Farm-level risk factors and treatment protocols for lameness in New Zealand dairy cattle.

IF 1.1 4区 农林科学 Q3 VETERINARY SCIENCES
New Zealand veterinary journal Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-08 DOI:10.1080/00480169.2024.2345257
W A Mason, K R Müller, L J Laven, J N Huxley, R A Laven
{"title":"Farm-level risk factors and treatment protocols for lameness in New Zealand dairy cattle.","authors":"W A Mason, K R Müller, L J Laven, J N Huxley, R A Laven","doi":"10.1080/00480169.2024.2345257","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>To identify farm-level risk factors for dairy cow lameness, and to describe lameness treatment protocols used on New Zealand dairy farms.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>One hundred and nineteen farms from eight veterinary clinics within the major dairying regions of New Zealand were randomly enrolled into a cross-sectional lameness prevalence study. Each farmer completed a questionnaire on lameness risk factors and lameness treatment and management. Trained observers lameness scored cattle on two occasions, between October-December (spring, coinciding with peak lactation for most farms) and between January-March (summer, late lactation for most farms). A four-point (0-3) scoring system was used to assess lameness, with animals with a lameness score (LS) ≥2 defined as lame. At each visit, all lactating animals were scored including animals that had previously been identified lame by the farmer. Associations between the farmer-reported risk factors and lameness were determined using mixed logistic regression models in a Bayesian framework, with farm and score event as random effects.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A lameness prevalence of 3.5% (2,113/59,631) was reported at the first LS event, and 3.3% (1,861/55,929) at the second LS event. There was a median prevalence of 2.8% (min 0, max 17.0%) from the 119 farms. Most farmers (90/117; 77%) relied on informal identification by farm staff to identify lame animals. On 65% (75/116) of farms, there was no external provider of lame cow treatments, with the farmer carrying out all lame cow treatments. Most farmers had no formal training (69/112; 62%). Animals from farms that used concrete stand-off pads during periods of inclement weather had 1.45 times the odds of lameness compared to animals on farms that did not use concrete stand-off pads (95% equal-tailed credible interval 1.07-1.88). Animals from farms that reported peak lameness incidence from January to June or all year-round, had 0.64 times odds of lameness compared to animals from farms that reported peak lameness incidence from July to December (95% equal-tailed credible interval 0.47-0.88).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Lameness prevalence was low amongst the enrolled farms. Use of concrete stand-off pads and timing of peak lameness incidence were associated with odds of lameness.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>Veterinarians should be encouraging farmers to have formal lameness identification protocols and lameness management plans in place. There is ample opportunity to provide training to farmers for lame cow treatment. Management of cows on stand-off pads should consider the likely impact on lameness.</p>","PeriodicalId":19322,"journal":{"name":"New Zealand veterinary journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Zealand veterinary journal","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2024.2345257","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: To identify farm-level risk factors for dairy cow lameness, and to describe lameness treatment protocols used on New Zealand dairy farms.

Methods: One hundred and nineteen farms from eight veterinary clinics within the major dairying regions of New Zealand were randomly enrolled into a cross-sectional lameness prevalence study. Each farmer completed a questionnaire on lameness risk factors and lameness treatment and management. Trained observers lameness scored cattle on two occasions, between October-December (spring, coinciding with peak lactation for most farms) and between January-March (summer, late lactation for most farms). A four-point (0-3) scoring system was used to assess lameness, with animals with a lameness score (LS) ≥2 defined as lame. At each visit, all lactating animals were scored including animals that had previously been identified lame by the farmer. Associations between the farmer-reported risk factors and lameness were determined using mixed logistic regression models in a Bayesian framework, with farm and score event as random effects.

Results: A lameness prevalence of 3.5% (2,113/59,631) was reported at the first LS event, and 3.3% (1,861/55,929) at the second LS event. There was a median prevalence of 2.8% (min 0, max 17.0%) from the 119 farms. Most farmers (90/117; 77%) relied on informal identification by farm staff to identify lame animals. On 65% (75/116) of farms, there was no external provider of lame cow treatments, with the farmer carrying out all lame cow treatments. Most farmers had no formal training (69/112; 62%). Animals from farms that used concrete stand-off pads during periods of inclement weather had 1.45 times the odds of lameness compared to animals on farms that did not use concrete stand-off pads (95% equal-tailed credible interval 1.07-1.88). Animals from farms that reported peak lameness incidence from January to June or all year-round, had 0.64 times odds of lameness compared to animals from farms that reported peak lameness incidence from July to December (95% equal-tailed credible interval 0.47-0.88).

Conclusions: Lameness prevalence was low amongst the enrolled farms. Use of concrete stand-off pads and timing of peak lameness incidence were associated with odds of lameness.

Clinical relevance: Veterinarians should be encouraging farmers to have formal lameness identification protocols and lameness management plans in place. There is ample opportunity to provide training to farmers for lame cow treatment. Management of cows on stand-off pads should consider the likely impact on lameness.

新西兰奶牛跛足的农场风险因素和治疗方案。
目的:确定奶牛跛足的农场风险因素,并描述新西兰奶牛场采用的跛足治疗方案:新西兰主要奶牛饲养区内八个兽医诊所的 119 个牧场被随机纳入跛足流行率横断面研究。每个牧场主都填写了一份关于跛足风险因素以及跛足治疗和管理的问卷。训练有素的观察员分别在 10 月至 12 月(春季,大多数牧场处于泌乳高峰期)和 1 月至 3 月(夏季,大多数牧场处于泌乳后期)两次对牛跛足情况进行评分。跛行评估采用四点(0-3)评分法,跛行评分(LS)≥2 的动物被定义为跛行。每次访问时,都会对所有哺乳动物进行评分,包括之前被农场主认定为跛足的动物。在贝叶斯框架下,使用混合逻辑回归模型确定农场主报告的风险因素与跛足之间的关系,农场和评分事件为随机效应:结果:在第一次 LS 事件中,跛足发生率为 3.5%(2,113/59,631),在第二次 LS 事件中,跛足发生率为 3.3%(1,861/55,929)。119 个农场的发病率中位数为 2.8%(最低 0,最高 17.0%)。大多数农场主(90/117;77%)依靠农场员工的非正式鉴定来识别跛足动物。在 65% 的农场(75/116)中,跛脚牛的治疗没有外部提供者,所有跛脚牛的治疗都由农场主进行。大多数农场主没有接受过正规培训(69/112;62%)。在恶劣天气期间使用混凝土隔离垫的牧场的动物发生跛足的几率是未使用混凝土隔离垫牧场动物的 1.45 倍(95% 等尾可信区间为 1.07-1.88)。报告跛足发病高峰期为 1 月至 6 月或全年的农场动物,其跛足几率是报告跛足发病高峰期为 7 月至 12 月的农场动物的 0.64 倍(95% 等尾可信区间为 0.47-0.88):参加调查的农场跛足发生率较低。使用混凝土隔离垫和跛足发病高峰时间与跛足几率有关:兽医应鼓励农场主制定正式的跛足识别协议和跛足管理计划。为牧场主提供跛足奶牛治疗培训的机会很多。对使用隔离垫的奶牛的管理应考虑对跛足的可能影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
New Zealand veterinary journal
New Zealand veterinary journal 农林科学-兽医学
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
37
审稿时长
12-24 weeks
期刊介绍: The New Zealand Veterinary Journal (NZVJ) is an international journal publishing high quality peer-reviewed articles covering all aspects of veterinary science, including clinical practice, animal welfare and animal health. The NZVJ publishes original research findings, clinical communications (including novel case reports and case series), rapid communications, correspondence and review articles, originating from New Zealand and internationally. Topics should be relevant to, but not limited to, New Zealand veterinary and animal science communities, and include the disciplines of infectious disease, medicine, surgery and the health, management and welfare of production and companion animals, horses and New Zealand wildlife. All submissions are expected to meet the highest ethical and welfare standards, as detailed in the Journal’s instructions for authors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信