‘Good records help you ask better questions.’

Wednesday, January 29, 2025

Where are records of dairy calf health falling short?

By Emily Mckinlay

Record-keeping is an important practice for anyone raising livestock, but farmers may find it challenging to keep entries up to date and in a format that is usable.

Kristen Edwards, a dairy veterinarian with Tavistock Veterinarians and PhD candidate at the University of Guelph, recently studied the barriers to maintaining complete and accurate calf data records on dairy farms.

“I am a practising veterinarian,” says Edwards about her motivation to study the topic.

“I’ve been a dairy vet for over 10 years and have recognized that calf records are often incomplete on dairy farms.”

She explains that previous research has found that only 15 per cent of Ontario dairy farms that were enrolled in Lactanet services had accessible calf health records.

Fewer than 50 per cent of dairy farms across the country had complete calf records.

“Having good records for calves or any age group is important. If you are not monitoring data, it is difficult to objectively quantify whether there is an issue or if a management or protocol intervention needs to occur,” says Edwards.

Her research explores why many farmers struggle with record-keeping and what changes could be made to receive usable information from the data collected.

The barriers

Edwards’s research occurred in two stages. First, an electronic survey was sent to veterinarians to share with their clients. The survey included questions about farm health practices, treatment protocols and recording, data utilization, and other relevant practices. The second stage of the research investigated barriers to utilization of calf health data from the veterinarian perspective.

After responses were collected, the first stage of the study had 88 eligible surveys which were reviewed.

“We basically looked at the likelihood of farmers making management changes based on health outcomes, and we looked at if all illnesses and treatments were recorded, and how records were kept,” explains Edwards.

“We found that only 19 per cent of producers recorded all calf illnesses, 43 per cent recorded all treatments with antimicrobials, 38 per cent recorded all treatments with anti-inflammatories, and only 13 per cent of farmers recorded supportive therapies.”

She also said that 49 per cent of producers reported that they seldom or never received actionable recommendations from their veterinarian based on calf records. This discouraged some producers from keeping complete records, as it was difficult to see the benefits.

The initial study also looked at how different management factors affected the likelihood of farms maintaining complete health and treatment records. Some of these factors included the location and method of record collection.

“We did find that the probability of farmers keeping complete records for antimicrobial treatments was higher for producers using computer software compared to other recording methods. There were about 3.5 times greater odds of the records being complete,” says Edwards.

“For anti-inflammatory treatments, producers who kept their records in the calf barn or near the calves had a three times greater probability of recording all anti-inflammatory treatments.”

The location and method of recording also influenced the reasoning farmers provided for incomplete records.

“How the information was being recorded was important. Over 50 per cent of farmers used paper booklets to record calf health and treatments. Farmers who used booklets were also more likely to report that their treatments were not recorded because they were not analyzed,” explains Edwards.

“Farmers that kept records in the calf barn were less likely to report that illness was not recorded due to time restraints. This also influenced record analysis. If calf records were kept in the calf barn, farmers were less likely to report that illness was not recorded because it was not analyzed.”

In the second stage of the study, veterinarians provided feedback about their use of calf records.

“Only 28 per cent of veterinarians said they frequently reviewed records, and only 44 per cent said they actually made recommendations after reviewing records,” states Edwards.

“In our manuscript looking at calf health data, we found that many calf records are incomplete, and the most common reason for veterinarians not reviewing records was that they are not complete. It’s a bit of a cycle. One of the key reasons for incomplete records is that nothing is being done with the data, and on other side, vets are not analysing data because the records are not complete.”

How can farmers and veterinarians work together to improve record-keeping practices and the utilization of data?

Making records easier

Complete records help producers compare the health of their calves to industry standards and farm goals. Edwards’s research found a few strategies that made it easier for producers to maintain more complete calf records.

“When we looked at how recording compliance could be improved, producers wanted an easy-to-use recording system or mobile app that would potentially improve their calf health records,” says Edwards.

“Calf health record completeness was associated with electronic records kept in close proximity to calves, and it was important to ensure analysis and feedback for those records.”

She says that their results on the veterinarian side of the study suggested that, based on the number of vets not analyzing data, they should begin working with their producers to set up better record systems, facilitate analysis, and encourage producers to log data.

“Vets should be working with producers to help set them up for success,” says Edwards.

“There is a lot of software for electronic recording, but this can also be done as simply and cheaply as a Google Sheets document that all employees can access from their phones. This would digitalize records and they can record illnesses and treatments calf-side.”

Producers might also wonder what should be included in calf health data to be considered complete. The most critical data would be treatment rates. This helps farmers and veterinarians understand preweaning illness and mortality rates and causes. Producers should record illnesses and treatments, including the drug used, duration, route of administration, and dosage.

Edwards recommends including average daily gain, which she says is a key performance indicator due to the negative effect of illness on the metric and its relationship to future production.

She suggests measuring transfer of passive immunity between Day 1 to Day 7 of life using serum total protein analysis, with blood taken from calves within 72 hours from birth being most accurate, to get a general idea of colostrum management. This can be done by either the producer or veterinarian collecting blood samples and measuring serum total protein using a total protein refractometer or a Brix refractometer.

Edwards also likes to use thoracic lung ultrasounds and to measure hygiene with a luminometer to get a better idea of the prevalence of lung consolidation and poor hygiene.

“By analyzing data, you can assess where the farm is sitting relative to industry standards and farm goals,” explains Edwards.

“If you are not meeting your farm or industry goals, having comprehensive data can help identify where the areas of concern are and where critical control points can be addressed.

“Good records help you ask better questions, and because you have that objective data, you can then implement a management or protocol change.”

Producers looking to improve their calf records should start discussions with their farm team and veterinarian.

“Try to identify where the bottleneck is in your records and incorporate your vet in that discussion,” says Edwards.

“See if they can help facilitate a way to better collect that data. Where and how records were being kept was really important. Have a discussion with everyone on the team to ask what they feel the barriers are to recording calf health data.”

The manuscript related to calf records is currently published as ‘Barriers to recording calf health data on dairy farms in Ontario’ in JDS Communications. The second manuscript, which focusses on the role of veterinarians in data analysis of calf records, is currently in review for publication. BF