Calf scours- final

Management and infrastructure errors of zero grazing that perpetuates burden of calf
scours: a case study conducted in Wakiso district, Uganda
By
Dickson Tayebwa
A Research Project Report Submitted to Makerere University in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Award of a Degree in Veterinary Medicine
July 2013

ii
DECLARATION
I declare that this is my work and has never been submitted before for any academic award in
this or any other academic institution of higher learning.
This research was supervised by:
Associate Prof Robert Tweyongyere
Department of Pharmacy Clinics and Comparative Medicine,
School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Resources
College of Veterinary Medicine, Animal Resources and Biosecurity
Makerere University, PO BOX 7062

iii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this work to my guardian parents Mr. James Mugabi and Mrs. Grace Kyomugisha
Mugabi.

iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my supervisor Associate Professor Robert
Tweyongyere for his support towards accomplishment of this work. In the same regard i extend
Special thanks to Dr. Kanameda Masaharu, the chief coordinator on the JICA Animal Disease
Control Project for giving me an opportunity as intern on the ADC project. I am so grateful for
the skills I acquired from Dr. Ken’Ichi Sakurai, (JICA short term expert on bacteriology) in
laboratory diagnosis.
Secondly to my friends, Ms. Joan Nakabiri, Mr. Keneth Iceland Kasozi, Ms. Racheal Amono,
Mr. Ariho Amon, Mr. Paul Waituru, and Mr. Rogers Ruyonga, I delight in the support they
rendered to me.
I am overly thankful to my parents who paid my school dues till I received my Government
scholarship for undergraduate studies at Makerere University, May the Almighty Father reward
them fervently. I appreciate the extended hand of sponsorship from the Government of Uganda
and I hope to use the skills I have attained over the 5 years to productively contribute to the
development of my Country.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION........................................................................................................................... ii
DEDICATION..............................................................................................................................iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT........................................................................................................... iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. v
LIST OF TABLES...................................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF FIGURES...................................................................................................................viii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ................................................................... ix
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................... x
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION........................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background.........................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Justification for the study....................................................................................................................2
1.3 Significance of the study.....................................................................................................................2
1.4 Research questions..............................................................................................................................2
1.5 Objectives of the study........................................................................................................................2
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................ 3
2.1 Calf scour............................................................................................................................................3
2.2 Etiology of calf diarrhea .....................................................................................................................3
2.3 Pathogenesis of calf diarrhea ..............................................................................................................5
2.4 Diagnosis of calf scour........................................................................................................................5
2.5 Management of calves ........................................................................................................................5
2.6 Care of a scouring calf ........................................................................................................................6
2.7 Prevention and control ........................................................................................................................6
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY.................................................................................. 7
3.1 Study design........................................................................................................................................7
3.2 Study area............................................................................................................................................7
3.3 Sample size .........................................................................................................................................7
3.4 Data collection ....................................................................................................................................7
3.5 Laboratory procedure..........................................................................................................................8
3.6 Antimicrobial drug susceptibility testing............................................................................................9
3.7 Data analysis.......................................................................................................................................9
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS.................................................................................................. 10
4.1 Farm Lay out.....................................................................................................................................10
4.2 The dairy section...............................................................................................................................12
4.3 Calf scour burden..............................................................................................................................12
4.4 Bacteriological examination .............................................................................................................16
................................................................................................................................................................16
4.5 Factors associated with scours on the farm.......................................................................................17

vi
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION.............................................................................................. 20
CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................ 21
6.1 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................21
6.2 Recommendations.............................................................................................................................21
REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 23
APPENDICES............................................................................................................................. 26

vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Zonal Diameters of Escherichia coli adapted from EUCAST 2012 ...............................................9
Table 2: Morbidity rate of calf scours on the farm. ....................................................................................13
Table 3: The Semi structured interview questionnaire with key informants on the farm...........................14
Table 4: The antimicrobial susceptibility in isolated E. coli.......................................................................16

viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Enterprises on the farm................................................................................................................10
Figure 2: The infrastructure on the farm.....................................................................................................11
Figure 3: The composition of the dairy livestock enterprise.......................................................................12
Figure 4: Calf sex ratio on the farm............................................................................................................13
Figure 5: Culture and biochemical test result for diagnosis of E. coli........................................................16
Figure 6: Result of the simple ranking method used to assess management factors on the farm ...............17

ix
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
BVD: Bovine Viral Diarrhea
CDL: Central Diagnostic Laboratory
CoVAB: College of Veterinary Medicine Animal Resources and Biosecurity
DHSL: Deoxycholate Hydrogen Sulfide Lactose Agar
ELISA: Enzyme Linked Immuno-sorbent Assay
EUCAST: European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing
JICA: Japan International Cooperation Agency
J-NADDIC: Joint National Animal Disease Diagnostic Center
LIM: Lysine Indole Motility
MHA: Muller Hinton Agar
MR: Methyl red
NDA: National Drug Authority
PCM: Department of Pharmacy Clinics and Comparative Medicine
SVAR: School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Resources
Vp: Voges-proskauer
MHI: Muller Hinton Agar

x
ABSTRACT
Calf scours remain one of the most notable causes of calf mortality on dairy farms around the
world causing economic loss to the farmer in terms of loss/death of the calf crop, treatment costs
incurred and failure to return to productivity after recovery. Calf scour has many causes such as
viruses, bacteria, protozoan and non-infectious like poor feeding of colostrum, foreign body and
helminthes. This multifactorial etiological nature is what makes diagnosis, treatment and
prevention of scours a nightmare to any farmer. A case study was conducted on a zero grazing
farm following a farmer’s report on the high cases of scour on his farm. A detailed study was
conducted to assess this problem on his farm. A semi structured questionnaire and an interview
were used to collect information from the key informants, Periodic visits were made every two
weeks for 6 months to assess the factors on the farm that could be perpetuating the incidence of
disease using a simple ranking tool, Fecal samples were collected from scouring calves for
bacteriological analysis. 32% calf scour prevalence and 14% mortality rate was found in 6
months of study and outstandingly a 95% morbidity rate within that year. Poor housing, poor
hygiene, poor nutrition (insufficient feeds and lack of drinking water) were factors equally
contributing to the high morbidity of disease on this farm whereas ignorance of the workers
pertaining management and one way communication approach from owner to workers was noted
as a contributing factor this problem. Regardless of the challenges with space and congestion
associated with zero grazing, if proper biosecurity, proper nutrition and sanitation were
maintained on this farm, the burden of calf scours on this farm would reduce. As such,
recommendations to train the workers, increase biosecurity, improve hygiene and adoption of a
two way communication channel between farmers and manager were made.

1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Calf scour is a disease among calves that that is associated with a mild to severe diarrhea
especially from three weeks to 2 months (Hudson & White, 1975: Bott, 2014: Practice & Health,
2003). It is caused by several factors and pathogens which interfere with the integrity of the
digestive tract (Foster & Smith, 2009). Calf scour remains one of the most common and often
fatal disease conditions of calves curtailing livestock production in most farms around the world
(Waldner et al., 2013). This is attributed to detrimental effects such as diarrhea, dehydration,
emaciation and toxemia (Busato et al., 1997: Bott, 2014: Foster & Smith, 2009) to the wellbeing
of the calf. Calf scour claims a lot of calf crop and is associated with significant losses to the
farmer in treatment costs and poor productivity of the calf after it recovers (Lassen & Ostergaard,
2012). In related studies morbidity rate of 8-36% and a mortality rate of 3-10% have been
reported in Europe and Canada (McAllister et al., 2005: Practice & Health, 2003: Busato et al.,
1997).
In Uganda, farmers in the capital and peri urban areas often engage in small to medium scale
dairy farming to generate revenue from the milk sales but also to cut costs incurred from buying
such products from the market (Ndambi et al., 2007). The profitability of such enterprises thrives
on the high urban population demanding for food resource especially meat and dairy products
(Ndambi et al., 2007). The zero grazing dairy farms are faced with problems like lack of space
and lack of readily available resources in terms of feed. Zero grazing management system is
labor intensive and often results into mismanagement particularly in developing countries. This
is as a result of financial and resource constraint that push farmers to compromise on
management. This study was carried out on a zero grazing farm in peri-urban Kampala which
had reported a case of calf scour burden to the Central Diagnostic Laboratory. The study was
designed to critic the management practices, elucidate the cause and provide an evidence based
practical solution to the farmer.

2
1.2 Justification for the study
This study was an intervention driven initiative to provide a solution to a zero grazing farmer
who had suffered with calf scours on his farm for quite a long time. For any livestock enterprise
to flourish as a profitable venture, the proprietor must cut on losses and also ensure self-
sustainability of the enterprise. This cannot happen if the farmer loses money in costs of
treatment and loss of calf crop. Therefore without this study the farmer would not realize the
maximum profitability of his livestock enterprise.
1.3 Significance of the study
1. To assess on farm practices and generate practical recommendations for prevention of
calf scours.
1.4 Research questions
1. Is the burden of calf scour high on the farm as reported by the farmer?
2. What could be the major factor(s) leading to this high incidence and endemic state of this
disease?
1.5 Objectives of the study
General objective
1. To generate practical recommendations that will help the farmer cut down losses incurred
from calf scours.
Specific objectives
1) To identify the factors on the farm associated with calf scours
2) To diagnose for the bacterial causes of calf scour among the calves
3) To generate recommendations based on observations made during the study.

3
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Calf scour
Calf scour is a disease condition of the calves characterized by mild to profuse diarrhea
(Argenzio, 1985). It is observed by signs and symptoms such as; diarrhea, lethargy, anorexia,
emaciation, dehydration, and death (Bott, 2014: Michna et al., 1996). Calves are the most
affected age group due to the immature digestive tract susceptible to infection (Hudson & White,
1975). This is commonly within in the first two weeks after parturition (Waltner-Toews et
al.,1986). Calf scour remains a major problem worldwide causing substantial economic losses
through high morbidity, mortality and production related factors like poor growth rate and
reproductive performance shown by recovered individuals (Busato et al.,1997).
2.2 Etiology of calf diarrhea
Calf scour is caused a variety of factors (Smith et al., 2003). These include; infectious agents like
bacteria, viruses, protozoan parasites, helminthes, nutrition related and errors at feeding and
foreign body in the gastrointestinal tract (Abraham et al., 1992). these causes can be categorized
as infectious and non-infectious (Snodgrass et al., 1986). This multifaceted nature in the
etiological agents is the reason why prevention of this disease is favored to treatment (Wells et
al., 1996).
Bacterial causes are one of the most common causes of calf scour reported on dairy farms
around the world. E. coli and Salmonella spp are the bacteria most reported as the cause of
scours. E. coli is a gram negative bacterium of Enterobacteriaceae family that is found as
normal flora in the intestinal tract of calves. Many strains have been reported and classified
based on the pathogenicity as entero-toxigenic (ETEC), entero-pathogenic (EPEC), shiga-toxin
releasing (STEC), entero-aggregative (EAEC), entero-invasive (EIEC) and diffusely adherent
(DAEC). Of these types, ETEC is of major concern to calves. Once they invade, they colonize
the wall of the calf gut by adhering using fimbrae/ pilli. They release toxins into the intestines
resulting into irritation of the wall causing hyper-motility and diarrhea (Constable, 2004). The
most virulent strains of ETEC belong to a K99 producing antigen which are associated with a
switch in the integrity of the intestinal wall from absorptive to secretory leading to “secretory
diarrhea” or "white" scours in within the first two weeks of life (Snodgrass et al., 1986).

4
Salmonella infections have been reported in calves worldwide with the most encountered
serovars as S. typhimurium, S. enteritidis, S. anatum S. newport, S. cerro, S. montevideo, S.
agona and S. dublin which are considered the major host-adapted salmonella for cattle (Watson
et al., 1995). Another type of bacteria reported to cause scours is C. perfringens also known as
enterotoxemia is characterized by acute severity and death in both the calves and the adults.
Overall transmission of bacteria occurs through contamination of feed and water with fecal
matter due to failure in good management practices on the farm. Therefore it is easily
preventable with proper hygiene and care for the calves, with exception to clostridium that
normally occurs due to change in weather conditions or contaminated feed.
Viruses have been reported as etiological agents of scours, causing severe and infectious form of
scour. It is often characterized by high morbidity and mortality of calves especially among the
immune-compromised group (Baker, 1995). One of major concern is BVD which is a pestivirus
of family Flaviviridae, in calves it occurs in two forms: non-cytopathogenic and cytopathogenic
due to the antigenic genotypes types 1 and 2 that the virus presents (Ridpath, Bolin, & Dubovi,
1994). BVD is overly known for its immunosuppressive abilities aiding proliferation of
secondary bacterial infections (Campbell, 2004).
Rotavirus and Corona viruses are also a common cause of calf scours. They cause diarrhea by
disrupting the cells intestinal crypts which form the base of the wall, this hampers intestinal wall
development (Clark, 1993). Most outbreaks have been reported within the first two weeks after
parturition (Clark, 1993: Durham et al., 1979) using fluorescent antibody test (Marsolais et al.,
1978) or advanced methods using direct electron microscopy or immune-microscopy (Durham et
al., 1979). Overtly management of viral infection ought to be through yearly vaccinations of the
dams and calves.
Protozoan parasites, these unicellular organisms have got the capability to invade the intestinal
wall lining and proliferate causing subsequent damage and diarrhea (Mundt et al., 2005). Recent
studies have reported Eimeria spp, Cryptosporidium spp and Giardia duodenalis as the major
protozoan agents implicated in the cause of this disease (Trotz-Williams et al., 2005: McAllister
et al., 2005: Daugschies & Najdrowski, 2005). Though less likely to cause mortality, detrimental
effects associated with reduced production occur in calves with these protozoan parasites (Lassen
& Ostergaard, 2012).

5
Non-infectious causes, any other agent that will cause disruption of the integrity of the
gastrointestinal tract might as well cause diarrhea, such may include ingested toxin or poison and
foreign body. Poor and over feeding of colostrum milk has also been recorded as a cause of calf
scour (Wells et al., 1996)
2.3 Pathogenesis of calf diarrhea
The pathogenesis of calf scours is based on the interference with the physiology of the
gastrointestinal tract (Foster & Smith, 2009). First is ingestion or access of the agent to the
digestive tract and disruption. This is followed by the hyper motility which results in excretion of
the watery fecal matter known as diarrhea or scour. The severity of the scour will be determined
by the virulence of the causative agent and calf immunity (Foster & Smith, 2009). Other factors
like access to medication, fluid and electrolyte replacement will greatly determine the recovery
of the calf (Michna et al., 1996). In other instances the diarrhea could manifest as a
compensatory mechanism of the body to remove unwanted material such may be worms or
foreign body (Martin et al., 1957).
2.4 Diagnosis of calf scour
Clinical diagnosis of calf scour based on clinical presentation is the most practical and easy
method however several laboratory based diagnostic methods are available, microscopy,
serological and PCR (Sharma & Dean-Nystrom, 2003). The choice of diagnostic method
depends on the etiological agent suspected. This makes clinical presentation and history taking
fundamental tools to guide the laboratory diagnosis.
2.5 Management of calves
The management of calves involves a number of factors. It starts with the care of a dam in the
third trimester when steaming is done (Amaral-Phillips et al., 2001), it has been shown that most
of the calf growth occurs at this time and failure to support the dam at this point predisposes it to
several metabolic diseases such as negative energy balance and subclinical ketosis, these impair
immunity of the dam and the calf in the uterus (Grummer, 1995: Janovick et al., 2011).
Preparations of a maternity pen in a good hygienic state pre and post calving will significantly
reduce the exposure of the calf to pathogens and thus reduce hygiene related infections (Vagh &
Jani, 2010). Special attention should be put on feeding, calves within the first three hours of
delivery need to consume colostrum, this early intake facilitates the absorption of antibodies and

6
other macromolecules from the colostrum before the gastrointestinal epithelium goes through
morphological changes making the later impossible (Xu, 1996). The calves should receive
adequate amount of milk at least 10% of the body weight and calf starter (Montsma, 1960).
Proper nutrition will ensure the calves are healthy with good immunity to fend off infections and
grow at a fast rate to the expected weight of utmost 250 kg’s within eighteen months (Osoro &
Wright, 1992 : Reynolds et al., 1985)
The calves must be kept in a well aerated roofed shelter to avoid environmental stress factors like
heat and rain. Individual pens are preferred for easy monitoring of the health, growth and
controlling infection among the calves. Pen cleaning should be done regularly and beddings are
provided to avoid damage to the calf’s fragile skin. Drinking water should be available at all the
time and feeding must done periodically according to the age or weight nutritional requirements
(Lorenz et al., 2011).
2.6 Care of a scouring calf
Upon detection of scouring, the calf needs to be isolated immediately to prevent infection of the
other calves (Smith et al., 2003). Diagnosis and treatment should follow which should be aimed
at countering dehydration and toxemia. This will require a lot of supportive treatment using
intravenous fluids to replace electrolytes and glucose in the body. Scouring calves should receive
at least 10% of body weight of fluids and electrolytes if scouring is mild and more if it is severe
(Hudson & White, 1975). High quality electrolyte mixture administered with a stomach tube,
twice daily accompanied with antibiotics yields quick results however caution is to be taken as
some antibiotics can increase the severity of scours (Constable, 2004).
2.7 Prevention and control
Calves need to be vaccinated against scour causing agents, BVD vaccine is available and dams
should be vaccinated and soon after birth the calves are vaccinated as well to prevent this
infection (Brownlie et al., 1995). Others agents don’t have readily available vaccines and
therefore efforts should be made to improve biosecurity on the farm.

7
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Study design
This was a case study conducted over a period of 6 months from November 2012 to April 2013,
on a zero grazing dairy farm in Kiteezi to assess the factors favoring the high incidence of calf
scours on the farm.
3.2 Study area
The farm located in Kiteezi parish, Nangabo sub county in Wakiso district approximately 8.9 km
away from the main capital Kampala. Wakiso district encircles Kampala and is regarded as the
most populated district in Uganda with a population of 2,007,700 million people as per the 2014
population and housing census, it forms the peri-urban areas around the capital and this explains
the high population density. It’s a hub for many profitable agro-veterinary enterprises that feed
into the Capital Kampala.
3.3 Sample size
According to the study design, all the calves on the farm were included in the study and any new
ones brought on to the farm during the 6 months.
3.4 Data collection
An interactive discussion was held with the farmer, manager and the 5 attendants to get there
perception and understanding of the possible causes of the high burden of the diarrhea. A semi
structured questionnaire was administered to the famer and the manager as key informants.
Routine farm checks for direct observation were scheduled every fortnight to check on the
progress and status of the calves, at every visit a simple ranking tool was used to score the
hygiene status, Feed availability, water availability and housing of the calves. A score from 1
(very good practice) to 5 (extremely bad practice) was used. Additionally the farm manager was
requested to make a call to report any scouring calf at any time during the study. Clinical
examination was conducted on the scouring calf for parameters recording; rectal temperature,
color of the membranes and body condition status. Fecal samples were collected for
bacteriological examination (diagnosis was limited to bacteriology due to the limited resources).
The calf was restrained by the assistant, a cotton swab was used to wipe the anal region, a sterile
cotton headed swab was used to collect fecal sample from the rectum. This was placed back in its

8
sterile case, placed in ice box and transported to the Central Diagnostic Laboratory, Makerere
University.
3.5 Laboratory procedure
In the laboratory the samples were cultured for bacteria isolation with minor modifications as
described by (Russell et al., 2006). Briefly; 5 % sheep blood agar plates previously prepared
were used. The cotton swab was rolled on to the plate and the sample was spread using a flame
sterilized wire loop and incubated at 370
C for 18 hours. The following day the colonies were
identified based color, shape and distribution of the colonies and a subculture was made on
DHSL agar which is selective for coliform bacteria. Colonies characteristic with pink were gram
stained to observe the microscopic morphology as described by (Beveridge, 2009).
Biochemical tests: Indole, Methyl red, Voges proskauer, and Citrate (IMVIC) tests
Biochemical tests were performed to verify and confirm the bacteria isolated as E. coli using
method as described (Cheesbrough, 1987). The Indole, Methyl red, VP and Citrate tests were
performed to identify the bacteria as E. coli. LIM test (Lysine Indole Motility) was further used
to as control against presence of Salmonella spp which particularly show a motile pattern in this
test contrally to E. coli which shows no motility.
a) Indole test: typical colonies were inoculated isolated colony into a test tube with 2ml tryptone
water and incubated at 370
C for up to 24h and tested for indole production by adding 4 drops of
Kovacs reagent. If the reagent showed a cherry red color ring, the test was considered to be
positive and negative if it remained colorless.
b) Methyl-red test: this test was performed by Inoculating a typical colony into a test tube 0.5ml
sterile glucose phosphate broth media and incubated at 370
C for up to 24h, Two drops of Methyl
red reagent were added after the incubation. A red ringed forming and the meniscus was
recorded as positive reaction indication of acidity and negative if it remained colorless.
c) Vogues-Proskaeur test: a distinctive colony was inoculated in test tube with 2ml sterile
glucose phosphate peptone water, incubator at 370
C for 24 h, After incubation, 1 drop creatinine
solution was added and subsequently 0.5ml of 3:1 ratio solution containing 5% α-naphthol and
40% potassium hydrate (KOH) and the solution was agitated well and left to stand at room
temperature. Observations were made one hour later and recorded as positive if a red or pink
color appeared at the meniscus and negative if it remained colorless.

9
d) Simmons citrate test: A wire flame sterilized wire loop containing the colony was slid into
caked prepared Simmons citrate reagent and incubated at 370
C for 24 h. Observations were made
and it was recorded positive if the light green color of the reagent turned blue and negative if it
remained light green.
3.6 Antimicrobial drug susceptibility testing
The antibiotics commonly used on the market tested for susceptibility are ampicillin, gentamicin,
kanamycin, streptomycin, tetracycline, sulphamethoxazole and trimethoprim were used for
susceptibility testing using the Kirby-Bauer diffusion method (Bauer et al., 1966). Briefly; one
colony of isolated bacteria was added into 1ml of BHI broth in test tube and mixed, 0.1mls of
mixture was pipetted onto prepared MHA plate and spread using a flame sterilized glass loop.
Antibiotic disks were distributed evenly on the surface. The plate was placed in incubator at
370
C for 24h. The inhibition measurements in mm were recorded and classified as sensitive,
intermediate or resistant based on the diameter of the zone of inhibition. The results attained
were interpreted using reference break points adopted from EUCAST, 2012.
Table 1: Zonal Diameters of Escherichia coli adapted from EUCAST 2012
Zone Inhibition diameters (mm)
AM TC SM GM KM SXT
S≥ R< S≥ R< S ≥ R< S≥ R< S≥ R< S≥ R<
14 14 19 14 17 10 17 14 18 13 16 10
AM: Ampicillin, TC: Tetracycline, SM: Streptomycin, GM: Gentamicin, KM: Kenamycin, SXT:
Sulphamethoxaxole & trimethoprim
3.7 Data analysis
Data generated was entered into excel and graphs output was presented using Graph pad prism.

10
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
4.1 Farm Lay out
The farm has infrastructure setup of most peri-urban farms of Uganda, with more than one
enterprise mixed: dairy, poultry, dog breeding and other animals all together within a small land
area of approximately 4 acres. The farmer’s residence occupies a part of the land in very close
proximity (20m) to the farm structures. There is no clear finance record for each enterprise but
they all complement each other. All the income is collected by the Owner who determines where
to invest it.
Figure 1: Enterprises on the farm
Interestingly, vertical pole frames are erected to hold two levels of floors constructed with timber
walls and iron sheet roofed to provide space for the poultry enterprise whereas the concrete floor
basement serves as the feeding and holding ground for the cattle and the other animals on the
farm. The farm has got a water tank that holds about two hundred and fifty thousand liters of rain
water runoff from the roof that supplies the various enterprises. Two more tanks supplied by tap
water serve the farmers residence and reserve for farm activities that require cleaner supply of
water. An electric powered pasture chopping machine is available to cuts elephant grass and
pastures for cattle. For poultry a grinder and mixer is available to mill the bran and mix the feed
ingredients for the birds.
Legend. The poultry and the dairy enterprises are the major income
generating ventures on this farm. The others do not generate significant
income but serve to fulfill the passion of the farmer.

11
Figure 2: The infrastructure on the farm
A B
A & B; The overlay structure of the farm, cattle and calves on the ground and
chicken pens above (shown by the arrow)
Lay out
Water and feed
C D E
C; Water tank reserve on the farm D; Electric powered forage chopper
E; Electric powered feed grinder
Waste management
F; Dung collection point G; Liquid effluent collection pit
F G

12
4.2 The dairy section
The diary section is comprised of 72 animals of which 93% are of Friesian breed and the rest
Guernsey and Jersey.
Figure 3: The composition of the dairy livestock enterprise
4.3 Calf scour burden
From the discussion with the farmer and farm manager calf scour was noted as the most
prevalent and the most devastating disease on the farm associated with mortality, this was
followed by lameness, metabolic diseases and East coast fever. Only one of the 22 did not suffer.
Within the last one year. In the 6 months of the study we found a 32 % calf scour prevalence and
a mortality rate of 14%. The overall morbidity rate for calf scours in that whole year was 95 %.
The sick calves presented with quite similar signs and symptoms; diarrhea, depression, anorexia,
emaciation, innapetence, staggering and lateral recumbence in late stages of the sickness. The
scour was brown and mucoid except on two cases when it was bloody. No fever was registered
in any of the calves
19
6
22
25
1
Milkers
Heifers
Calves
Steers and Bullocks
Bull
Composition of the Herd
Legend. 19 milking cows were kept under zero grazing at the time of study.
They were milked twice a day at (5am to 7am) and (3pm to 5pm). Average
milk production was 6±3 liters per milking and overall production of 100-120
liters of milk per milking. The farm kept a bull for natural service

13
Table 2: Morbidity rate of calf scours on the farm.
Parameter: Calf scours incidence (%)
Calf origin Negative Positive Total
Bought from other farms 1 15 16
Born on the farm - 6 6
Morbidity rate - 21 (95) 22(100)
Figure 4: Calf sex ratio on the farm
81%
19%
The Ratio of Male to Females
Males
Females
Legend. Calves on this were more male 81% than 19% female because the
farmer bought calves from other zero grazing dairy farms, more precisely male
calves. Other farmers sold them off because of the reason that they are costly
to raise
Legend. Most calves (73%) were bought from other zero grazing farms (age
not limiting). The previous owners sold them off to cut costs incurred from
the milk the calf consumes and the costs incurred to raise the calf. Majority of
those sold on this account were male.

14
Table 3: The Semi structured interview questionnaire with key informants on the farm
(Ans. 1 denotes for response from the Owner and Ans. 2 response from the manager)
Qn. 1. How long have you been with/working on this farm?
Ans. 1 Over 20 years
Ans. 2 6 years
Qn. 2. Can you name the major diseases that affect your farm?
Ans. 1 Calf diarrhea, hoof problems, mastitis, milk fever, repeat breeding, ECF and other TBD
Ans. 2 Calf diarrhea, calf pneumonia, hoof problems, mastitis, ECF and other TBD, infertility,
foreign body (Traumatic Reticulo-peritonitis), dystocia
Qn. 3. Can you categorize the diseases in order from the most reported to the least?
Ans. 1 Calf diarrhea, hoof problems, mastitis, milk fever and others
Ans. 2 Calf diarrhea, hoof problems, mastitis, repeat breeding and infertility, calf pneumonia, ECF
and TBD, foreign body (Traumatic Reticulo-peritonitis)
Qn. 4. Do you have all these records
Ans. 1 Yes we do but the manager knows most of them
Ans. 2 We have a treatment records, milk production, sales, insemination and reproduction books
Qn. 5. Why do you think you have the above diseases high on your farm?
Ans. 1 I have lazy workers, they don’t know what to do, I tell them and tell them but they don’t
listen, may be that you are here if you tell them they will listen.
Ans. 2 The workers are few to manage all the enterprises.
When we need the money to buy drugs its sometimes not readily available and when we
report my boss just quarrels with us that we are lazy and cause the problems.
Qn. 6. How often do you supervise the ongoing work?
Ans. 1 I get reports from the manager and workers and once a day or two check what they are doing
Ans. 2 Every day since am full time worker on the farm
Qn. 7. Do you bring any new animals or calves on the farm?

15
Ans. 1 Yes, we normally buy young bulls at 2- 3 weeks from other zero grazing farms
Ans. 2 Yes, we buy young calves and also bring adult animals from our other farm
Qn. 8. Do you quarantine them? If no Why?
Ans. 1 No, we don’t have space
Ans. 2 No, we don’t have space for quarantine so they mix with the others
Qn. 9. What other challenges do you experience?
Ans. 1 Feeds are very expensive to buy and transport.
We have very limited space, poor prices of milk and power shortages
Ans. 2 Very low labor force
Qn. 10. What would you rank as the most 2 challenges you face on your farm?
Ans. 1 High cost of feeding and poor prices of milk
Ans. 2 Low labor force and shortage of space
Qn. 11. How often do you get access to extension services
Ans. 1 We have many extension workers in Wakiso district and we call Doctors from the school of
vet at Makerere university
Ans. 2 We have a visiting veterinarian for the poultry and for cattle we call vets from Makerere
whenever there is a problem
Qn. 12 Do your workers have an Agriculture or Veterinary background
Ans. 1 No
Ans. 2 No, most of us we just have experience working with animals

16
4.4 Bacteriological examination
A total of 7 samples were collected and analyzed during the study and all were positive for E.
coli.
Figure 5: Culture and biochemical test result for diagnosis of E. coli
Table 4: The antimicrobial susceptibility in isolated E. coli
Drug Susceptibility
AM TC SM GM KM SXT
S 3 2 - 1 0 6
M - 2 5 2 4 -
R 2 2 1 1 1 -
0 2 1 1 3 2 1
S; Very susceptible, M; Moderately susceptible, R; Resistant, 0; Super resistant
Biochemical test: Positive results for
E. coli shown by the red rings
Plate culture: Suspected E. coli
colonies on DHSL agar
Legend. Sulfamethoxazole and trimethoprim combination was the most effective
antibiotic of with 86 % (6/7) efficacy whereas ampicillin and gentamicin had the
least efficacy with high super resistance (0mm) inhibition in 2 and 3 samples
respectively. All the drugs had at least one isolated colony showing 0mm
inhibition.

17
4.5 Factors associated with scours on the farm
Figure 6: Result of the simple ranking method used to assess management factors on the
farm
Feeding
The calves are bucket fed with 2.5L (female) and 2.0L (male) of milk for 1 month in the morning
and evening. At one month milk ration for both sexes is cut by 0.5L. The males are weaned at
2months whereas the females are weaned at 3 months, by the time, the females receive 1 liter of
milk. When the milk is reduced the calves are supplemented twice a day with maize bran and
chopped elephant grass (pennisetum purpureum) (fig 7) and locally collected banana peeling
from a banana market in down town Kampala. Often the score of feeding was ranked poor.
Water was available on the farm but the calves would go without water. The water in the trough
was not changed and the trough was not washed, at most more was just added to the soiled water
in the trough (fig 7)
Legend. Pen hygiene, feed availability, water availability and housing all almost
equally were as bad as shown in graph B. Housing scored 4 only because it was a
constant but hygiene, feed and water were variable from day to day

18
Housing
The calves are housed in raised individual pens (fig 7) for three to Approximately two weeks
(only those born on the farm) before they are put in composite pen, At six 6 months the male
calves are transferred to the feedlot section and fed till they are sold off whereas the heifers are
mixed with the milking herd. The calf pen was not shielded from the chilling wind and no
beddings were provided for most of the calves except the ones born on the farm.
Hygiene
Farm sanitation is maintained by the farm workers, who collect the dung and pile it in one corner
of the farm. It’s then picked twice a week. The calf pen is cleaned every morning by collecting
away the dung during dry seasons (December- February & June -July) and scrubbing the floor in
the rainy season (March - May & September - November). There was lack in consistence to
maintain this routine on a daily basis.

19
Figure 7: Poor management practices that perpetuated calf scours on this farm
A. Very dirty and empty water trough for calves B.
Cow walks through pile of dung C. Chicken nesting in
the calf feeding trough D. Bottle used for bottle
feeding calves damped in feed trough after use E.
Dead calf abandoned in calf pen F. Stalks of
overgrown napier grass put as feed G. Male calf
chained for feedlot at 3 months
C
A B
D E
F G

20
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
Calf scour prevalence on this farm was at 32 % for the period of 6 months, higher than 16.7%
reported in Ethiopia (Abraham et al., 1992) and a lot higher than 8.1 % reported in Canada in the
first two weeks (Waltner-Toews et al., 1986), and 11.1% E. coli related scour in
Ethiopia(Abraham et al., 1992). Poor hygiene, under feeding, drinking water unavailability and
poor housing were all factors equally contributing to the high burden of calf scour on this farm
(fig 6) .The calves were hand bottle fed from one bucket with an improvised glass bottle, which
was rinsed once with tap water after use and kept in the milking parlor at times it was just
damped somewhere in the farm (fig 7). There was notably less attention given to the hygiene of
the pen to remove the fecal matter, monitor the sick and remove any dead. This was attributed to
the intensive labor task on the few workers on the farm however so more emphasis was put on
feeding the milking herd to increase and sustain milk production at the expense of the calves.
The calves were not given enough milk, the young calves were fed on 2-2.5 liters of milk
depending on the sex and not dependent on weight as indicated by (Amaral-Phillips et al., 2001).
Banana peeling and elephant grass were marginally supplemented to the calves, the feed troughs
were then packed with un-chopped elephant grass given to stimulate development of the rumen
(manager is quoted). The lack of proper birth, health and treatment records of the calves made
any intervention and monitoring very hefty process, such led failure to pay particular attention to
the sick or needy calf leading to death, this is in agreement with findings by (Michna et al.,
1996). Once observed, scouring calves were given antibiotics by the farm manger using
prescriptions based on his experience, with no diagnosis or veterinary background, this kind of
irrational antibiotic use on scouring is very unreliable as reported by (Lorenz et al., 2011) and
could also explain why we found a lot of resistant E. coli bacteria in the fecal samples taken (tab
4). Previous report by (Constable, 2004) showed that antimicrobial testing and susceptibility is
irrelevant because the bacterial load does not reflect the true case of infection, however based on
susceptibility results of this report showing E. coli resistance to antibiotics disagrees with such
recommendations.

21
CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Conclusion
Regardless of challenges with space and labor, sticking to proper biosecurity measures, hygiene
and hygiene would reduce the incidence of calf scours on this farm without much cost
implications. Based on my findings simple recommendations to the farmer were generated.
6.2 Recommendations
1) Basic training of farm workers in aspects of management and disease control. None of
the workers including the manager had technical training in farm management, they were
all relying on hands on skilling and experience gained over time, in such a scenario the
workers lack technical knowledge on handling critical areas such as calves, a basic
skilling on farm practical training was proposed to help the workers appreciate their role
in disease control or propagation. This in turn would help see to the improved hygiene on
the farm, care of the calves and high biosecurity measures.
2) Quarantine of new calves bought from other farms and separating the calves by age.
During this study most of the new calves were directly introduced to the other calves
regardless of their age. At the time of feeding little emphasis was put to know which
calves required more attention nutrition wise, furthermore failure to quarantine the new
animals is a risk of introducing diseases to the fragile stock of calves. Therefore we
recommended that restructuring of a pen in one corner of the farm to act as the quarantine
section.
3) Record keeping and tagging. Tagging is a very cheap means but very important for
identification, traceability and monitoring of the herd for performance and other related
parameter yet even with the medium size herd on this farm, this was ignored making
management hefty.
4) Improved feeding of the calves. The manager was advised to immediately stop the
practice of pilling un-chopped elephant stalks in the feed trough and assuming the calves
would sufficiently consume such hard fiber. He was advised to substitute it with fresh
chopped forage easy to digest since at that age the digestive system is immature.
5) Worker motivation. From our observation there was a communication gap between the
farmer and the workers, the owner was advised to take keen interest in listening and
addressing the matter of the workers, spending at most 1 hour on week end to supervise

22
the operations on the farm to be able to appreciate the challenges the workers go through
and look for solutions. In that regard he was advised to look into allocating workers to
specific enterprises to avoid labor overload on a worker who has to work on the chicken,
look after calves, feed the cows and do milking. This labor intensification often left the
calves abandoned.
6) Cleaning the calf pen twice a day and separating the sick calves from the healthy ones.
From my observation the calves were not given much attention compared to the milking
herd, however the calves contribute a lot as the replacement stock and therefore should
receive equal treatment.
7) Other recommendations included: Improving the infrastructure by having a concrete floor
for the calf pen, putting strong barriers to separate the various enterprises.

23
REFERENCES
Abraham, G., Roeder, P. L., & Zewdu, R. (1992). Agents associated with neonatal diarrhoea in
Ethiopian dairy calves. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 24(2), 74–80. Retrieved
from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1339036
Amaral-Phillips, D. M., Scharko, P. B., Johns, J. T., & Franklin, S. (2001). Feeding and
Managing Baby Calves from Birth to 3 Months of Age. Asc, 161, 1–6.
Argenzio, R. A. (1985). Pathophysiology of neonatal calf diarrhea. The Veterinary Clinics of
North America. Food Animal Practice, 1(3), 461–9. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3907782
Baker, J. C. (1995). The clinical manifestations of bovine viral diarrhea infection. The Veterinary
Clinics of North America. Food Animal Practice, 11(3), 425–45. Retrieved from
http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/8581856
Bauer, A. W., Kirby, W. M., Sherris, J. C., & Turck, M. (1966). Antibiotic susceptibility testing
by a standardized single disk method. American Journal of Clinical Pathology, 45(4), 493–
6. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5325707
Beveridge, T. (2009). Use of the Gram stain in microbiology. Biotechnic & Histochemistry.
Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/bih.76.3.111.118
Bott, R. (2014). No Title No Title. Igarss 2014, (1), 1–5. doi:10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2
Brownlie, J., Clarke, M., Hooper, L., & Bell, G. (1995). Protection of the bovine fetus from
bovine viral diarrhoea virus by means of a new inactivated vaccine. Veterinary Record,
137(3), 58–62. doi:10.1136/vr.137.3.58
Busato, A., Steiner, L., Martin, S. W., Shoukri, M. M., & Gaillard, C. (1997). Calf health in cow-
calf herds in Switzerland. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 30(1), 9–22. doi:10.1016/S0167-
5877(96)01109-9
Campbell, J. R. (2004). Effect of bovine viral diarrhea virus in the feedlot. Veterinary Clinics of
North America: Food Animal Practice, 20(1), 39–50. doi:10.1016/j.cvfa.2003.11.003
Cheesbrough, M. (1987). Medical laboratory manual for tropical countries. Vol. I. 2nd edition.
Retrieved from http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19892058535.html
Clark, M. A. (1993). Bovine coronavirus. The British Veterinary Journal, 149(1), 51–70.
doi:10.1016/S0007-1935(05)80210-6
Constable, P. D. (2004). Antimicrobial use in the treatment of calf diarrhea. Journal of
Veterinary Internal Medicine / American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine, 18(1), 8–
17. doi:10.1892/0891-6640(2004)18<8:AUITTO>2.0.CO;2
Daugschies, A., & Najdrowski, M. (2005). Eimeriosis in cattle: current understanding. Journal of
Veterinary Medicine. B, Infectious Diseases and Veterinary Public Health, 52(10), 417–27.
doi:10.1111/j.1439-0450.2005.00894.x
Durham, P. J., Stevenson, B. J., & Farquharson, B. C. (1979). Rotavirus and coronavirus
associated diarrhoea in domestic animals. New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 27(3), 30–2.
doi:10.1080/00480169.1979.34595
Foster, D. M., & Smith, G. W. (2009). Pathophysiology of diarrhea in calves. The Veterinary
Clinics of North America. Food Animal Practice, 25(1), 13–36, xi.
doi:10.1016/j.cvfa.2008.10.013
Grummer, R. R. (1995). Impact of changes in organic nutrient metabolism on feeding the
transition dairy cow. Journal of Animal Science, 73(9), 2820–2833. doi:/1995.7392820x

24
Hudson, D., & White, R. G. (1975). G75-269 Calf Scours : Causes , Prevention and Treatment
Calf Scours : Causes , Prevention and Treatment.
Janovick, N. A., Boisclair, Y. R., & Drackley, J. K. (2011). Prepartum dietary energy intake
affects metabolism and health during the periparturient period in primiparous and
multiparous Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 94(3), 1385–400.
doi:10.3168/jds.2010-3303
Lassen, B., & Ostergaard, S. (2012). Estimation of the economical effects of Eimeria infections
in Estonian dairy herds using a stochastic model. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 106(3-4),
258–65. doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2012.04.005
Lorenz, I., Fagan, J., & More, S. J. (2011). Calf health from birth to weaning. II. Management of
diarrhoea in pre-weaned calves. Irish Veterinary Journal, 64(1), 9. doi:10.1186/2046-0481-
64-9
Marsolais, G., Assaf, R., Montpetit, C., & Marois, P. (1978). Diagnosis of viral agents associated
with neonatal calf diarrhea.
, 42(2), 168–71. Retrieved from
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1277610&tool=pmcentrez&ren
dertype=abstract
MARTIN, W. B., THOMAS, B. A. C., & URQUHART, G. M. (1957). Chronic diarrhoea in
housed cattle due to atypical parasitic gastritis. Veterinary Record, 69(31), 736–739.
Retrieved from
http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19570801133.html;jsessionid=1FB57C7A697D6976A2
1B7F82E48F06EA
McAllister, T. A., Olson, M. E., Fletch, A., Wetzstein, M., & Entz, T. (2005). Prevalence of
Giardia and Cryptosporidium in beef cows in southern Ontario and in beef calves in
southern British Columbia.
Canadienne, 46(1), 47–55. Retrieved from
dertype=abstract
Michna, A., Bartko, P., Bíres, J., Lehocký, J., & Reichel, P. (1996). [Metabolic acidosis in calves
with diarrhea and treatment with NaHCO3]. , 41(10), 305–10.
Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8975452
MONTSMA, G. (1960). Observations of milk yield, and calf growth and conversion rate, on
three types of cattle in Ghana. Tropical Agriculture, Trinidad and Tobago, 37, 293–302.
Retrieved from http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19611403114.html
Mundt, H.-C., Bangoura, B., Rinke, M., Rosenbruch, M., & Daugschies, A. (2005). Pathology
and treatment of Eimeria zuernii coccidiosis in calves: investigations in an infection model.
Parasitology International, 54(4), 223–30. doi:10.1016/j.parint.2005.06.003
Ndambi, O. A., Garcia, O., Balikowa, D., Kiconco, D., Hemme, T., & Latacz-Lohmann, U.
(2007). Milk production systems in Central Uganda: a farm economic analysis. Tropical
Animal Health and Production, 40(4), 269–279. doi:10.1007/s11250-007-9091-4
Osoro, K., & Wright, I. A. (1992). The effect of body condition, live weight, breed, age, calf
performance, and calving date on reproductive performance of spring-calving beef cows.
Journal of Animal Science, 70(6), 1661–1666. doi:/1992.7061661x
Practice, G. V., & Health, A. (2003). Calf Scours in Southern. October, (October).
Reynolds, W. L., Urick, J. J., & Knapp, B. W. (n.d.). Biological type effects on gestation
length, calving traits and calf growth rate. Journal of Animal Science, 68(3), 630–639.

25
doi:/1990.683630x
Ridpath, J. F., Bolin, S. R., & Dubovi, E. J. (1994). Segregation of bovine viral diarrhea virus
into genotypes. Virology, 205(1), 66–74. doi:10.1006/viro.1994.1620
Russell, F. M., Biribo, S. S. N., Selvaraj, G., Oppedisano, F., Warren, S., Seduadua, A., …
Carapetis, J. R. (2006). As a bacterial culture medium, citrated sheep blood agar is a
practical alternative to citrated human blood agar in laboratories of developing countries.
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 44(9), 3346–51. doi:10.1128/JCM.02631-05
Sharma, V. K., & Dean-Nystrom, E. a. (2003). Detection of enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli
O157:H7 by using a multiplex real-time PCR assay for genes encoding intimin and Shiga
toxins. Veterinary Microbiology, 93(3), 247–260. doi:10.1016/S0378-1135(03)00039-7
Smith, D. R., Grotelueschen, D. M., Knott, T., & Ensley, S. (2003). Managing to Alleviate Calf
Scours: The Sandhills Calving System. The Range Beef Cow Symposium XVIII, (Figure 1).
Snodgrass, D., Terzolo, H., Sherwood, D., Campbell, I., Menzies, J., & Synge, B. (1986).
Aetiology of diarrhoea in young calves. Veterinary Record, 119(2), 31–34.
doi:10.1136/vr.119.2.31
Trotz-Williams, L. A., Jarvie, B. D., Martin, S. W., Leslie, K. E., & Peregrine, A. S. (2005).
Prevalence of Cryptosporidium parvum infection in southwestern Ontario and its
association with diarrhea in neonatal dairy calves.
, 46(4), 349–51. Retrieved from
dertype=abstract
Vagh, A. A., & Jani, R. G. (2010). Prevalence and Comparative Studies of Some Major Serotype
of E . Coli from Cattle and Buffalo Calf Scour, 3(10), 458–459.
Waldner, C., Jelinski, M. D., & McIntyre-Zimmer, K. (2013). Survey of western Canadian beef
producers regarding calf-hood diseases, management practices, and veterinary service
usage. , 54(6), 559–64.
Retrieved from
dertype=abstract
Waltner-Toews, D., Martin, S. W., & Meek, A. H. (1986). Dairy calf management, morbidity
and mortality in Ontario Holstein herds. II. Age and seasonal patterns. Preventive
Veterinary Medicine, 4(2), 125–135. doi:10.1016/0167-5877(86)90018-8
Watson, P. R., Paulin, S. M., Bland, A. P., Jones, P. W., & Wallis, T. S. (1995). Characterization
of intestinal invasion by Salmonella typhimurium and Salmonella dublin and effect of a
mutation in the invH gene. Infection and Immunity, 63(7), 2743–54. Retrieved from
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=173367&tool=pmcentrez&rend
ertype=abstract
Wells, S. J., Dargatz, D. A., & Ott, S. L. (1996). Factors associated with mortality to 21 days of
life in dairy heifers in the United States. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 29(1), 9–19.
doi:10.1016/S0167-5877(96)01061-6
Xu, R. (1996). Development of the newborn GI tract and its relation to colostrum/milk intake: a
review. Reproduction, Fertility and Development, 8(1), 35. doi:10.1071/RD9960035

26
APPENDICES
Appendix I: The main biochemical characterization of Common Enterobactericeae
Character E. coli Enterobacter Klebsiella Salmonella Shigella
Gram _ _ _ _ _
Shape R R R R R
Indole + _ + _ _
MR + _ _ + +
VP _ + + _ _
Citrate _ + +(-) + _
H2S _ _ _ + _
Urease _ _ _
Carbohydrate
Glucose + + + + +
Lactose + + + _ _
(+) indicates positive test, (-) indicates negative test

27
Appendix II: Map of Uganda showing location of Wakiso district
D.S.TAYEBWA©2013
Adopted from Google maps
KEY:
Location of Wakiso District

Calf scours- final

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Calf scours- final

Calf scours- final