Objectives
To describe colostrum management practices carried out in northern Victorian dairy herds and to identify weaknesses in these areas that may affect calf health and welfare by comparing the results with the current industry recommendationsMethods
A questionnaire to obtain information about colostrum management and calf‐rearing practices was sent to commercial dairy farming clients of Rochester Veterinary Practice between June and September 2013. The questionnaire consisted of a general herd overview and colostrum harvesting practices.Results
The response rate was 39% (58/150). Many dairy producers were not meeting the current industry recommendations in the following areas: (1) time of removal calf from the dam, (2) relying on calf suckling colostrum from the dam to achieve adequate passive transfer, (3) failing to supplement calves with colostrum, (4) feeding inadequate volumes of colostrum, (5) delayed colostrum harvesting, (6) pooling of colostrum, (7) failing to objectively assess colostrum quality or relying on visual assessment and (8) storing colostrum for a prolonged periods of time at ambient temperatures.Conclusion
The results from this survey highlight the need for greater awareness of industry standards for colostrum management and feeding hygiene.Methods: This was a longitudinal study following two groups of young pasture-fed Holstein and Jersey bulls from northwest Tasmania, Australia. Individual scrotal circumference, bodyweight and semen characteristics were recorded at 6–8 weekly intervals, from 6–18 months of age. Classification and regression tree analyses were used to predict the probability that a bull had ≥70% normal sperm morphology based on scrotal circumference and bodyweight measurements.
Results: Overall 1,661 scrotal circumference and bodyweight measurements were obtained, and 518 semen samples from 356 bulls were assessed for sperm morphology, from 16 examination sessions that took place between 29 May 2015 and 17 August 2016. Classification and regression tree analyses generated a decision tree for Holstein bulls with four node endpoints, and for Jersey bulls with three node endpoints. Diagnostic test performance showed that for Holstein bulls, using the node endpoints of scrotal circumference ≥27?cm and bodyweight ≥349?kg, 98% had ≥70% normal sperm (positive likelihood ratio 10.4; 95% CI?=?2.7–41), and using the node endpoints of scrotal circumference ≥27?cm and bodyweight between 282–349?kg, 89% had ≥70% normal sperm (positive likelihood ratio 1.6; 95% CI?=?0.9–2.6). For Jersey bulls, using the node endpoints of bodyweight ≥259?kg and scrotal circumference ≥29?cm, 88% had ≥70% normal sperm (positive likelihood ratio 3.4; 95% CI?=?1.6–7.0).
Conclusions: This study provides a set of relatively simple decision rules based on bodyweight and scrotal circumference measurements that allows herd managers to assess the likelihood that juvenile bulls are ready for BBSE or breeding.
Abbreviations: BBSE: Bull breeding soundness evaluation; BRT: Boosted regression tree 相似文献