Herd-level risk factors for lameness in high-producing holstein cows housed in freestall barns

The objective of this study was to investigate the association of some herd-level factors with the prevalence of lameness in 53 high-production groups of Holstein cows housed on 50 commercial dairy farms having freestall barns in Minnesota. Cows in the high-production group (n = 5,626) were scored for locomotion (score of 1 to 5, where 1 = normal and 5 = severely lame) to estimate prevalence of lameness (locomotion score ≥3) in the group. Herd-level variables were used to explain the variation in prevalence among groups. Among the variables tested, herd size, pen space per cow, type and size of milking parlor, total mixed ration content of crude protein and neutral detergent fiber, feeding frequency, linear feedbunk space per cow, type of feed barrier, and use of footbath did not show any association with the prevalence of lameness in the univariate analysis screening test and were not included in the multivariate model. Pen stocking density (cows per 100 stalls), total daily distance between pen and milking parlor, number of cows per full-time employee equivalent, cud chewing index, and pen type were eliminated from the multivariate model in the backwards stepwise procedure. Daily time away from the pen for milking was positively associated with the prevalence of lameness, whereas cow comfort quotient was negatively associated with prevalence of lameness. Prevalence of lameness was greater when farms performed hoof trimming only when the manager decided cows needed it because of hoof overgrowth or lameness compared with farms on which the feet of all cows were trimmed on a maintenance schedule once or twice annually. Brisket board height of more than 15.24 cm and presence of the area behind the brisket board filled with concrete were associated with greater prevalence of lameness. Most of these herd-level factors could be managed to reduce lameness prevalence in commercial dairy farms.     

Assessment of lameness prevalence and associated risk factors in dairy herds in England and Wales

Visits were made to 205 dairy farms in England and Wales between October 2006 and May 2007 by 1 or more of 4 researchers. At each visit, all milking cows were locomotion scored (lameness scored) using a 4-point scale (0 = sound locomotion, 1 = imperfect locomotion, 2 = lame, 3 = severely lame). The mean prevalence of lameness (scores 2 and 3) across the study farms was 36.8% (range = 0-79.2%). On each farm, the presence within the housing and grazing environments of commonly reported risks for increased lameness was recorded. Each farmer was interviewed to gauge the ability of the farm staff to detect and treat lameness. A multivariable linear regression model was fitted. Risk factors for increased lameness were the presence of damaged concrete in yards, cows pushing each other or turning sharply near the parlor entrance or exit, cattle grazing pasture also grazed by sheep, the use of automatic scrapers, not treating lame cows within 48 h of detection, and cows being housed for 61 d or longer at the time they were locomotion scored by the visiting researcher. Having a herd consisting entirely of a breed or breeds other than Holstein-Friesian was associated with a reduction in lameness prevalence compared with having a herd consisting entirely of Holstein-Friesians.     

Sampling strategies for monitoring lameness in dairy cattle

Evaluating the prevalence of lameness within herds of dairy cattle is important for management and certification purposes; however, sampling strategies that could reduce the time taken for an assessment would be valuable. The prevalence of lame and severely lame cows on 224 United Kingdom dairy farms was available for analysis. Presence of more than 1 severely lame cow on a farm was a useful indication of a lameness problem. The vast majority (80%) of the 182 farms that had ≥1 severely lame cow present had an overall lameness prevalence >25%, whereas only 24% of the 42 farms that had no severely lame cows had an overall prevalence >25%. Information was available on individual milking order through the parlor on the day of the lameness assessment. On 37 farms where cows were housed in a group, lameness prevalence was 11.9% greater in the last third compared with the first third of the milking order. For 36 herds that were larger than 100 cows, sampling a maximum of 100 cows from the middle of the milking order produced an estimate of prevalence within 5% of the true prevalence on 83% of farms. A reasonable sampling strategy may, therefore, be to observe up to 100 cows from the middle of the milking order. Also, presence of severely lame cows at the end of milking may be useful for identifying those farms likely to benefit from further support.     

Better recovery from lameness among dairy cows housed in hospital pens

Housing in hospital pens may be beneficial for lame cows due to soft flooring and less competition for resources. We compared recovery from lameness among dairy cows housed in designated hospital pens, with deep-litter straw, with recovery among cows housed together with the rest of the lactating cows in their home pens, with cubicles and slatted or solid concrete floors. Additionally, we compared lying behavior in the 2 groups of cows. A total of 168 lame dairy cows from 5 herds were included in the study. Each herd was visited once weekly, and lame cows (locomotion score 3 or 4 on a 5-point scale) were examined in a hoof-trimming chute, trimmed, and randomly assigned to 1 of 2 treatments: housing in a hospital pen (termed “treatment”; 72 cows) or housing under the herds' standard conditions together with the rest of the lactating cows in the herd (termed “control”; 96 cows). Cows were locomotion scored weekly until they were no longer lame or until they had been part of the trial for 3 weeks (i.e., 2, 3, or 4 locomotion scorings per cow). We categorized cows to describe the progression of lameness over time: recovery (divided into fast, medium, or slow), improvement without recovery, constant lameness, or worsening of lameness. Lying behavior was recorded in a sample of 60 of the 168 cows for a period of 5 d. Overall, recovery from lameness was significantly different between treatment and control cows. The proportion of cows included in the study with locomotion score 4 and a subsequent improvement was significantly higher among treatment cows than among control cows. Among cows included with locomotion score 4, 40% of treatment cows also had a locomotion score 4 at the fourth locomotion scoring, 46% had improved to a score 3, and 14% were no longer lame. In comparison, 73% of control cows had a locomotion score 4 at the fourth locomotion scoring, 16% had improved to a score 3, and 11% were no longer lame. We found no differences between treatment and control cows for mean daily lying time, number of steps per day, number of daily lying bouts, or mean duration of lying bouts. Housing of lame dairy cows in a hospital pen with a soft surface, easier access to feed and water, a smaller group size, and reduced waiting time for milking may have positive effects on recovery from lameness. Typically, farmers have housed only severely lame cows in hospital pens. However, our results indicate that less severely lame cows may also benefit from a stay in a hospital pen.     

Farm-level factors associated with lameness prevalence,productivity, and milk quality in farms with automated milking systems

Impaired locomotion (lameness) may negatively affect the ability and desire of cows to milk voluntarily, which is a key factor in success of automated milking systems (AMS). The objective of this study was to identify factors associated with herd-level lameness prevalence and associations of lameness and other farm-level factors with milking activity, milk yield, and milk quality in herds with AMS. From April to September 2019, 75 herds with AMS in Ontario, Canada, were visited, and data on barn design and farm management practices were collected. Data from AMS were collected, along with milk recording data, for the 6-mo period before farm visits. Farms averaged 98 ± 71 lactating cows, 2.3 ± 1.5 robot units/farm, 43.6 ± 9.4 cows/robot, 36.4 ± 4.9 kg/d of milk, a milking frequency of 3.01 ± 0.33 milkings/d, and a herd average geometric mean SCC of 179.3 ± 74.6 (× 1,000) cells/mL. Thirty percent of cows/farm (minimum of 30 cows/farm) were scored for body condition (1 = underconditioned to 5 = over conditioned) and locomotion (1 = sound to 5 = lame; clinically lame ≥3 out of 5 = 28.3 ± 11.7%, and severely lame ≥4 out of 5 = 3.0 ± 3.2%). Clinical lameness (locomotion score ≥3) was less prevalent on farms with sand bedding, with increased feed bunk space per cow, and on farms with non-Holstein breeds versus Holsteins, and tended to be less prevalent with lesser proportion of underconditioned cows (with body condition score ≤2.5). Severe lameness occurrence (farms with any cows with locomotion score ≥4) was associated with a greater proportion of underconditioned cows and in farms with stalls with greater curb heights. Herd average milk yield/cow per day increased with lesser prevalence of clinical lameness (each 10-percentage-point decrease in clinical lameness prevalence was associated with 2.0 kg/cow per day greater milk yield) and greater milking visit frequency per day, and tended to be greater with increased feed push-up frequency. Lesser herd average somatic cell count was associated with lesser clinical lameness prevalence, herd average days in milk, and proportion of overconditioned cows, and somatic cell count tended to be lesser for farms with sand bedding versus those with organic bedding substrates. The results highlight the importance of minimizing lameness prevalence, using of sand bedding, ensuring adequate feed access and feed bunk space, and maintaining proper cow body condition to optimize herd-level productivity and milk quality in AMS herds.     

Cow- and herd-level risk factors for lameness in partly housed pasture-based dairy cows

Lameness in dairy cows is a major animal welfare concern and has substantial economic impact through reduced production and fertility. Previous risk factor analyses have focused on housed systems, rather than those where cows were grazed for the majority of the year and housed only for the winter period. Therefore, the aim of this observational study was to identify a robust set of cow-level and herd-level risk factors for lameness in a pasture-based system, based on predictors from the housing and grazing periods. Ninety-nine farms were visited during the grazing period (April 2019–September 2019), and 85 farms were revisited during the housing period (October 2019–February 2020). At each visit, all lactating cows were scored for lameness (0 = good mobility, 1 = imperfect mobility, 2 = impaired mobility, 3 = severely impaired mobility), and potential herd-level risk factors were recorded through questionnaires and infrastructure measurements. Routine cow-level management data were also collected. Important risk factors for lameness were derived though triangulation of results from elastic net regression, and from logistic regression model selection using modified Bayesian information criterion. Both selection methods were implemented using bootstrapping. This novel approach has not previously been used in a cow-level or herd-level risk factor analysis in dairy cows, to the authors' knowledge. The binary outcome variable was lameness status, whereby cows with a lameness score of 0 or 1 were classed as non-lame and cows with a score of 2 or 3 were classed as lame. Cow-level risk factors for increased lameness prevalence were age and genetic predicted transmitting ability for lameness. Herd-level risk factors included farm and herd size, stones in paddock gateways, slats on cow tracks near the collecting yard, a sharper turn at the parlor exit, presence of digital dermatitis on the farm, and the farmers' perception of whether lameness was a problem on the farm. This large-scale study identified the most important associations between risk factors and lameness, based on the entire year (grazing and housing periods), providing a focus for future randomized clinical trials.     

Sampling strategies for assessing lameness,injuries, and body condition score on dairy farms

Our objective was to evaluate how sampling strategies (i.e., how many cows to sample and which animals to include) used in 4 dairy cattle welfare assessment programs affect the classification of dairy farms relative to thresholds of acceptability for animal-based measures. We predicted that classification performance would improve when more cows were sampled and when selecting from all lactating cows versus when some pens were excluded. On 38 freestall farms, we assessed all 12,375 cows for lameness, injuries on the tarsal (hock) and carpal joints, and body condition score and calculated the farm-level prevalence for each measure. Based on approaches used in the industry, we evaluated 6 sampling strategies generated using formulas with precision (d) of 15, 10, or 5% applied to either a single high-producing pen or all lactating cows; an additional sample was included with d = 10% applied to the entire herd, selecting lactating cows in proportion to their representation in the herd. For each sampling strategy, cow records were selected randomly (in 10,000 replicates) to calculate prevalence. The strategy of assessing all cows in the high-producing pen was also compared. Farms were classified as meeting (below) or failing to meet (above) thresholds of ≤15% moderate lameness; ≤20% moderate carpal or hock injuries; <10, <5, and ≤1% severe lameness; or injuries on the carpus or hock; and <5, <3, <1, or 0% thin cows. For each measure and threshold, we calculated pooled percent agreement, kappa, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value for each sampling strategy using true prevalence as the gold standard for herd classification. Across measures and thresholds, classification performance increased with the number of cows sampled [i.e., when narrower precision values (d = 5 vs. 10 vs. 15%) were used in the sample size calculation]. Because narrower precision values can dramatically increase sample size, assessment programs may need to consider both feasibility and the degree of misclassification they will accept. Applying the formula directly to lactating cows performed better than applying it to the entire herd and then selecting lactating cows in proportion to their representation in the herd. Farm classifications were similar whether cows in the hospital pen were included or excluded from the sample. Selecting all cows from the high-producing pen resulted in classifications similar to when including all lactating cows, suggesting that assessing cows from the high-producing pen may serve as an acceptable proxy for all lactating cows on the farm.     

Assessing lameness in cows kept in tie-stalls

Identifying lame cows and quantifying the prevalence of lameness are important elements of cattle welfare assessment that are generally achieved by methods involving observations of each animal walking. There is no published method for assessing lameness in cows confined in tie-stalls. The objective of this study (carried out within the European Commission's Welfare Quality^® project) was to develop a suitable method and validate it for lameness detection against a published locomotion score. A series of indicators of lameness visible in tied cows was formalized into a stall assessment protocol. This was validated against a traditional locomotion score and tested for repeatability between 2 observers. A total of 98 cows on 4 farms were assessed. Overall interobserver agreement was 91%. Sensitivity compared with locomotion scoring was 0.54 to 0.77, dependent on observer and threshold definition. Assessment in the stall underestimated the herd prevalence of lameness revealed by locomotion scoring by 11 to 37% (mean 27%). The discrepancy between herd lameness prevalence assessed in the stall and by locomotion scoring was not affected significantly by farm or observer. The cases of lameness that were not detected in the stall tended to be the least severe. The proposed method for lameness detection in tie-stalls could be used for herd-level assessment of lameness and detection of individual lame animals by farmers and their advisors, but it is important to remember that it is less sensitive than locomotion scoring.     

Prevalence of lameness and leg lesions of lactating dairy cows housed in southern Brazil: Effects of housing systems

Within the last few decades, the North American and European dairy industries have been collecting information about lameness and leg injury prevalence on dairy farms and have tried to develop solutions to mitigate these ailments. Few published articles report the prevalence of lameness and leg lesions in areas outside of those 2 regions, or how alternative housing systems, such as compost-bedded packs, affect the prevalence of these maladies. The objectives of this study were to compare the prevalence of lameness and leg lesions on confined dairies that used freestall, compost-bedded packs, or a combination of these 2 systems in Brazil. Data were collected in the autumn and winter of 2016 from 50 dairy farms located in Paraná state, including 12 compost-bedded pack dairies (CB), 23 freestall dairies (FS), and 15 freestall dairies that used compost-bedded packs for vulnerable cows (FS+C). A visit to the farm consisted of a management questionnaire, an inspection of the housing areas as well as the milking parlor, and an evaluation of all lactating cows as they exited the parlor for lameness (score 1–5), hygiene (score 0–2), body condition score (score 1–5), and hock and knee lesions (score 0–1). Median 1-way chi-squared test was used to compare production systems. We found no difference between farm types in management practices related to hoof health management or average daily milk production per cow [31 (29–33.9) kg/d; median (quartile 1–3)], percentage of Holstein cattle in the herd [100% (90–100%)], conception rate [35.8% (30.2–38%)], or pregnancy rate [15% (13.7–18%)]. The CB farms were smaller [85 (49.5–146.5) milking cows] than both the FS [270 (178–327.5) milking cows] and FS+C farms [360 (150–541.5) milking cows). The overall prevalence of severe lameness (score 4 and 5) across all farms was 21.2% (15.2–28.5%) but was lower on the CB farms [14.2% (8.45–15.5%)] in comparison to the FS [22.2% (16.8–26.7%)] and the FS+C farms [22.2% (17.4–32.8%)]. Less than 1% of all cows scored on CB farms were observed with swollen or wounded knees (or both), which was lower than either the FS or FS+C farms [7.4% (3.6–11.9%) and 6.4% (2.6–11.8%) of all cows scored, respectively]. The same pattern was found for hock lesions, where the farm-level prevalence within the 3 different housing types was 0.5% (0–0.9%), 9.9% (0.8–15.3%), and 5.7% (2.6–10.9%) for CB, FS, and FS+C farms, respectively. No differences between farm systems were observed for hygiene or body condition score. On average, 2.7% (0.8–10.9%) of lactating cows had a soiled side, 15.4% (2.1–37.4%) had dirty legs and 1.7% (0–9.3%) had dirty udders. The average herd-level body condition score across farms was 2.9 (2.9–3), with 0.86% of the all cows scored having a body condition score <2.5. These results indicate that lameness prevalence on confined dairies in Brazil is high and highlight the need for remedial changes in environmental design and management practices. We found that CB farms in this region had reduced lameness and lesions in relation to FS or FS+C dairies.     

Prevalence of lameness in high-producing holstein cows housed in freestall barns in Minnesota

A cross-sectional study was conducted to estimate the prevalence of clinical lameness in high-producing Holstein cows housed in 50 freestall barns in Minnesota during summer. Locomotion and body condition scoring were performed on a total of 5,626 cows in 53 high-production groups. Cow records were collected from the nearest Dairy Herd Improvement Association test date, and herd characteristics were collected at the time of the visit. The mean prevalence of clinical lameness (proportion of cows with locomotion score ≥3 on a 1-to-5 scale, where 1 = normal and 5 = severely lame), and its association with lactation number, month of lactation, body condition score, and type of stall surface were evaluated. The mean prevalence of clinical lameness was 24.6%, which was 3.1 times greater, on average, than the prevalence estimated by the herd managers on each farm. The prevalence of lameness in first-lactation cows was 12.8% and prevalence increased on average at a rate of 8 percentage units per lactation. There was no association between the mean prevalence of clinical lameness and month of lactation (for months 1 to 10). Underconditioned cows had a higher prevalence of clinical lameness than normal or overconditioned cows. The prevalence of lameness was lower in freestall herds with sand stalls (17.1%) than in freestall herds with mattress stall surfaces (27.9%). Data indicate that the best 10th percentile of dairy farms had a mean prevalence of lameness of 5.4% with only 1.47% of cows with locomotion score = 4 and no cows with locomotion score = 5.     

Producer estimates of prevalence and perceived importance of lameness in dairy herds with tiestalls,freestalls, and automated milking systems

Lameness is one of the most important welfare and productivity concerns in the dairy industry. Our objectives were to obtain producers' estimates of its prevalence and their perceptions of lameness, and to investigate how producers monitor lameness in tiestall (TS), freestall with milking parlor (FS), and automated milking system (AMS) herds. Forty focal cows per farm in 237 Canadian dairy herds were scored for lameness by trained researchers. On the same day, the producers completed a questionnaire. Mean herd-level prevalence of lameness estimated by producers was 9.0% (±0.9%; ±SE), whereas the researchers observed a mean prevalence of 22.2% (±0.9%). Correlation between producer- and researcher-estimated lameness prevalence was low (r = 0.19) and mean researcher prevalence was 1.6, 1.8, and 4.1 times higher in AMS, FS, and TS farms, respectively. A total of 48% of producers thought lameness was a moderate or major problem in their herds (TS = 34%; AMS =53%; FS = 59%). One third of producers considered lameness the highest ranked health problem they were trying to control, whereas two-thirds of producers (TS = 43%; AMS = 63%; FS = 71%) stated that they had made management changes to deal with lameness in the past 2 yr. Almost all producers (98%) stated they routinely check cows to identify new cases of lameness; however, 40% of producers did not keep records of lameness (AMS = 24%; FS = 23%; TS = 60%). A majority (69%) of producers treated lame cows themselves immediately after detection, whereas 13% relied on hoof-trimmer or veterinarians to plan treatment. Producers are aware of lameness as an issue in dairy herds and almost all monitor lameness as part of their daily routine. However, producers underestimate lameness prevalence, which highlights that lameness detection continues to be difficult in in all housing systems, especially in TS herds. Training to improve detection, record keeping, identification of farm-specific risk factors, and treatment planning for lame cows is likely to help decrease lameness prevalence.     

Prevalence of digital dermatitis using mirror scoring in Finnish freestall dairy herds

Digital dermatitis (DD) is a severe bacterial hoof disease found worldwide. The disease can be classified into 5 different stages, denoted as M1 to M4 and M4.1, by clinical examination. The main objective of this study was to estimate prevalence of DD lesions in Finnish freestall dairy cattle population through hind feet inspection of standing cows with a mirror. Another aim was to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of mirror scoring on standing cows in a pen or in a milking parlor without washing the feet. Three veterinarians visited 81 randomly selected herds across the country. During the herd visits, hind feet of standing cows (n = 7,010) were scored with a mirror without washing the feet, either when the cows were standing in a pen (n = 4,992) or in the milking parlor (n = 2018). In total, 128 cows (111 from pen and 17 from milking parlor) including 256 feet were chosen with cross-sectional sampling and scored in a trimming chute. Animal-level sensitivity for scoring M2 lesions with a mirror was 55% and specificity was 97%; for all active DD lesions (M1, M2, or M4.1), sensitivity was 36% and specificity was 96%. Sensitivity for scoring any DD lesions was 90% and specificity was 82%. The bias-corrected sensitivity and specificity for scoring any DD lesions were 79% and 92%, respectively. The bias-corrected sensitivity and specificity for scoring M2 DD lesions were 10% and 100%. We found M2 lesions in 12.1% of the study herds, and true herd-level prevalence was the same. Altogether, 33.3% (true prevalence 28.4%) of the herds had either M1, M2, or M4.1 DD lesions. However, only 0.7% (true prevalence 5.4%) of cows in total had active M2 lesions. The within-herd prevalence of M2 lesions (in herds where at least 1 cow had a M2 lesion) was 5.7% and varied between 0.4% and 18.8%. Herds with active DD lesions also had more any DD lesions than herds without active DD lesions. The herd-level prevalence was higher than previously thought, with only 1 herd without any DD lesions. However, the animal-level prevalence of active DD lesions was relatively low. Farmers and veterinarians need to be informed of the disease and possible control measures. Because of the low within-herd prevalence, the control of the disease might be easier than in countries where DD is widespread. Further studies are needed to identify factors associated with DD prevalence in Finnish dairy herds.     

Technical note: Assessing lameness in tie-stalls using live stall lameness scoring

Video stall lameness scoring (SLS) has been shown to be comparable to video locomotion scoring for evaluating lameness in dairy cows housed in tie-stalls and may be a more practical and easier method to measure lameness in a herd. We compared live SLS to video SLS and to live locomotion scoring. A total of 685 lactating cows subsampled from 27 commercial dairy herds were examined for lameness through live and video SLS. Cows scored with the live or video SLS system were scored for 4 behavioral indicators while still in their stall: weight shifting (shift), standing on the edge of the stall (edge), uneven weight bearing while standing (rest), and uneven weight bearing while moving from side to side (uneven). Two observers live scored and video scored for SLS. Lameness prevalence from video SLS and live SLS were similar (31 vs. 30%, respectively). Prevalence of the behavioral indicators varied from 0.59 to 58.2%. Sensitivity and specificity of live SLS was calculated using video SLS as the gold standard for lameness detection in tie-stalls. Sensitivity of live SLS was 0.83 and specificity was 0.94. False positives and false negatives for lameness were 14.4 and 16.8%, respectively. When comparing the prevalence of lameness measured through video or live SLS at the herd level, live SLS for lameness was correlated to video SLS (r = 0.91) with a Cohen's kappa coefficient of 0.79 (95% confidence limit = 0.73–0.84). Average exact agreement in the behavior indicators observed ranged from 80 to 100%. A subsample of 250 cows from 5 herds were scored for live SLS and live locomotion by a third observer. Intra- and interobserver reliability for live SLS and live locomotion scoring were found to have a kappa coefficient of 0.53 (95% confidence limit = 0.43–0.64) when determining a cow as lame through SLS or locomotion scoring. Live SLS was correlated with live locomotion scoring (r = 0.92). However, lameness prevalence was lower when using live SLS (28.4%) compared with locomotion scoring (38%). In summary, live SLS may be an acceptable method to replace video SLS to identify lame cows and rank tie-stall herds in terms of lameness prevalence without having to remove the cows from their stalls or view videos to score; however, it may underestimate lameness prevalence compared with locomotion scoring methods.     

Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring,and the position of lame cows within the milking order

On Australian pasture-based farms, where cows may often walk several kilometers and stand for several hours per day in a crowded concrete yard while they wait to be milked, the potential for lameness to negatively affect animal welfare is of ongoing concern. Several studies have shown that farmers tend to underestimate the incidence of lameness. Further, improving farmer diagnosis/identification of lameness is likely to result in more prompt treatment, which in turn will improve clinical and animal welfare outcomes. We scored 19,154 cows over 50 farms for lameness, in herd groups ranging from approximately 100 to 1,000 cows, as they left the milking parlor. We compared these results with farmer-diagnosed lameness records on the same day. We used a scoring system of 0, walks normally; 1, walks unevenly; 2, lame; and 3, very lame. All very lame cows had been detected by the farmer, but overall, farmers detected only 24% of cows identified by lameness scoring. An analysis of the position of lame cows within the milking order showed that lameness scoring of the entire herd was necessary to detect all the lame cows as only 60% of lame cows appeared in the last 30% of cows to be milked. However, lameness scoring only the last 200 cows to be milked could be used as a screening test to identify herds with a lameness prevalence below a given threshold.     

The effect of lameness on milk production in dairy cows

Data were collected prospectively for 1.5 yr on two New York dairy farms to investigate the effect of lameness on milk production. The numbers of study cows (percentages treated at least once for lameness) in each herd were 1796 (52%) and 724 (40%), respectively. Lame cows were identified and treated by farm employees or a professional hoof trimmer. Weekly averages of total milk production per day were recorded based on automated milk weight measurements at each milking. The effect of lameness on milk production was analyzed separately for each herd using repeated measures ANOVA. In both herds, milk production decreased significantly for cows diagnosed lame. Milk production was 1.5 kg/d lower > or = 2 wk after lameness compared with cows that had not yet been diagnosed lame in the current lactation in the larger herd. In the second herd, milk production of lame cows was 0.8 kg/d lower in the first and second wk after lameness and 0.5 kg/d lower > or = 3 wk after diagnosis. The decrease in milk production associated with lameness was larger for cows in second or greater lactation and for more severe cases. In one herd, the decrease in milk production was greater for cows with sole ulcers or foot abscesses than for foot rot or foot warts. Cows with abscesses or foot rot tended to have larger decreases in milk production in the other herd. The inconsistent results between farms may have resulted from differences in the relative frequencies of specific causes of lameness in the two herds and in the way lame cows were identified and defined for the study.     

Moderate lameness leads to marked behavioral changes in dairy cows

Lameness is one of the most prevalent diseases affecting the welfare of cows in modern dairy production. Lameness leads to behavioral changes in severely lame cows, which have been investigated in much detail. For early detection of lameness, knowledge of the effects of moderate lameness on cow behavior is crucial. Therefore, the behavior of nonlame and moderately lame cows was compared on 17 Swiss dairy farms. On each farm, 5 to 11 nonlame (locomotion score 1 of 5) and 2 to 7 moderately lame (locomotion score 3 of 5) cows were selected for data collection in two 48-h periods (A, B) separated by an interval of 6 to 10 wk. Based on visual locomotion scoring, 142 nonlame and 66 moderately lame cows were examined in period A and 128 nonlame and 53 moderately lame cows in period B. Between these 2 periods, the cows underwent corrective hoof trimming. Lying behavior, locomotor activity, and neck activity were recorded by accelerometers (MSR145 data logger, MSR Electronics GmbH, Seuzach, Switzerland), and feeding and rumination behaviors by noseband sensors (RumiWatch halter, ITIN + HOCH GmbH, Liestal, Switzerland). Furthermore, visits to the brush and the concentrate feeder, and the milking order position were recorded. In comparison with nonlame cows, moderately lame cows had a longer lying duration, a longer average lying bout duration, and a greater lateral asymmetry in lying duration. Average locomotor activity, locomotor activity during 1 h after feed delivery or push-ups, and average neck activity were lower in moderately lame cows. Eating time and the number of eating chews (jaw movements) were reduced in moderately lame compared with nonlame cows, whereas no effect of moderate lameness was evident for ruminating time, number of ruminating chews and boluses, and average number of ruminating chews per bolus. Moderately lame cows visited the concentrate feeder and the brush less frequently, and they were further back in the milking order compared with nonlame cows. In conclusion, nonlame and moderately lame cows differed in a biologically relevant way in many of the behavioral variables investigated in this study. Therefore, the use of these behavioral changes seems to be promising to develop a tool for early lameness detection.     

A longitudinal field trial of the effect of biotin on lameness in dairy cows

A longitudinal prospective intervention study investigated the effect of biotin supplementation on the incidence (new cases per day) of visible lameness in milking cows and heifers on five commercial farms in Gloucestershire, United Kingdom. The trial lasted from June 1997 to April 1999. Each farm participated in the trial for 18 mo. Within each herd the cows were randomly allocated to either receive a supplement of 20 mg of biotin per day or not. All cows were run as one herd on each farm. When a lame cow was identified, the farmer called one of six veterinarians to examine and treat the affected animal; findings were recorded on a standard form. A veterinarian also carried out a bimonthly locomotion assessment to ensure that all lame cows were diagnosed. There were a total of 900 cows, 1120 cow years, in the trial. The overall incidence rate of lameness (per 100 cows per year) was 68.9, with a range of 31.6 to 111.5 per farm. The incidence rates of the four most frequently reported causes of lameness were sole ulcer, 13.8; white line separation, 12.7; digital dermatitis, 12.0; and interdigital necrobacillosis, 7.1 per 100 cows per year. There was a significant difference in the incidence rate of these four lesions between supplemented and unsupplemented cows on two of the five farms, with a significant decrease in lameness in the cows supplemented with biotin. When all the farms were pooled, the risk of lameness caused by white line separation in cattle supplemented with biotin was approximately halved (Cox proportional hazard survival analysis hazard ratio = 0.57).     

Assessment of the current performance of grazing infrastructure across Irish dairy farms

The increased average Irish dairy herd size in a post-quota environment has put heightened pressure on grazing infrastructure. In a rotational grazing system, grazing infrastructure consists of the paddock system, which delineates the grazing areas into appropriately sized grazing parcels, and the roadway network, which connects these paddocks to the milking parlor. Where herd size has increased without corresponding adaptations to the infrastructure, farm management and roadway network performance has been affected. The links between suboptimal grazing infrastructure and roadway network efficiency are poorly understood and not widely documented. The aims of this study were to (1) analyze the effect of herd expansion and paddock size on pasture allocations per paddock, (2) identify the factors that affect the total distance walked per year, and (3) create a metric to compare the efficiency of roadway networks across farms of varying grazing platforms. A sample population of 135 Irish dairy farms with a median herd size of 150 cows was used for this analysis. Herds were split into the following 5 categories: <100 cows, 100 to 149 cows, 150 to 199 cows, 200 to 249 cows, and ≥250 cows. Herds with ≥250 cows had a greater number of paddocks per farm and rotated around the grazing paddocks more frequently, with 46% of paddocks only suitable for 12 h allocations relative to herd size, compared with just 10% to 27% of paddocks for herds with <100 cows to herds with 200–249 cows. When predicting the total distance walked per year on each study farm, the mean distance from a paddock to the milking parlor was the strongest indicator (R² = 0.8247). Other metrics, such as herd size, have failed to account for the location of the milking parlor relative to the grazing platform. The creation of the relative mean distance from a paddock to milking parlor (RMDMP) metric allowed the calculation of a farm's roadway network efficiency for moving the herd between paddocks and the milking parlor. The analyzed farms increased their efficiency in terms of RMDMP (0.34–40.74%) as they increased herd size post quota. However, the position of new additional paddocks relative to the milking parlor substantially affected their RMDMP.     

Risk factors associated with lameness and hoof lesions in pasture-based dairy cattle systems in southeast Brazil

Cattle lameness is an important welfare concern that also has an economic impact on the dairy industry. It can be a significant problem among pasture-based herds. Our objectives were to identify cow- and herd-level factors related to lameness and hoof lesions in dairy cows grazing year-round in Minas Gerais, Brazil. We performed a cross-sectional study in 48 pasture-based dairy herds, visiting each farm in a single visit. We evaluated 2,262 cows for mobility score (0–3) and 392 cows for hoof lesions. We used a questionnaire and checklist to capture herd management data. All information obtained was used to build multivariable models. The factors associated with lameness were low body condition score, longer time spent in the corral, being kept in paddocks during the drought period, and poor hygiene. For hoof lesions, track features were the most significant factor in determining the likelihood of heel horn erosion, white line fissure, and sole hemorrhage—by more than 3 times. Different factors related to unhygienic conditions such as leg cleanliness, frequency of cleaning, and longer time spent in the corral were associated with infectious hoof lesions. Poor human–animal relationship was related to sole hemorrhage, but patient handling of cows on the track was a protective factor against interdigital hyperplasia. The results of this study suggest that improving hygiene conditions, track features, and cow handling can improve dairy cattle mobility scores in pasture-based farms under tropical conditions. These findings also represent a first step toward planning actions aimed at decreasing lameness and hoof lesions in the studied region.     

Risk factors for lameness and hock injuries in Holstein herds in China

The objective was to investigate the association between herd-level management and facility design and the prevalence of lameness and hock injuries in high-producing dairy cows on commercial freestall farms in China. Housing and management measures, such as stall design, bedding type, and milking routine were collected for the high-producing pen in 34 farms in China. All cows in the pen were gait scored using a 5-point scale, and evaluated for hock injuries using a 3-point scale. Measures associated with the proportion of clinically (score ≥3) or severely (score ≥4) lame cows, and the proportion of cows having at least a minor hock injury (score ≥2) or severe injury (score = 3) at the univariable level were submitted to multivariable general linear models. The prevalence [mean ± SD (range)] of clinical and severe lameness were 31 ± 12 (7–51) and 10 ± 6% (0– 27%), respectively, and the prevalence of cows with at least a minor hock injury and with severe injuries was 40 ± 20 (6 – 95) and 5 ± 9% (0 – 50%), respectively. The prevalence of clinical lameness and severe lameness decreased with herd size (estimate = −0.35 ± 0.09% for a 100-cow increase for clinical lameness; estimate = 0.15 ± 0.06% for a 100-cow increase for severe lameness). Prevalence increased with barn age >9 yr (estimate = 12.73 ± 4.42% for clinical lameness; estimate = 5.79 ± 2.89% for severe lameness). These 2 variables combined explained 49% of the variation in clinical lameness and 30% of the variation in severe lameness. The prevalence of all hock injuries and severe hock injuries decreased with deep bedding (estimate = −20.90 ± 5.66% for all hock injuries; estimate = −3.65 ± 1.41% for severe hock injuries) and increased with barn age >9 yr (estimate = 16.68 ± 7.17% for all hock injuries; estimate = 6.95 ± 1.75% for severe injuries). These 2 variables explained 52 and 58% of the variation, respectively. In conclusion, large variation existed across farms in prevalence of lameness and hock injuries. Changes in housing and management may help control the prevalence of lameness and hock injuries in the emerging dairy industry in China.