CalfExpert

An automatic calf feeder, such as the CalfExpert, recognises each individual calf and provides it with a defined portion of milk in accordance with a pre-set feeding programme. Among other things, the milk volume, concentration, number of meals, feeding restrictions and weaning schedule can be individually controlled.

The milk meal is provided at a feeding station, such as the HygieneStation, which is designed to meet the specific requirements for natural feeding behaviour in calves.

The system thus combines group housing and social contact with an individualised milk supply for each animal. At the same time, it records feeding data such as milk intake, number of visits and feeding behaviour.

Automatic feeding systems, such as the CalfExpert, enable individual milk allocations within a group and continuously generate dates on the calves’ intake and visit behaviour.

The CalfExpert recognises a registered calf at the feeding station (HygieneStation) and checks whether it is entitled to milk. The feeder then prepares the prescribed portion, transports it to the HygieneStation and dispenses the feed via the teat. This process usually has a duration of less than 5 seconds.

Feeding is based on the calf’s individual feeding curve. Visits, milk intake and other dates are recorded and are available for daily animal monitoring.

A calf feeder such as the CalfExpert is particularly suitable for operations that keep calves in groups, wish to control milk intake on an individual basis, and want to reduce the fixed working hours associated with manual feeding.

Herd size is not the only decisive factor. Essential requirements include a suitable barn layout, reliable daily animal monitoring, good hygiene, trained staff and a well-organised supply system for milk, water, power and cleaning.

There is no universally applicable minimum number. Economic viability depends, amongst other things, on the number of calves being milk-fed at any one time, the organisation of labour, labour costs, the housing structure, the feeding programme and the desired level of automation.

A robust comparison should take into account investment, running costs, working hours, feed costs and management benefits.

The appropriate number depends on the options, the number of feeding stations, the programmed milk volume, the feeding schedule, the age of the calves and the barn layout. It should therefore be planned individually for each operation.

A high theoretical capacity of up to 120 calves should not be regarded as a target stocking density.

Yes. Depending on the system design, a central CalfExpert unit can be connected to up to four HygieneStations, thereby supplying separate groups of calves. Various pens can be set up within the CalfExpert control system, which makes it easier to locate the calves within their groups.

The groups can be organised, for example, by age, health status or management phase.

Fundamentally, yes. Whether the investment makes sense depends more on the number of calves to be supplied at any one time and how the work is organised than on the total number of dairy cows.

Even smaller operations can benefit from more flexible working hours and individualised feeding. However, if there are very few calves, a mobile or manual solution may be more cost-effective.

Fundamentally, automatic feeding can also be used on organic farms. The key factors are the applicable legal and association-specific requirements, particularly regarding husbandry, milk feeding, feeding duration and group size.

The technical system must therefore be adapted to the specific organic regulations and the operation’s operational concept. In particular, the wide range of options for whole milk management and storage offered by the CalfExpert makes it very popular with organic farms.

There is no single ‘best’ automatic calf feeder. Which system is best suited to a particular operation depends on factors such as herd size, housing design, feeding strategy and management objectives.

Key selection criteria include hygienic milk preparation, individual feeding, reliable animal recognition, meaningful management data, easy operation and expert after-sales service.

We are convinced that the CalfExpert is the technologically leading automatic calf feeder on the market. It combines fresh preparation of any milk portion, flexible feeding with whole milk and milk replacer, automatic cleaning until the teat, comprehensive management data and a modular structure suitable for farms of various sizes.

Other manufacturers also offer high-performance solutions. We therefore recommend comparing calf feeders not only on the basis of purchase price, but above all in terms of feeding quality, hygiene standards, data management, expandability and service. Anyone taking these criteria into account will find the CalfExpert among the very best.

Yes. The CalfExpert can use whole milk as the sole source of milk or as part of a combined feeding programme.

For safe whole milk feeding, storage, cooling or processing, transport and cleaning must be planned with hygiene in mind. With EvenMilk, the CalfExpert can combine available whole milk and milk replacers in defined proportions.

With WholeMilkSmart, milk storage is optimised across a wide variety of systems. A consumption forecast and planning of the required refill level are important management tools.

Yes. The CalfExpert prepares milk replacer in individual portions for each calf. The PowerMixer mixes powder and water and keeps the consumption in motion and at as constant a temperature as possible during prolonged suckling sessions.

To ensure consistent dosing, the milk replacer, water and powder quantities must be subject to regular calibration. Different products or batches may have varying flow and bulk densities.

If required, it is even possible to perform feeding with two different types of milk replacer.

Yes. The system can combine whole milk and milk replacer, or fortified whole milk, according to a defined programme.

The EvenMilk control system distributes fluctuating quantities of whole milk as evenly as possible across the designated rations. This is intended to prevent individual calves from switching abruptly between pure whole milk and milk replacer.

The second milk powder compartment allows two different milk replacers to be stocked and used in accordance with programmed feeding curves.

This enables, for example, a gradual switch between two products. The suitability of the products, dosing and transition strategy should be agreed with the feed consultant.

In addition, the storage capacity increases to 100 kg of CMR. With appropriate powder chamber extensions, up to 150 kg of CMR can be stored on the CalfExpert.

The CalfExpert can be fitted with two powder dispensers and two liquid dosers as optional options. This allows suitable additives to be dosed according to pre-set programmes.

It must be clarified before whether a product is technically suitable for dosing, permitted under feed legislation and appropriate for the individual calf. Medicinal products may only be used in accordance with veterinary instructions and the applicable legal requirements.

The supplementary programmes can be set on an individual animal basis or for specific groups.

The appropriate amount of milk depends on body weight, age, breed, state of health, nutrient concentration, ambient temperature and rearing objective. A standardised no. of litres is therefore not suitable for all calves.

Modern programmes are increasingly based on body weight and provide young calves with more generous supplies than traditional restrictive systems. The specific feeding curve should be determined in consultation with a feeding adviser and a vet, and reviewed on the basis of growth, faecal consistency, starter feed intake and health data. Systematic reviews show that milk volume and feeding methods influence behaviour and performance; however, they do not identify a universally optimal no. of litres for all operations.

CalfExpert offers three standard feeding curves corresponding to different feeding intensities.

This depends on the programmed daily quantity, the portion size and the set restricted feeding times. A key advantage of automatic systems is that the daily ration can be divided into several smaller meals.

However, portions that are too small can lead to many unsuccessful visits, whilst very large individual portions limit the desired distribution.

Ideally, Holm & Laue recommends between 4 and 6 visits per day. The minimum quantity should be approximately 2 litres per visit.

An automatic calf feeder, such as the CalfExpert, can provide very large quantities of milk or virtually unlimited access to milk. However, ‘ad libitum’ does not mean that management and monitoring are no longer required.

Milk quality, temperature, cleanliness, starter feed intake, water supply and weaning strategy remain crucial.

For animal monitoring, the CalfExpert uses different alarm parameters to those used in restrictive feeding systems, in order to reduce false-negative results.

CalfExpert uses feeding curves for feeding groups. These take into account milk intake, concentration and weaning progression depending on the calves’ age or stage of development.

Individual programmes are possible, particularly when weaning off milk, based on body weight or concentrate feed intake. Feed supplements can be administered on an individual basis.

When preparing milk replacer, the machine supplies water at the specified temperature. The heated PowerMixer helps to maintain as constant a temperature as possible, even if a calf drinks for a longer period.

The actual temperature at the teat should nevertheless be checked regularly. Long pipework, ambient temperature or technical variations can affect the result.

It is not possible to carry out feeding with milk that has already been acidified in the storage tank, as there is a risk of it flocculating when heated in the CalfExpert. However, it is possible to carry out dosing of feed acids directly in the milk that has already been heated in the PowerMixer.

With CalfExpert, each portion of milk is freshly prepared individually for each calf. If a calf does not drink its entire allocated portion, the residual quantity is initially kept in the PowerMixer for the calf. If the calf does not drink the residual quantity within the next few minutes, it is rejected.

If, during this time, another calf is entitled to the same milk mixture, that calf may drink the milk. The corresponding quantity is then allocated to the second calf.

If a calf arrives at the station that is not supposed to receive this mixture, the milk mixture is rejected and the calf is given a fresh mixture in accordance with its own formula.

There is no fixed age limit that applies to any operation. The calf should be healthy, have received sufficient colostrum, be able to drink reliably from a teat, and be suitable for close monitoring.

Both very early and later moves are possible. The decisive factors are health status, housing design, group composition and the quality of the training process. In practice reports by Holm & Laue, calves are transferred to the CalfExpert just a few days after birth; however, scientific studies show that the timing of introduction must always be considered in conjunction with a healthy environment, performance, welfare and labour requirements.

The calf is led to the feeding stall and helped to find the teat and start drinking milk.

The automatic training aid assists farmers in this process. When the calf moves the teat, a small quantity of milk is squirted into its mouth. It then usually starts drinking quickly.

Once it has understood the connection between the stall and the milk, the help should be gradually reduced.

The first few days must be closely monitored. Milk intake, successful visits and changes compared with the previous day indicate whether a calf can manage independently or requires further support. In a practical comparison, Holm & Laue often cite two to three days for the training phase; the actual duration may vary.

Warning signs include low milk intake, few successful visits, repeated unsuccessful visits, a marked decrease in drinking speed, or a change from the animal’s usual behaviour.

These dates must always be assessed in conjunction with a direct examination of the animal. Weakness, diarrhoea, respiratory diseases, lameness, competition within the group or technical problems can cause similar changes.

This depends on the calf’s state of health. A calf with mild health issues may be able to remain with the group under close observation; a severely ill, weak or non-self-feeding calf often requires separate supply.

By conducting a detailed analysis of the calf data, emerging illnesses can be detected and treated at an early stage.

The decision to treat should be made in accordance with a farm health protocol and, where necessary, in consultation with the vet. The feeder records feeding behaviour but does not make a diagnosis.

Group housing facilitates social interaction, shared learning and more behavioural options. Scientific overviews highlight the benefits of social housing, but also note that health risks must be minimised through effective management.

Key requirements include small, stable groups, sufficient space, good air quality, dry resting areas, hygienic feeding stations and consistent monitoring of the animals.

There is no universally optimal group size. It depends on age, space requirement, the number of feeding stalls, the feeding programme, health status, ventilation and work organisation.

Smaller groups, ideally comprising calves of similar ages, often make monitoring and training easier.

Large age differences within a group are usually undesirable. Younger calves may be displaced by older and stronger animals and may face a different risk of infection.

In practice, groups of similar age that remain stable, with a maximum age difference of 2–3 weeks, are easier to manage. Frequent regrouping should be avoided, as it causes unrest and introduces the animals to new companions.

Mutual sucking can also occur with automatic feeding, but is not necessarily a consequence of the feeder. The risk and frequency are influenced, amongst other things, by milk volume, meal distribution, sucking duration, teat resistance, hunger, weaning strategy and engagement.

An adequate milk supply, a suitable teat, a longer natural suckling duration (approx. 500–600 ml/min) and a gradual weaning process can reduce the risk.

The CalfExpert features automatic cleaning programmes for all milk-carrying system areas. When used in conjunction with the HygieneStation, cleaning can extend until the teat; furthermore, the teat and saliva tray are rinsed between animal contacts.

Automatic cleaning does not replace all manual tasks. External surfaces, the station, teats, storage containers and hard-to-reach areas must be checked in accordance with a fixed hygiene plan and cleaned manually where necessary.

The milk-carrying components must be cleaned automatically on a regular basis in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and the farm’s hygiene plan. The CalfExpert can be cleaned automatically, for example, twice daily. In addition, daily visual and function checks, as well as specified manual cleaning tasks, are required.

The required frequency depends on the feed, temperature, utilisation rate, pipe length and system configuration. The current operating manual and the results of the farm’s own hygiene checks are decisive – not a generalised statement found on the internet.

The CalfExpert HygieneStation performs cleaning of the teat and rinses the saliva tray using the QuickDrain system. This is intended to reduce the spread of saliva and dirt between animals.

Nevertheless, the state of the teat must be checked daily. Wearing parts must be replaced, cleaned and disinfected in accordance with the hygiene plan.

Shared teats and group housing can create routes of transmission if hygiene, barn climate or animal management are inadequate. A calf feeder is therefore neither automatically a health risk nor automatically a safeguard against disease.

The risk can be minimised by teat cleaning or replacement, ensuring clean pipework, keeping small, stable groups, providing good ventilation, using dry bedding and isolating sick animals promptly.

The quantities of water, powder and, where applicable, whole milk must be calibrated regularly and verified by control measurements. The temperature and the actual concentration of the mixture should also be checked.

All liquids in the CalfExpert can be calibrated automatically.

A new batch of milk replacer may require recalibration due to changes in bulk density. Specialist organisations recommend regular calibrations as well as further checks when changing products or batches.

Without power or water, the feeder cannot prepare, dispense or perform cleaning of milk properly. Any operation therefore needs a documented emergency plan for the manual supply of all calves.

This includes accessible replacement equipment, a sufficient number of clean buckets or bottles, available milk, clear lines of responsibility and emergency procedures. Possible emergency power and alarm options must be agreed on a farm-by-farm basis with specialist partners and electricians.

The CalfExpert automatically compensates for short-term power cuts and starts independently. However, power surges can damage electronic components.

With the CalfExpert, EvenMilk can distribute the available whole milk in combined programmes in such a way that whole milk and milk replacer are used as evenly as possible. This is intended to reduce abrupt changes.

The exact response depends on the set feeding programme and the system configuration. The options range from automatic switching to milk replacer or pausing milk preparation. The stock levels and the milk supply function must therefore continue to be checked daily.

In a system designed for this purpose, DoubleJug or compatible whole milk systems can be incorporated into the automated cleaning sequence. This also allows the pipes between the tank and the CalfExpert to be cleaned.

Where third-party tanks are used, additional valves, cleaning lines, spray heads or electrical modifications (known as SmartWash) are required. The technical design must be planned and approved on a case-by-case basis.

Typical dates include the allocated and actual milk intake, successful and unsuccessful visits, drinking speed and changes over time. Depending on the options, body weight and weight development may also be included.

It is not just a single measurement that is particularly meaningful, but the deviation from a calf’s individual growth curve. Automatic systems thus provide valuable information for daily animal monitoring.

A calf feeder can show behavioural changes that may be linked to an illness. A decrease in milk intake, drinking speed or the number of successful visits are possible warning signs.

However, the data is not sufficient for a definitive diagnosis.

When used in conjunction with suitably equipped HygieneStations, body weight can be recorded automatically during a visit to the station. This provides a regular record of weight development without the need to take each calf to the scales individually.

Weight data helps to monitor progress and can be incorporated into a weight-based weaning strategy.

In continuous weaning, the amount of milk available is reduced over a set period of time. The CalfExpert can use individual feeding curves for each animal and – with the appropriate options – weight data for this purpose.

Weaning should not be based solely on the calendar. Age, body weight, health status and a stable intake of calf starter feed and water must all be taken into account. Studies show that automatic systems can support a gradual weaning process tailored to the individual animal.

An automatic calf feeder can significantly reduce the routine work for preparing, portioning and dispensing milk, and make working hours more flexible. A study by Teagasc found greater labour efficiency compared with manual milk feeding, whilst weight gains were comparable.

However, the time saved on feeding must not be completely disregarded. It should be used for observing the animals, hygiene, data analysis, bedding and health checks. The greatest benefit therefore does not come from ‘less work with calves’, but from a different and more targeted distribution of the work.