NEONATAL CALF DIARRHEA: A SYSTEMS APPROACH

By Gerald Stokka, DVM, MS, Extension Veterinarian/Livestock Stewardship Specialist, North Dakota State University

& Dale Grotelueschen, DVM, MS, Emeritus Professor, University of Nebraska-Lincoln

The traditional view of neonatal calf diarrhea (NCD, calf scours) could be described as a serious condition searching for an infectious causal agent. Traditionally, once the agent is identified, then treatment and preventive measures are implemented to reduce the impact of the current outbreak. Reduction of risk for occurrence during the following birthing and early in life season may or may not be addressed. There are numerous peer reviewed articles related to NCD. The majority of these are related to the infectious agent, passive immunity, pathogenesis, vaccination, and treatment.

Additional references to NCD refer to imbalances in a system that create the environment conducive for calf exposure, stress at calving, plus the genetic selection choices that are conducive for NCD to flourish. A system is defined as a group of interacting bodies under the influence of related forces. Examples of force in a cowcalf system include capital, labor, weather, geographical location, and management expertise, including animal husbandry, nutrition, genetic selection, and preventive health measures. The more appropriate response to outbreaks of NCD must be to examine the system and implement changes to the system rather than a focus on individual pathogens.

Pathogens commonly associated with NCD include bacteria, viruses, and protozoa. Bacterial agents include Escherichia coli, Clostridium perfringens, and Salmonella species. Common viral pathogens are rotavirus and coronavirus, while protozoa pathogens include Cryptosporidium parvum and in calves more than three weeks of age, Eimeria bovi s and zuerneii . The pathophysiology related to these organisms results in two basic mechanisms: secretory diarrhea such as in ETEC (enterotoxigenic E.coli ) or malabsorption such as in rotavirus and coronavirus infections of the intestinal tract.

Treatment of the calf regardless of the mechanism focused on replacing fluid and electrolyte loss. The seriousness of fluid and electrolyte loss is compounded by the lack of energy intake. Unless signs and symptoms of septicemia are present, the benefit of the use of antibiotics is questionable. Disease results from damage to the intestinal tract, especially the lining, resulting from progression of the infections. Frequently two or more pathogens are found in cases of NCD.

Vaccination of the calf and/or the dam has been widely recommended. Vaccination of the dam involves administering specific antigenic material related to bacterial and viral agents. When given three to six weeks prior to the beginning of the calving season, the immunity produced is provided to the calf via the colostrum. The vaccine labels for use vary with available products, but in most instances, a two-dose regimen is recommended in the first year of use. Antibodies and other immune components are passed to the nursing calf through colostrum in the first 24 hours of life and can decrease the risk of infection against the pathogens listed on the label. Due to the number of variables related to nursing behavior and length of the calving season, there can be wide variability in the ability of the calf to nurse and absorb passive immunity and thus demonstrate protection.

The following are considerations regarding NCD, but also the stewardship of all health aspects, including handling, product use, and antimicrobial use. Our objective as veterinarians serving cow-calf clients is to frame the use of products in the following context:

1. Use only those products deemed necessary (risk) to help ensure good health and productivity outcomes.

2. Use only those products deemed to be effective according to label use.

3. Use only those products deemed to be safe to use according to label use.

As an example, many herds practice annual cow vaccination to reduce the risk of infection and clinical disease related to NCD. The initial year of this protocol involves cows and heifers given two doses of an NCD vaccine product. The protocol may involve the first dose administered 12 weeks prior to calving and the booster dose given 3 to 6 weeks prior to calving. Thus, the second dose is injected into heavily pregnant cows, at least those bred in the first cycle of the breeding season. Immunity or protection from disease in calves is dependent upon adequate absorption of colostrum. Absorption has been shown to be quite variable in individual calves in beef herds. Calves born in the first cycle of the calving season would presumably receive a greater benefit of the specific immune response to the vaccines. Passive transfer of specific immunity to later born calves may not receive the same benefit. The economic pressure of losing calves to NCD often outweighs the concern of administering vaccines to late third trimester cows. The risk has been given priority over vaccine reactions, endotoxin reactions, and abortions due to handling. This logic does not consider reducing risk through the management of other aspects of the system.

The systems approach to the prevention of NCD must include the evaluation of all aspects of the system. As it relates to pathogens, the objective is to reduce shedding, exposure, and exposure dose, and to increase space. Pertaining to stress, the objective is to reduce weather stress by utilizing confinement facilities or by moving the calving season to a late spring or fall calving season, and to reduce calving stress through the use of expected progeny differences (EPDs) related to birthweight (BW), calving ease direct (CED), and calving ease maternal (CEM). The objective regarding passive immunity is to enhance mothering ability and select for teat and udder conformation and adequate milk, with consideration of the age of the dam. Finally, the objective of biosecurity is to limit new introductions into the herd of calving age females, at least within six months of calving.

Specifically, the cow-calf system requires evaluation of management decisions regarding the overall approach to animal health and well-being. The following are system components that require consideration not only for NCD, but also for stewardship of livestock and sustainability of the operation.

1. Calving Season Date

a. Is the calving date selected to reduce risk of inclement weather and reduce stress? This approach reduces stress to cow and calf, increases the space for each birthing cow, and reduces the chances of exposure, infectious dose, and labor.

b. Is the calving date selected to avoid interfering with crop production? This decision is related to labor needs and relates to adult cows needing personal attention to the birthing process. c. Is the calving date selected to enhance weaning weight and a specific marketing date in the calendar year? This is an economic decision and changes to this mindset require reconsideration of number of live calves sold vs. pounds of calf sold per cow. a. Is the selection pressure focused on mature cow size and reduced inputs? Cows that match the environment should result in reduced feed costs per cow, more cows on the same property, and more live calves to sell. b. Is the selection pressure focused on CED, CEM, and BW, with adequate growth dependent on geography and rainfall? This is related to reducing dystocia. Dystocia (calving difficulty) impacts calf vigor, with increased time to nurse, a decrease in colostrum absorption and increased risk of developing NCD. In addition, selecting for moderation in the EPD traits for calving difficulty reduces the need for labor necessary to assist the birthing process and yet producing more pounds and more calves sold. c. Is the selection pressure focused on weaning weight (WW) EPDs or yearling weight (YW) EPDs, with higher numbers being favorable? This selection pressure over time yields increases in mature size, increased feed costs, and increased pressure on permanent pastures unless a reduction in cow numbers is the result. d. Is the selection pressure focused on milk EPDs, with higher numbers being favorable? This selection pressure will lead to an increase in energy requirements for the cow herd and less resilience in years of rainfall shortages.

3. Nutrition of the Cow herd a. Is the nutrition of the cow herd designed to meet the nutritional needs of the cow herd with a focus on feed costs? This includes practical and economic decisions. Cows that match the environment will have lower energy requirements to maintain adequate body condition score (BCS). b. Is the nutrition of the cow herd designed to meet the nutritional needs of the cow herd with a focus on providing feed to overcome high maintenance requirements? This nutritional approach may include some seedstock operations and should be avoided by commercial operations.

4. Labor a. Is the labor force sufficient to manage from 500-1,000 cows per person? Beef cows should work for the rancher, not the rancher working for the cow. b. Is the labor force sufficient and are facilities adequate to manage and house calving beef cows during inclement weather, cold, wet, mud, and snow? Facilities and labor are a considerable expense, and animal health becomes an important issue when the calving season is not matched to the environment.

Beef cow operations should be managed with good stewardship principles – principles that relate to the conservation of resources, soil, water, livestock, and people. In relationship to livestock, animal health and well-being are of primary importance. Neonatal calf diarrhea is a condition that requires a systems approach to reducing the risk of occurrence and loss and enhancing the profitability and productivity of the cow-calf business.

References

1. Smith, G. W. (2009). Treatment of calf diarrhea: oral fluid therapy. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice , 25(1), 55-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.cvfa.2008.10.006.

2. Constable, P. D. (2004). Antimicrobial use in the treatment of calf diarrhea. Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine , 18(1), 8-17. https://doi.org/10.1111 j.19391676.2004.tb00129.x.

3. Smith, D. R., Grotelueschen, D., Knott, T., & Ensley, S. (2003, December). Managing to alleviate calf scours: the Sandhills calving system. In Range Beef Cow Sym posium (p. 70). https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeef cowsymp.

4. Barry, J., Bokkers, E. A., Berry, D. P., de Boer, I. J., McClure, J., & Kennedy, E. (2019). Associations between colostrum management, passive immunity, calf-related hygiene practices, and rates of mortality in preweaning dairy calves. Journal of Dairy Science , 102(11), 10266-10276. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2019-16815.

5. Maier, G. U., Breitenbuecher, J., Gomez, J. P., Samah, F., Fausak, E., & Van Noord, M. (2022). Vaccination for the prevention of neonatal calf diarrhea in cow-calf operations: a scoping review. Veterinary and Animal Science , 100238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vas.2022.100238.

6. Murray, C. F., Fick, L. J., Pajor, E. A., Barkema, H. W., Jelinski, M. D., & Windeyer, M. C. (2016). Calf management practices and associations with herd-level morbidity and mortality on beef cow-calf operations. Animal, 10(3), 468477. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S1751731115002062.

7. Homerosky, E. R., Timsit, E., Pajor, E. A., Kastelic, J. P., & Windeyer, M. C. (2017). Predictors and impacts of colostrum consumption by 4 h after birth in newborn beef calves. The Veterinary Journal , 228, 1-6. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.tvjl.2017.09.003.

8. Heins, B. J., Ziegler, D., Schimek, D., Schuling, S. E., Ziegler, B., Chester-Jones, H., De Ondarza, M. B., Sniffen, C. J., & Broadwater, N. (2016). 1244 Relationships between birth season versus early life starter intake and growth and first lactation performance of Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science , 94(suppl_5), 599-599. https://doi.org/10.2527/jam2016-1244.

9. Waldner, C. L., & Rosengren, L. B. (2009). Factors associated with serum immunoglobulin levels in beef calves from Alberta and Saskatchewan and association between passive transfer and health outcomes. The Canadian Veterinary Journal , 50(3), 275-281.

10. Smith, D. R. (2012). Field disease diagnostic investigation of neonatal calf diarrhea. Veterinary Clinics: Food Animal Practice , 28(3), 465-481. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cvfa.2012.07.010

11. Novo, S. M. F., dos Reis Costa, J. F., Baccili, C. C., Sobreira, N. M., Silva, B. T., de Oliveira, P. L., Hurley, D. J., & Gomes, V. (2017). Effect of maternal cells transferred with colostrum on the health of neonate calves. Research in Veterinary Science , 112, 97-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.rvsc.2017.01.025.

12. Wittum, T. E., Salman, M. D., King, M. E., Mortimer, R. G., Odde, K. G., & Morris, D. L. (1994). The influence of neonatal health on weaning weight of Colorado, USA beef calves. Preventive Veterinary Medicine , 19(1), 15-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-5877(94)90011-6.

13. Al-Alo, K. Z. K., Nikbakht Brujeni, G., Lotfollahzadeh, S., Moosakhani, F., & Gharabaghi, A. (2018). Correlation between neonatal calf diarrhea and the level of maternally derived antibodies. Iranian Journal of Veterinary Research , 19(1), 3-8.

14. Conneely, M., Berry, D. P., Murphy, J. P., Lorenz, I., Doherty, M. L., & Kennedy, E. (2014). Effect of feeding colostrum at different volumes and subsequent number of transition milk feeds on the serum immunoglobulin G concentration and health status of dairy calves. Journal of Dairy Science , 97(11), 6991-7000. https://doi.org/10.3168/ jds.2013-7494.

15. Larson, R. L., & Tyler, J. W. (2005). Reducing calf losses in beef herds. Veterinary Clinics: Food Animal Practice, 21(2), 569-584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cvfa.2005.02.009.

Dr. Gerald L. Stokka is a member of the NDSU Animal Science faculty. His position is Extension Veterinarian/Livestock Stewardship Specialist. He has responsibilities in providing state-wide leadership to the extension system, producers, and veterinarians to be a resource for information and applied research regarding all aspects of livestock health, best practices, behavior, well-being, handling, and animal-environmental interactions, although primarily focused on the beef cattle industry. In addition, his mission is to articulate livestock husbandry and production/sustainability practices to agriculture and non-agricultural audiences. Stokka has led hundreds of continuingeducation meetings for producers, consumers, and veterinarians across the country. He is a twoplus term director and a past president for the Academy of Veterinary Consultants and a member of the American Association of Bovine Practitioners, American Veterinary Medical Association, North Dakota Veterinary Medical Association, American Society of Animal Science, North Dakota Stockman Association, and National Cattlemen's Beef Association.

Dr. Dale Grotelueschen enjoys working with the beef industry, including producers and veterinarians, in areas including beef health systems management, preventive health and production management, and diagnostic investigations. He has enjoyed private practice ownership, university positions focused on extension, diagnostics and administration, and industry technical services. He is active in organized veterinary medicine, currently serving as President of the Academy of Veterinary Consultants Foundation. He and his wife, Elizabeth, have been married for over 50 years, are parents of 2 adult daughters, and reside in Harvard, Nebraska.