Research Summary - 2
Delivery method (esophageal tube vs nipple bottle) at second colostrum feeding I: Impacts on dairy calf health and transfer of passive immunity
| Date/Time: |
9/12/2025
15:00
|
| Author: |
Destiny Smith |
| Clinic: |
University of Minnesota, College of Veterinary Medicine |
| City, State, ZIP: |
Saint Paul, MN 55108 |
Destiny Smith, BS
1
;
Kenson Boelke, BS
1
;
Isabela Karels, N/A
2
;
Adam Geiger, MS, PhD
3
;
Whitney A Knauer , VMD, PhD
1
;
Sandra M Godden , DVM, DVSc
1
;
1Department of Veterinary Population Medicine, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108
2Department of Dairy and Food Sciences, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007
3Zinpro Animal Nutrition, Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Introduction:
The delivery and absorption of sufficient colostral antibodies shortly after birth has important impacts on calf health, growth and lifetime performance. The 2014 NAHMS study reported that a majority of dairy farms surveyed offered a second feeding of maternal colostrum (MC) to calves, typically 8-10 hrs after the first feeding. While testimonials and observational (uncontrolled) studies suggest that providing a second feeding of MC enhances transfer of passive immunity (TPI), controlled research is lacking. Our objectives were to investigate if providing a second feeding of MC or colostrum supplement (CS) improves serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels, and to explore if the method of delivery (esophageal tube vs nipple bottle) affects serum IgG and calf health.
Materials and methods:
All newborn enrolled dairy and dairy x beef calves were tube-fed MC (average IgG = 84 ± 10g/L; μ ± SD) within 56 ± 17 min of birth. Calves were then randomly assigned to 1 of 5 treatment groups for the second colostrum feeding, delivered 8 ± 0.2 hrs after the first feeding: milk replacer by bottle (MRB; 1.9L MR), MC by bottle (MCB; 1.9L of MC with 57.7 ± 6.5 g/L IgG ), MC by tube (MCT; 1.9L of MC with 58.9 ± 6.3 g/L IgG ), CS by bottle (CSB; 1L CS with 100g/L IgG), or CS by tube (CST; 1L CS with 100 g/L IgG). For calves that were fed with a bottle, the bottle was offered for 15 minutes, after which, any amount not consumed was recorded. Venous blood samples were collected at 0, 8, and 24h, serum collected, and submitted for IgG measures (g/L) using RID analysis. MC samples from the first and second feeding were collected and frozen for IgG analysis. Calf health was evaluated through daily health scoring and farm reported treatments were collected. A calf was considered to have scours if they had a fecal score ≥ 2, and sick if they had a total health score ≥ 4. The effect of treatment on serum IgG at 24h and farm reported treatment was evaluated with linear models, and the effect of treatment on health score was evaluated with a repeated measures model. Models offered to control for calf breed, sex and calf size. Multiple comparisons were accounted for with a Tukey correction.
Results:
There was no difference in calf size, sex, breed, or birth weight among treatment groups at enrollment. For the first colostrum feeding, we observed no difference in colostral IgG concentration (p = 0.13), IgG dose delivered (p = 0.18), or serum IgG at 8hrs (p = 0.79) among treatment groups. For the second colostrum feeding, CSB and MCB both received a lower IgG dose as compared to CST and MCT (p < 0.0001). Expectedly, we observed a difference in total IgG consumed among groups with MRB consuming the lowest IgG dose (288.4 ± 49.8 g; μ ± SD), CSB (357.0 ± 50.3g) and MCB (345.5 ± 63.9g) consuming more than MRB, but less total IgG than CST (399.6 ± 57.4) and MCT (416.8 ± 51.7g). Unexpectedly, we observed no difference in serum IgG at 24h among treatment groups (g/L, MRB - 37.8 ± 1[μ ± SE]; MCT - 39.0 ± 1; MCB - 38.4 ± 1; CST - 39.3 ± 1; CST - 37.7 ± 1; p = 0.67) in addition to no observed difference in the odds of scours (p = 0.18), the odds of being sick (p = 0.18) or farm reported health treatment (p = 0.48).
Significance:
Under the conditions of this study, we observed no effect of providing a second colostrum feeding, either with bottle or tube, on serum IgG levels at 24h or on measures of calf health. However, this second feeding may have other benefits to calf welfare that were unmeasured in this study. Future research should explore the impact of administering second colostrum feeding to calves that did not receive a high-quality first feeding.
