, 19951.
The ability of these protein sources to supply an ade-
quate amount and profile of amino acids for growth of
preruminant calves depends on the amino acid profile of
the protein, the quality of the manufacturing process, and
the ability of the calf to digest the protein. High tempera-
tures during drying can damage proteins and lessen their
biologic value (Wilson and Wheelock, 19721. Furthermore,
antinutritional factors present in some protein sources can
decrease efficiency of amino acid use (Huisman, 1989;
Lalles, 19931. Whey protein concentrate is digested and
utilized as least as well as skim milk protein by young calves
(Terosky et al., 1997; Lammers et al., 19981.
The proteolytic digestive system of the young calf is
immature at birth, and until the age of about 3 weeks the
calf is less able to digest most nonmilk proteins (Toullec
and Guilloteau, 19891. Therefore, for optimal growth dur-
ing the first 3 weeks of life, it is recommended that milk
replacers containing only milk proteins be used. Older
calves are able to use formulations that contain nonmilk
proteins.
Milk replacers typically contain tallow, choice white
grease, or lard as a fat source. The degree of homogeniza-
tion is critical for high digestibility (Raven, 19701. Emulsifi-
ers, such as lecithin and monoglycerides, often are added
to enhance mixing characteristics and fat digestibility. In
general, vegetable oils and fat sources that contain large
amounts of free fatty acids are poorly used by calves (;[en-
kins et al., 19851. Research data on optimal concentrations
of fat in milk replacers are conflicting, with little definitive
evidence that a fat content beyond 10-12 percent is
needed, at least in moderate environments (Heinrichs,
19951.
Feed Additives
A variety of feed additives have been examined for inclu-
sion in milk replacers or dry feeds (Heinrichs, 19931. The
addition of medications to milk replacers in the US is
regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. Antibiot-
ics such as oxytetracycline and neomycin are widely used
in milk replacers (Heinrichs et al., 19951. Antibiotics consis-
tently improve growth rates and feed efficiency and
decrease incidence and severity of scouring of calves (Mor-
rill et al., 1977; Quigley et al., 1997a), although the mode
of action still is poorly understood. Benefits of antibiotic
inclusion may be more evident for calves raised intensively
in large numbers, for shipped-in calves originating from
different farms, and for calves raised under conditions of
stress (Morrill et al., 1977; Morrill et al., 1995; Davis and
Drackley, 19981.
Lasalocid and decoquinate added to feeds are effective
in control of coccidiosis (Hoblet et al., 1989; Heinrichs et
al., 1990; Heinrichs and Bush, 1991; Eicher-Pruiett et al.,
1992; Quigley et al.,1997b). Supplementation in calf starter
OCR for page 229
Nutrient Requirements of the Young Calf 229
requires adequate feed intake to achieve effective dosages,
but infection with coccidia often occurs before starter
intake is sufficient (Quigley et al., 1997b). Bacterial probi-
otic products have shown some benefit in improving calf
health and performance (Jenny et al., 1991; Higginbotham
and Bath, 1993; Morrill et al., 1995; Abe et al., 1995;
Cruywagen et al., 1996) although responses have been
variable and inconsistent (Morrill et al., 19771. Experimen-
tal results from additions of fungal (Beharka et al., 1991)
or yeast (Quigley et al., 1992) culture products to starter
diets have been inconclusive.
Sodium bicarbonate increased starter intake and growth
of young calves in one study (Curnick et al., 1983) but
did not affect intake or calf performance in another study
(Quigley et al., 19921.
Practical Feeding Considerations
As mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, female
calves in the United States destined for herd replacements
should be fed restricted amounts of milk or milk replacer
(typically 8-10 percent of birth weight) to encourage early
consumption of calf starter (National Research Council,
19891. Development of early starter intake is inversely
proportional to the amount of liquid fed (Hodgson, 19711.
Growth rates of young calves during the liquid feeding
period thus are much lower than the maximal growth rates
of calves (Khouri and Pickering, 1968; Hodgson, 1971),
and feed efficiency is lower than that in the young of other
farm animals that consume milk ad libitum (Khouri and
Pickering, 1968; Davis and Drackley, 19981. Nevertheless,
restricted liquid feeding encourages earlier starter intake
and ruminal development, which in turn allows for earlier
weaning and more economic body weight gains. Ad libitum
or increased liquid feeding programs researched to date
have resulted in greater growth rates and improved feed
efficiency during the liquid feeding period, but lower con-
sumption of dry feed and variable effects on calf health
(Khouri and Pickering, 1968; Hodgson, 1971; Huber et
al., 1984; Nocek and Braund, 1986; Richard et al., 19881.
Methods to capitalize on the early growth potential are
being researched in the context of accelerated rearing pro-
grams for heifers that encompass all stages of growth from
birth to first calving. However, these programs are still
under development and evaluation, and cannot yet be rec-
ommended at this time.
During the early liquid feeding period, growth of calves
fed milk or milk replacer is directly proportional to the
amount of liquid provided (Khouri and Pickering, 1968;
Hodgson, 1971; Huber et al., 19841. In contrast, in
restricted liquid feeding programs, growth rates are
directly proportional to the amount of calf starter con-
sumed (Kertz et al., 1979, 19841. Users should be aware
that typical milk replacers contain 10-20 percent less
energy than comparable volumes of whole milk because
of the lower fat content of milk replacers. A 40-kg calf fed
milk replacer at 9 percent of body weight would consume
454 g of DM. If the milk replacer contains ME at 4.7
Mcal/kg of DM, the calf would consume enough energy
for maintenance and a body weight gain of 234 g/d under
thermoneutral conditions. According to the model pre-
sented in this edition, feeding the same volume of whole
milk would support a gain of 331 g/d. In contrast, if the
same calf is housed at 20°C below its lower critical tempera-
ture, 454 g/d of milk replacer powder is insufficient even
for maintenance. Increasing evidence suggests that these
low feeding rates also are inadequate to support optimal
health and function ofthe immune system, especially under
adverse environmental conditions (Williams et al., 1981;
Griebel et al., 1987; Pollock et al., 1993, 19941.
High intakes of milk or milk replacer are important for
veal production. The effects of increasing intake of whole
milk and milk replacer for a 40-kg calf are illustrated in
Figure 10-1. Note that the difference in growth perfor-
mance predicted between whole milk and milk replacer
fed at equal amounts is accounted for entirely by the 13
percent greater ME content of whole-milk solids versus
the milk replacer solids. Gains predicted here agree closely
with literature studies with high rates of milk feeding
(Khouri and Pickering, 1968; Hodgson, 19711.
Large-breed calves can be weaned easily when consum-
ing at least 0.68 kg of a good-quality starter daily for 3
1200 1 1
_
1 1 00 -
1 000 -
900 -
800-
700-
._
~ 400-
600 -
500 -
300 -
200 -
100 -
o-
...............
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
L
:::::: ::::::::::::::::::::
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
. . .
............................... l . . .
............................... l
............................... l
............................... l
............................... l
............................... l
............................... l
............................... l
............................... l
............................... l
............................... l
............................... l
............................... l
............... ,
..............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
10 14 18
Feeding rate (% of BW)
FIGURE 10-1 Example of growth rate predicted by the model
in this edition for a 40-kg calf fed whole milk (open bars) or milk
replacer (dark bars) at 10, 14, or 18 percent of body weight.
Whole milk contains ME at 5.37 McaLkg of DM. Milk replacer
contains ME at 4.75 McaLkg of DM and is assumed to be reconsti-
toted to 12.5 percent solids, similar to total solids content of
whole milk.
OCR for page 230
230 Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle
consecutive days. Under good management, with restricted
milk or milk replacer feeding this can occur as early as the
age of 4 weeks (Kertz et al., 1979, 19841. More aggressive
milk-feeding programs will delay development of starter
intake and weaning age (Hodgson, 1971; Huber et al.,
19841. Other factors important for early development of
d~y-feed intake include free access to supplemental water;
provision of palatable starter feeds (generally of coarse
texture rather than finely ground); keeping feeds fresh,
dry, and free of mold; and good health of calves. A major
metabolic factor could be the establishment of stable ~umi-
nal fermentation with pH greater than 5.5 (Williams and
Frost, 19921.
R E F E R E N C E S
Abdelgadir, I. E. O., and J. L. Morrill. 1995. Effect of processing sorghum
grain on dairy calf performance. J. Dairy Sci. 78:2040-2046.
Abdelgadir, I. E. O., J. L. Morrill, and J. J. Higgins. 1996a. Effect of
roasted soybeans and corn on performance and ruminal and blood
metabolites of dairy calves. J. Dairy Sci. 79:465-474.
Abdelgadir, I. E. O., J. L. Morrill, and J. J. Higgins. 1996b. Ruminal
availabilities of protein and starch: effects on growth and ruminal and
plasma metabolites of dairy calves. J. Dairy Sci. 79:283-290.
Abdelrahman, M. M., and R. L. Kincaid. 1995. Effect of selenium supple-
mentation of cows on maternal transfer of selenium to fetal and new-
born calves. J. Dairy Sci. 78:625-630.
Abe, F., N. Ishibashi, and S. Shimamura. 1995. Effect of administration
of bif~dobacteria and lactic acid bacteria to newborn calves and piglets.
J. Dairy Sci. 78:2838-2846.
Agricultural Research Council. 1980. The Nutrient Requirements of
Ruminant Livestock. Farnham Royal, Slough, England: Common-
wealth Agricultural Bureaux.
Akayezu, J. M., J. G. Linn, D. E. Otterby, W. P. Hansen, and D. G.
Johnson. 1994. Evaluation of calf starters containing different amounts
of crude protein for growth of Holstein calves. J. Dairy Sci.
77:1882-1889.
Alexander, G., J.W. Bennett, and R.T. Gammell. 1975. Brown adipose
tissue in the newborn calf (Bos Taurus). J. Physiol. 244: 223-234.
Anderson, K. L., T. G. Nagaraja, and J. L. Morrill. 1987a. Ruminal
metabolic development in calves weaned conventionally or early.
J. Dairy Sci. 70:1000-1005.
Anderson, K. L., T. G. Nagaraja, J. L. Morrill, T. B. Avery, S. J. Galitzer,
and J. E. Boyer. 1987b. Ruminal microbial development in convention-
ally or early weaned calves. J. Anim. Sci. 64:1215-1226.
Arieli, A., J. W. Schrama, W. Van Der Hel, and M. W. A. Verstegen.
1995. Development of metabolic partitioning of energy in young calves.
J. Dairy Sci. 78:1154-1162.
Arthington, J. D., M. B. Cattell, and J. D. Quigley, III. 2000. Effect of
dietary IgG source (colostrum, serum, or milk-derived supplement) on
the efficiency of Ig absorption in newborn Holstein calves. J. Dairy
Sci. 83:1463-1467.
Beharka, A. A., T. G. Nagaraja, and J. L. Morrill. 1991. Performance and
ruminal function development of young calves fed diets with Aspergillus
oryzae fermentation extract. J. Dairy Sci. 74:4326-4336.
Beharka, A. A., T. G. Nagaraja, J. L. Morrill, G. A. Kennedy, and R. D.
Klemm. 1998. Effects of form of the diet on anatomical, microbial,
and fermentative development of the rumen of neonatal calves. J. Dairy
Sci. 81:1946-1955.
Besser, T. E., C. C. Gay, and L. Pritchett. 1991. Comparison of three
methods of feeding colostrum to dairy calves. J. Am. Vet. Med.
Assoc. 198:419-422.
Blaxter, K. L. and H. H. Mitchell. 1948. The factorization of the protein
requirements of ruminants and of the protein value of feeds, with
particular reference to the significance of the metabolic fecal nitrogen.
J. Anim. Sci. 7: 351-372.
Blaxter, K. L., and W. A. Wood. 1951. The nutrition of the young Ayrshire
calf.4. Some factors affecting the biological value of protein determined
by nitrogen balance methods. Br. J. Nutr. 5:55-67.
Booth, A. J., and J. M. Naylor. 1987. Correction of metabolic acidosis in
diarrhea! calves by oral administration of electrolyte solutions with or
without bicarbonate. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 191: 62-68.
Brownlee, A. 1956. The development of rumen papillae in cattle fed on
different diets. Br. Vet. J. 112:369-375.
Carstens, G. E., D. E. Johnson, M. D. Holland, and K. G. Odde. 1987.
Effects of prepartum protein nutrition and birth weight on basal metab-
olism in bovine neonates. J. Anim. Sci. 65:745-51.
Chester-Jones, H., D. M. Ziegler, and J. C. Meiske. 1991. Feeding whole
or rolled corn with pelleted supplement to Holstein steers from weaning
to 190 kilograms. J. Dairy Sci. 74:1765-1771.
Combs, G. F., Jr. 1992. The Vitamins: Fundamental Aspects in Nutrition
and Health. San Deigo, CA: Academic Press, Inc.
Cruywagen, C. W., I. Jordaan, and L. Venter.1996. Effect of Lactobacillus
acidophilus supplementation of milk replacer on preweaning perfor-
mance of calves. J. Dairy Sci. 79:483-486.
Cunningham, H. M., and G. J. Brisson. 1957. The endogenous urinary
and metabolic fecal nitrogen excretions of newborn dairy calves. Can.
J. Anim. Sci. 37:152-156.
Curnick, K. E., L. D. Muller, J. A. Rogers, T. J. Snyder, and T. F.
Sweeney. 1983. Addition of sodium bicarbonate to calf starter rations
varying in protein percent. J. Dairy Sci. 66:2149-2160.
Davis C. L., and J. H. Clark. 1981. Ruminant digestion and metabolism.
Dev. Ind. Microbiol. 22:247-259.
Davis, C. L. and J. K. Drackley. 1998. The Development, Nutrition, and
Management of the Young Calf. Iowa State University Press, Ames,
Iowa.
Donnelly, P. E., and J. B. Hutton. 1976a. Effects of dietary protein and
energy on the growth of Friesian bull calves. I. Food intake, growth,
and protein requirements. N.Z. J. Agric. Res. 19: 289-297.
Donnelly, P. E., and J. B. Hutton. 1976b. Effects of dietary protein and
energy on the growth of Friesian bull calves. II. Effects of level of
feed intake and dietary protein content on body composition. N.Z.
J. Agric. Res. 19: 409-414.
Eaton, H. D., J. E. Rousseau, Jr., R. C. Hall, Jr., H. I. Prier, and J. J.
Lucas. 1972. Reevaluation of the minimum vitamin A requirement of
Holstein male calves based upon elevated cerebrospinal fluid pressure.
J. Dairy Sci. 55:232-237.
Eicher, S. D., J. L. Morrill, F. Blecha, C. G. Chitko-McKown, N. V.
Anderson, and J. J. Higgins. 1994. Leukocyte functions of young dairy
calves fed milk replacers supplemented with vitamins A and E. J. Dairy
Sci. 77:1399-1407.
Eicher-Pruiett, S. D., J. L. Morrill, T. G. Nagaraja, J. J. Higgins, N. V.
Anderson, and P. G. Reddy. 1992. Response of young dairy calves with
lasalocid delivery varied in feed sources. J. Dairy Sci. 75:857-862.
Flatt, W. G., R. G. Warner, and J. K. Loosli. 1958. Influence of purified
materials on the development of the ruminant stomach. J. Dairy Sci.
41:1593-1600.
Foley, J. A., and D. E. Otterby. 1978. Availability, storage, treatment,
composition, and feeding value of surplus colostrum: a review. J. Dairy
Sci. 61:1033-1060.
Garrett, W. N. 1980. Energy utilization by growing cattle as determined
in 72 comparative slaughter experiments. In Energy Metabolism edited
by L.E. Mount, EAAP Publ. No 26, 3-7. London: Butterworths.
OCR for page 231
Nutrient Requirements of the Young Calf 231
Carry, F. B., R. Adams, M. B. Cattell, and R. P. Dinsmore.1996. Compari-
son of passive immunoglobulin transfer to dairy calves fed colostrum
or commercially available colostral supplement products. J. Am. Vet.
Med. Assoc. 1:107-110.
Garthwaite, B. D., J. K. Drackley, G. C. McCoy, and E.H. Jaster. 1994.
Whole milk and oral rehydration solution for calves with diarrhea of
spontaneous origin. J. Dairy Sci. 77:835-843.
Gerrits, W. J. J., G. H. Tolman, J. W. Schrama, S. Tamminga, M. W.
Bosch, and M.W.A. Verstegen. 1996. Effect of protein and protein-
free energy intake on protein and fat deposition rates in preruminant
calves of 80 to 240 kg live weight. J. Anim. Sci. 74:2129-2139.
Gonzalez-Jimenez, E., and K. L. Blaxter. 1962. The metabolism and
thermal regulation of calves in the first month of life. Br. J. Nutr.
16:199-212.
Greenwood, R. H., J. L. Morrill, E. C. Titgemeyer, and G. A. Kennedy.
1997. A new method of measuring diet abrasion and its effect on the
development of the forestomach. J. Dairy Sci. 80:2534-2541.
Griebel, P. J., M. Schoonderwoerd, and L. A. Babiuk. 1987. Ontogeny of
the immune response: effect of protein energy malnutrition in neonatal
calves. Can. J. Vet. Res. 51:428-435.
Hammon, H. M., and J. W. Blum. 1998. Metabolic and endocrine traits
of neonatal calves are influenced by feeding colostrum for different
durations or only milk replacer. J. Nutr. 128:624-632.
Heinrichs, A. J. 1993. Raising dairy replacements to meet the needs of
the 21St century. J. Dairy Sci. 76:3179-3187.
Heinrichs, A. J. 1994. Milk replacers for dairy calves part I. Compend.
Contin. Educ. Prac. Vet. 16:1605-1612.
Heinrichs, A. J. 1995. Milk replacers for dairy calves part II. Compend.
Contin. Educ. Prac. Vet. 17:433-438.
Heinrichs, A. J., and G. J. Bush. 1991. Evaluation of decoquinate or
lasalocid against coccidiosis from natural exposure in neonatal dairy
calves. J. Dairy Sci. 74:3223-3227.
Heinrichs, A. J., L. A. Swartz, T. R. Drake, and P. A. Travis. 1990.
Influence of decoquinate fed to neonatal dairy calves on early and
conventional weaning systems. J. Dairy Sci. 73:1851-1856.
Heinrichs, A. J., S. J. Wells, and W. C. Losinger. 1995. A study of the
use of milk replacers for dairy calves in the United States. J. Dairy
Sci. 78:2831-2837.
Hidiroglou, M., and J. E. Knipfel. 1981. Maternal-fetal relationships of
copper, manganese, and sulfur in ruminants: a review. J. Dairy Sci.
64:1637-1647.
Higginbotham, G. E., and D. L. Bath. 1993. Evaluation of Lactobacillus
fermentation cultures in calf feeding systems. J. Dairy Sci. 76:615-620.
Hoblet, K. H., T. P. Charles, and R. P. Howard. 1989. Evaluation of
lasalocid and decoquinate against coccidiosis resulting from natural
exposure in weaned dairy calves. Am. J. Vet. Res. 50:1060-1064.
Hodgson, J. 1971. The development of solid food intake in calves. 5. The
relationship between liquid and solid food intake. Anim. Prod.
13:593-597.
Holmes, C. W., and A. W. F. Davey. 1976. The energy metabolism of
young Jersey and Friesian calves fed fresh milk. Anim. Prod. 23:43-53.
Hopkins, B. A., and J. D. Quigley, III. 1997. Effects of method of colos-
trum feeding and colostrum supplementation on concentrations of
immunoglobulin G in the serum of neonatal calves. J. Dairy Sci.
80:979-983.
Huber, J. T., A. G. Silva, O. F. Campos, and C. M. Mathieu. 1984.
Influence of feeding different amounts of milk on performance, health,
and absorption capability of baby calves. J. Dairy Sci. 67:2957-2963.
Huisman, J. 1989. Antinutritional factors (ANFs) in the nutrition of
monogastric farm animals. In Nutrition and Digestive Physiology in
Monogastric Farm Animals, 17-35. Wageningen, Netherlands: Pudoc.
Jackson, J. A., and R. W. Hemken. 1994. Calcium and cation-anion effects
on feed intake, body weight gain, and humoral response of dairy calves.
J. Dairy Sci. 77:1430-1436.
Jaster, E. H., G. C. McCoy, and R. L. Fernando. 1990. Dietary fat in
milk or milk replacers for young calves raised in hutches during winter.
J. Dairy Sci. 73: 1843-1850.
Jaster, E. H., G. C. McCoy, N. Spanski, and T. Tomkins. 1992. Effect
of extra energy as fat or milk replacer solids in diets of young dairy
calves on growth during cold weather. J. Dairy Sci. 75:2524-2531.
Jenkins, K. J., J. K. G. Kramer, F. D. Sauer, and D. B. Emmons. 1985.
Influence of triglycerides and free fatty acids in milk replacers on calf
performance, blood plasma, and adipose lipids. J. Dairy Sci.
68:669-680.
Jenny, B. F., S. E. Mills, W. E. Johnston, and G. D. O'Dell. 1978. Effect
of fluid intake and dry matter concentration on scours and water intake
in calves fed once daily. J. Dairy Sci. 61:765-770.
Jenny, B. F., H. J. Vandijk, and J. A. Collins. 1991. Performance and
fecal flora of calves fed a Bacillus subtilis concentrate. J. Dairy Sci.
74:1968-1973.
Johnson, P. T. C., and R. C. Elliott. 1972a. Dietary energy intake and
utilization by young Friesland calves. 2. Digestibility and metabolizable
energy contents of whole milk and spray-dried skimmilk powder, and
energy retentions of calves given these foods. Rhod. J. Agric. Res.
10:125-133.
Johnson, P. T. C., and R. C. Elliott. 1972b. Dietary energy intake and
utilization by young Friesland calves. 3. The utilization by calves of
energy in whole milk. Rhod. J. Agric. Res. 10:135-142.
Kertz, A. F., L. R. Prewitt, and J. P. Everett, Jr. 1979. An early weaning
calf program: summarization and review. J. Dairy Sci. 62:1835-1843.
Kertz, A. F., L. F. Reutzel, and J.H. Mahoney. 1984. Ad libitum water
intake by neonatal calves and its relationship to calf starter intake,
weight gain, fecal score, and season. J. Dairy Sci. 76: 2964-2969.
Khouri, R. H., and F. S. Pickering. 1968. Nutrition of the milk-fed calf.
I. Performance of calves fed on different levels of whole milk relative
to body weight. N.Z. J. Agric. Res. 11:227-236.
Kincaid, R. L., B. P. Chew, and J. D. Cronrath. 1997. Zinc oxide and
amino acids as sources of dietary zinc for calves: effects on uptake and
immunity. J. Dairy Sci. 80:1381-1388.
Kuehn, C. S., D. E. Otterby, J. G. Linn, W. G. Olson, H. Chester-Jones,
G. D. Marx, and J. A. Barmore. 1994. The effect of dietary energy
concentration on calf performance. J. Dairy Sci. 77:2621-2629.
Lalles, J. P. 1993. Nutritional and antinutritional aspects of soyabean and
f~eld pea proteins used in veal calf production: a review. Livestock
Prod. Sci. 34:181-202.
Lammers, B. P., A. J. Heinrichs, and A. Aydin. 1998. The effect of
whey protein concentrate or dried skim milk in milk replacer on calf
performance and blood metabolites. J. Dairy Sci. 81:1940-1945.
Leaver, J. D., and N. H. Yarrow. 1972. Rearing of dairy cattle. 2. Weaning
calves according to their concentrate intake. Anim. Prod. 14:161-165.
Lewis, L. D., and R. W. Phillips. 1978. Pathophysiologic changes due to
coronavirus-induced diarrhea in the calf. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc.
173:636-642.
Maiga, H. A., D. J. Schingoethe, F. C. Ludens, W. L. Tucker, and D.
P. Casper. 1994. Response of calves to diets that varied in amounts of
ruminally degradable carbohydrate and protein. J. Dairy Sci.
77:278-283.
McCoy, G. C., J. K. Reneau, A. G. Hunter, and J. B. Williams. 1970.
Effects of diet and time on blood serum proteins in the newborn calf.
J. Dairy Sci. 53:358-362.
McDowell, L. R. 1992. Minerals in Animal and Human Nutrition. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.
McGavin, M. D., and J. L. Morrill. 1976. Scanning electron microscopy
of ruminal papillae in calves fed various amounts and forms of roughage.
Am. J. Vet Res. 37:497-508.
McGuirk, S. M. 1992. New approach to electrolyte therapy. Proc. 17th
World Buiatrics Congress and 25th American Association Bovine Prac-
OCR for page 232
232 Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle
titioners Conference, vol. 2, 182-186, West Lafayette, IN: American
Association of Bovine Practitioners.
Morin, D. E., G. C. McCoy, and W. L. Hurley. 1997. Effects of quality,
quantity, and timing of colostrum feeding and addition of a colostrum
supplement on immunoglobulin G1 absorption in Holstein bull calves.
J. Dairy Sci. 80:747-753.
Morrill, J. L., A. D. Dayton, and R. Mickelsen. 1977. Cultured milk and
antibiotics for young calves. J. Dairy Sci. 60:1105-1109.
Morrill, J. L., J. M. Morrill, A. M. Feyerherm, and J. F. Laster. 1995.
Plasma proteins and a probiotic as ingredients in milk replacer. J. Dairy
Sci. 78:902-907.
National Research Council. 1968. Prenatal and Postnatal Mortality in
Cattle, Publication 1685. Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Sci.
National Research Council.1978. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle,
5th rev. ed. Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Sci.
National Research Council. 1981. Nutritional Energetics of Domestic
Animals. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. 1987. Vitamin Tolerance of Animals. Wash-
ington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council, 1989. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle,
6th rev. ed. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council, 1996. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle,
7th ed. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Neergard, L. 1976. A comparative study of nitrogen and energy metabo-
lism in young calves fed three liquid diets. In Energy Metabolism of
Farm Animals, edited by M. Vermorel, 205-208. European Association
of Animal Production, Claremont-Ferrand, France.
Nocek, J. E., and D. G. Braund.1986. Performance, health, and postwean-
ing growth on calves fed cold, acidified milk replacer ad libitum. J. Dairy
Sci. 69:1871-1883.
Nonnecke, B. J., R. L. Horst, W. R. Waters, P. Dubeski, and J. A.
Harp.1999. Modulation of fat-soluble vitamin concentrations and blood
mononuclear leukocyte populations in milk replacer-fed calves by
dietary vitamin A and Q-carotene. J. Dairy Sci. 82:2632-2641.
Okamoto, M., J. B. Robinson, R. J. Christopherson, and B. A. Young.
1986. Summit metabolism of newborn calves with and without colos-
trum feeding. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 66: 937-944.
Orskov, E. R. 1972. Reflex closure of the oesophageal groove and its
potential application in ruminant nutrition. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 2:
169-176.
Ortigues, I., C. Martin, M. Vermorel, and Y. Anglaret. 1994. Energy
cost of standing and circadian changes in energy expenditure in the
preruminant calf. J. Anim. Sci. 72:2131-2140.
Phillips, R. W. 1985. Fluid therapy for diarrheic calves. What, how, and
how much? Vet. Clin. North Am. Food Anim. Pract. 1:541-562.
Pollock, J. M., T. G. Rowan, J. B. Dixon, S. D. Carter, D. Spiller, and
H. Warenius. 1993. Alteration of cellular immune responses by nutri-
tion and weaning in calves. Res. Vet. Sci. 55:298-306.
Pollock, J. M., T. G. Rowan, J. B. Dixon, and S. D. Carter. 1994. Level
of nutrition and age at weaning: effects on humoral immunity in young
calves. Br. J. Nutr. 71:239-248.
Pritchett, L. C., C. C. Gay, T. E. Besser, and D. D. Hancock. 1991.
Management and production factors influencing immunoglobulin G
concentration in colostrum from Holstein cows. J. Dairy Sci.
74:2336-2341.
Quigley, III, J. D.1996a. Feeding prior to weaning. In Calves, Heifers, and
Dairy Prof~tability. Facilties, Nutrition, and Health, 245-255, Northeast
Regional Agricultural Engineering Service, Ithaca, NY.
Quigley, III, J. D. 1996b. Influence of weaning method on growth, intake,
and selected blood metabolites in Jersey calves. J. Dairy Sci.
79:2255-2260.
Quigley, III, J. D., and J. K. Bernard. 1996. Milk replacers with or without
animal plasma for dairy calves. J. Dairy Sci. 79:1881-1884.
Quigley, III, J. D., and M. G. Welborn. 1996. Influence of injectable
immunoglobulin on serum immunoglobulin concentrations in dairy
calves. J. Dairy Sci. 79:2032-2037.
Quigley, III, J. D., and J. J. Drewry. 1998. Nutrient and immunity transfer
from cow to calf pre- and postcalving. J. Dairy Sci. 81:2779-2790.
Quigley, III, J. D., C. G. Schwab, and W. E. Hylton. 1985. Development
of rumen function in calves: nature of protein reaching the abomasum.
J. Dairy Sci. 68:694-702.
Quigley, III, J. D., L. A. Caldwell, G. D. Sinks, and R. N. Heitmann.
1991. Changes in blood glucose, nonesterif~ed fatty acids, and ketones
in response to weaning and feed intake in young calves. J. Dairy
Sci. 74:250-257.
Quigley, III, J. D., L. B. Wallis, H. H. Dowlen, and R. N. Heitmann. 1992.
Sodium bicarbonate and yeast culture effects on ruminal fermentation,
growth, and intake in dairy calves. J. Dairy Sci. 75:3531-3538.
Quigley, III, J. D., J. K. Bernard, T. L Tyberendt, and K. R. Martin.
1994a. Intake, growth, and selected blood parameters in calves fed calf
starter via bucket or bottle. J. Dairy Sci. 77:354-357.
Quigley, III, J. D., J. J. Rejman, and K. R. Martin. 1994b. Response of
peripheral blood mononuclear cells to mitogenic stimulation in young
calves. J. Dairy Sci. 77:259-263.
Quigley, III, J. D., K. R. Martin, D. A. Bemis, L.N.D. Potgieter, C. R.
Reinemeyer, B. W. Rohrbach, H. H. Dowlen, and K. C. Lamar. 1995.
Effects of housing and colostrum feeding on serum immunoglobulins,
growth, and fecal score of Jersey calves. J. Dairy Sci. 78:893-901.
Quigley, III, J. D., J. J. Drewry, L. M. Murray, and S. J. Ivey. 1997a.
Body weight gain, feed eff~ciency, and fecal scores of dairy calves in
response to galactosyl-lactose or antibiotics in milk replacers. J. Dairy
Sci. 80:1751-1754.
Quigley, III, J. D., J. J. Drewry, L. M. Murray, and S. J. Ivey. 1997b.
Effects of lasalocid in milk replacer or calf starter on health and perfor-
mance of calves challenged with Eimeria species. J. Dairy Sci.
80:2972-2976.
Raven, A. M. 1970. Fat in milk replacers for calves. J. Sci. Food Agric.
21:352-359.
Reddy, P. G., J. L. Morrill, H. C. Minocha, M. B. Morrill, A. D. Dayton,
and R. A. Frey. 1986. Effect of supplemental vitamin E on the immune
system of calves. J. Dairy Sci. 69: 164-171.
Reddy, P. G., J. L. Morrill, and R. A. Frey. 1987a. Vitamin E requirements
of dairy calves. J. Dairy Sci. 70:123-129.
Reddy, P. G., J. L. Morrill, H. C. Minocha, and J. S. Stevenson. 1987b.
Vitamin E is immunostimulatory in calves. J. Dairy Sci. 70:993-999.
Reddy, P. V., J. L. Morrill, and L. S. Bates. 1993. Effect of roasting
temperatures on soybean utilization by young dairy calves. J. Dairy
Sci. 76:1387-1393.
Richard, A. L., L. D. Muller, and A. J. Heinrichs.1988. Ad libitum or twice
daily feeding of acidif~ed milk replacer to calves housed individually in
warm and cold environments. J. Dairy Sci. 71:2193-2202.
Ridder, T. A., J. W. Young, K. A. Anderson, D. W. Lodman, K. G. Odde,
and D. E. Johnson. 1991. Effects of prepartum energy nutrition and
body condition on birthweight and basal metabolism in bovine neo-
nates. J. Anim. Sci. 69(Suppl. 1):450. (Abstr.).
Roy, J. H. B. 1970. Protein in milk replacers for calves. J. Sci. Food
Agric. 21:346-351.
Roy, J. H. B. 1980. The Calf, 4th ed. Boston: Butterworths.
Roy, J. H. B., C. F. Huffman, and E. P. Reineke. 1957. The basal
metabolism of the newborn calf. Br. J. Nutr. 11:373-381.
Rowan, T. G. 1992. Thermoregulation in neonatal ruminants. In Neonatal
Survival and Growth, edited by M.A. Varley, P. E. V. Williams, and
T. L. J. Lawrence, Occasional Pulb. No. 15, 13-24; Edinburgh, UK:
Br. Soc. Anim. Prod.
Sander, E. G., R. G. Warner, H. N. Harrison, and J. K. Loosli. 1959.
The stimulatory effect of sodium butyrate and sodium propionate on
OCR for page 233
Nutrient Requirements of the Young Calf 233
the development of rumen mucosa in the young calf. J. Dairy Sci.
42:1600-1605.
Schingoethe, D. J., D. P. Casper, J. K. Drackley, and F. C. Ludens. 1986.
Increased solids intake and feeding frequency for calves in hutches
during cold weather. J. Dairy Sci. 69:1063-1069.
Schrama, J. W. 1993. Energy Metabolism of Young Unadapted Calves.
Ph.D. dies., Department of Animal Husbandry and Department of
Animal Nutrition, Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen
Agricultural University.
Schrama, J. W., W. van der Hel, A. Arieli, and M. W. A. Verstegen.
1992. Alteration of energy metabolism of calves fed below maintenance
during 6 to 14 days of age. J. Anim. Sci. 70:2527-2532.
Scibilia, L. S., L. D. Muller, R. S. Kensinger, T. F. Sweeney, and P. R.
Shellenberger. 1987. Effect of environmental temperature and dietary
fat on growth and physiological responses of newborn calves. J. Dairy
Sci. 70:1426-1433.
Spanski, N. A., J. K. Drackley, C. L. Davis, and E. H. Jaster. 1997.
Utilization of supplemental triglycerides or free fatty acids by calves
from 4 to 10 weeks of age. J. Dairy Sci. 80:573-585.
Stewart, G. D., and D. J. Schingoethe. 1984. Evaluation of high starch
and high fat rations for dairy calves. J. Dairy Sci. 67:598-605.
Stobo, I. J. F. 1983. Milk replacers for calves. In Recent Advances in
Animal Nutrition, 113-140. London: Butterworths.
Stobo, I. J. F., J. H. B. Roy, and H. J. Gaston. 1966. Rumen development
in the calf. I. The effect of diets containing different proportions of
concentrates to hay on rumen development. Br. J. Nutr. 20:171-188.
Swanson, K. S., N. R. Merchen, J. W. Erdman, Jr., J. K. Drackley, F.
Orias, D. E. Morin, and M. F. Haddad. 2000. Influence of vitamin A
content on serum and liver vitamin A concentrations and health in
preruminant Holstein calves fed milk replacer. J. Dairy Sci.
83:2027-2036.
Ternouth, J. H., I. J. F. Stobo, J. H. B. Roy, and A. W. Beattie. 1985.
The effect of milk substitute concentration upon the intake, digestion
and growth of calves. Anim. Prod. 41:151-159.
Terosky, T. L., A. J. Heinrichs, and L. L. Wilson. 1997. A comparison
of milk protein sources in diets of calves up to eight weeks of age.
J. Dairy Sci. 80:2977-2983.
Terui, H., J. L. Morrill, and J. J. Higgins. 1996. Evaluation of wheat
gluten in milk replacers and calf starters. J. Dairy Sci. 79:1261-1266.
Tomkins, T., and E. H. Jaster. 1991. Preruminant calf nutrition. Vet.
Clin. North Am. Food Anim. Pract. 7:557-576.
Toullec, R. 1989. Veal calves. In Ruminant Nutrition- Recommended
Allowances and Feed Tables, edited by R. Jarrige. London; INRA,
John Libby.
Toullec, R., and P. Guilloteau. 1989. Research into the digestive physiol-
ogy of the milk-fed calf. In: Nutrition and Digestive Physiology in
Monogastric Farm Animals, edited by E. J. Van Weerdon and J. Huis-
man, 37-55. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Pudoc.
Toullec, R., M. Theriez, and P. Thivend. 1980. Milk replacers for calves
and lambs. World Anim. Rev. 33:32-42.
Van Es, A. J. H., H. J. Nijkamp, E. J. Vanweerden, and K. K. Hellemond.
1969. Energy, carbon, and nitrogen balance experiments with veal
calves. In Energy Metabolism of Farm Animals, edited by K. L. Blaxter,
J. Kielowski, and G. Thorbeck, 197-202, Oriel Press, Newcastle-upon-
Tyne, UK.
Van Saun, R. J., T. H. Herdt, and H. D. Stowe. 1989a. Maternal and
fetal selenium concentrations and their interrelationships in dairy cattle.
J. Nutr. 119:1128-1137.
Van Saun, R. J., T. H. Herdt, and H. D. Stowe. 1989b. Maternal and fetal
vitamin E concentrations and selenium-vitamin E interrelationships in
dairy cattle. J. Nutr. 119: 1156-1164.
Vermorel, M., J. C. Bouvier, P. Thivend, and R. Toullec. 1974. Utilisation
energetique des aliments d'allaitement par le veau preruminant a l'en-
grais de differents poids. In Energy Metabolism of Farm Animals,
edited by K. H. Menke, H. J. Lantzch, and J. R. Reichl, 143-146,
Universitat Hohenheim Dokumentationsstelle, Hohenheim, BRD.
Vermorel, M., C. Dardillat, J. Vernat, Saido, and C. Demigne. 1983.
Energy metabolism and thermoregulation in the newborn calf. Ann.
Rech. Vet. 14:382-389.
Walker, P. G., P. D. Constable, D. E. Morin, J. K. Drackley, J. H.
Foreman, and J. C. Thurmon. 1998. A reliable, practical, and economi-
cal protocol for inducing diarrhea and severe dehydration in the neona-
tal calf. Can. J. Vet. Res. 62:205-213.
Warner, R. G. 1991. Nutritional factors affecting the development of a
functional ruminant A historical perspective. Proc. Cornell Nutr.
Conf., 1-12. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Webster, A. J. F., H. Donnelly, J. M. Brockway, and J. s. Smith. 1975.
Energy exchanges of veal calves fed high-fat milk replacer diet contain-
ing different amounts of iron. Anim. Prod. 20:69-75.
Webster, A. J. F., J. G. Gordon, and R. McGregor. 1978. The cold
tolerance of beef and dairy type calves in the f~rst weeks of life. Anim.
Prod. 26:85-92.
Weil, A. B., W. B. Tucker, and R. W. Hemken. 1988. Potassium require-
ment of dairy calves. J. Dairy Sci. 71:1868-1872.
Williams, P. E. V., and A. J. Frost. 1992. Feeding the young ruminant.
In Neonatal Survival and Growth, edited by M. Varley, P. E. V. Wil-
liams, and T. L. J. Lawrence, Occasional Publ. No. 15, 109-118. Edin-
burgh, UK: Br. Soc. Anim. Prod.
Williams, P. E. V., D. Day, A. M. Raven, and J. A. McLean. 1981. The
effect of climatic housing and level of nutrition on the performance
of calves. Anim. Prod. 32:133-141.
Wilson, G. A., and J. v. Wheelock. 1972. Factors affecting the action of
rennin in heated milk. J. Dairy Res. 39:413-419.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
milk replacers
