4.7 Article

Effect of feeding maternal colostrum or plasma-derived or colostrum-derived colostrum replacer on passive transfer of immunity, health, and performance of preweaning heifer calves

期刊

JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE
卷 96, 期 5, 页码 3247-3256

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.3168/jds.2012-6339

关键词

maternal colostrum; colostrum replacer; performance; dairy calf

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of feeding maternal colostrum (MC), a plasma-derived (PDCR) or colostrum-derived colostrum replacer (CDCR) on passive transfer of immunity, health, and performance of preweaning heifer calves. Preplanned contrasts were performed for MC versus CR (PDCR combined with CDCR) and PDCR versus CDCR. At birth, calves were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups: MC (n = 49), 3.8 L of maternal colostrum; PDCR (n = 49), 550 g (1 dose; 150 g of IgG) of a PDCR; or CDCR (n = 49), 470 g (1 dose; 100 g IgG) of a CDCR. The best total protein cutoff for determining passive transfer was >5.2, 5.6, and 5.1 g/dL for MC, PDCR, and CDCR, respectively. Serum total protein was greater for calves fed MC (mean SE; 6.14 +/- 0.11 g/dL) than for calves fed PDCR (5.29 +/- 0.11 g/dL) and CDCR (5.27 +/- 0.11 g/dL). Serum IgG concentrations were greater for calves fed MC (2,098 +/- 108 g/dL) than for calves fed PDCR (927 107 g/dL) or CDCR (1,139 +/- 108 g/dL). Apparent efficiency of absorption was greater for CDCR than PDCR (38.8 +/- 3.0 vs. 21.6 +/- 3.0%). Adequate passive transfer was greatest for MC (91.8%), followed by CDCR (49%) and PDCR (28.6%). Calves fed MC had greater weaning weights and body weight gain than calves fed CR. Morbidity was lower for calves fed MC (46.9%) than for calves fed PDCR (71.4%) or CDCR (67.3%). Calves fed MC tended to have lower mortality than calves fed CR. Given the conditions of this trial, feeding 3.8 L of MC was superior to feeding one dose of CR. Further research is needed to evaluate calf performance when a higher dose of CR is fed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据