The prevalence of damaged tails in beef cows, pregnant dairy heifers and weaned dairy calves.

IF 1.1 4区 农林科学 Q3 VETERINARY SCIENCES
E L Cuttance, W A Mason, M A Bryan, R A Laven
{"title":"The prevalence of damaged tails in beef cows, pregnant dairy heifers and weaned dairy calves.","authors":"E L Cuttance, W A Mason, M A Bryan, R A Laven","doi":"10.1080/00480169.2025.2522762","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>To determine the prevalence of tail deviations, trauma and shortening in weaned dairy calves, pregnant dairy heifers and beef cows on a selection of New Zealand farms, and to compare results to those recorded in lactating dairy cows.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a cross-sectional observational study. For beef cows, 25 farms were randomly selected from two veterinary practices. For dairy heifers and calves, data were collected from farms (70 and 76, respectively) previously involved in a study of tail damage in lactating cows. All cattle were tail scored using a modification of the New Zealand Veterinary Association Scoring System. Tails were palpated and lesions recorded as deviated (non-linear deformity), shortened, or traumatic (all other lesions). Cows could have more than one lesion, but for the prevalence calculations, only the presence/absence of a particular lesion was assessed. Descriptive herd-level prevalence data were reported for all farms/cattle types. For dairy heifers, the prevalence of tail deviation was compared to that in adult cows on the same farm.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For beef cattle, median prevalence of any tail damage was 4.0% (min 0.0, max 37.5%), and for deviations + trauma, it was 2.0% (min 0.0, max 16.7%). For dairy heifers, equivalent figures were 1.7% (min 0.0, max 17.8%) and 1.3% (min 0.0, max 17.8%). In weaned calves, the median prevalence of any damage was 0% (min 0.0, max 11.6%): almost all damage (61/64 cases) was deviation. Farms with a heifer prevalence of deviations > 2% had a mean cow prevalence of deviations 3.65 (95% CI = 0.7-6.6)% higher than herds with heifer prevalence ≤ 2%, but this explained only 9% of the variation in log percentage cow prevalence.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and clinical relevance: </strong>In all groups, median prevalence of tail damage was low (and lower than reported in dairy cows), but individual farms had high levels of damage. Beef cows were more likely to have shortened or traumatised tails than dairy heifers/calves, perhaps from an increased prevalence of faecal tail rings. Limited association between the prevalence of tail deviations in heifers and lactating cows on the same farm, and generally lower levels of tail damage in heifers, do not support the hypothesis that tail damage in cows principally results from damage earlier in life. This study adds support to our hypothesis that poor handling/infrastructure are responsible for most tail damage in dairy cows.</p>","PeriodicalId":19322,"journal":{"name":"New Zealand veterinary journal","volume":" ","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-09","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/10.1080/00480169.2025.2522762","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: To determine the prevalence of tail deviations, trauma and shortening in weaned dairy calves, pregnant dairy heifers and beef cows on a selection of New Zealand farms, and to compare results to those recorded in lactating dairy cows.

Methods: This was a cross-sectional observational study. For beef cows, 25 farms were randomly selected from two veterinary practices. For dairy heifers and calves, data were collected from farms (70 and 76, respectively) previously involved in a study of tail damage in lactating cows. All cattle were tail scored using a modification of the New Zealand Veterinary Association Scoring System. Tails were palpated and lesions recorded as deviated (non-linear deformity), shortened, or traumatic (all other lesions). Cows could have more than one lesion, but for the prevalence calculations, only the presence/absence of a particular lesion was assessed. Descriptive herd-level prevalence data were reported for all farms/cattle types. For dairy heifers, the prevalence of tail deviation was compared to that in adult cows on the same farm.

Results: For beef cattle, median prevalence of any tail damage was 4.0% (min 0.0, max 37.5%), and for deviations + trauma, it was 2.0% (min 0.0, max 16.7%). For dairy heifers, equivalent figures were 1.7% (min 0.0, max 17.8%) and 1.3% (min 0.0, max 17.8%). In weaned calves, the median prevalence of any damage was 0% (min 0.0, max 11.6%): almost all damage (61/64 cases) was deviation. Farms with a heifer prevalence of deviations > 2% had a mean cow prevalence of deviations 3.65 (95% CI = 0.7-6.6)% higher than herds with heifer prevalence ≤ 2%, but this explained only 9% of the variation in log percentage cow prevalence.

Conclusions and clinical relevance: In all groups, median prevalence of tail damage was low (and lower than reported in dairy cows), but individual farms had high levels of damage. Beef cows were more likely to have shortened or traumatised tails than dairy heifers/calves, perhaps from an increased prevalence of faecal tail rings. Limited association between the prevalence of tail deviations in heifers and lactating cows on the same farm, and generally lower levels of tail damage in heifers, do not support the hypothesis that tail damage in cows principally results from damage earlier in life. This study adds support to our hypothesis that poor handling/infrastructure are responsible for most tail damage in dairy cows.

肉牛、怀孕的小母牛和断奶的小牛中尾巴受损的发生率。
目的:确定在新西兰的一些农场中,断奶小牛、怀孕的奶牛和肉牛中尾巴偏差、创伤和缩短的患病率,并将结果与哺乳期奶牛的记录进行比较。方法:这是一项横断面观察研究。对于肉牛,从两个兽医实践中随机选择25个农场。对于乳牛和小牛,数据收集自之前参与了一项乳牛尾部损伤研究的农场(分别为70个和76个)。使用新西兰兽医协会评分系统的修改版对所有牛进行尾巴评分。触诊尾巴,记录病变为偏离(非线性畸形)、缩短或创伤(所有其他病变)。奶牛可能有不止一种病变,但对于患病率计算,仅评估特定病变的存在/不存在。报告了所有农场/牛类型的描述性牛群水平流行数据。对于奶牛,尾巴偏差的流行率与同一农场的成年奶牛进行了比较。结果:肉牛尾巴损伤的中位数患病率为4.0%(最小值为0.0,最大值为37.5%),偏差+创伤的中位数患病率为2.0%(最小值为0.0,最大值为16.7%)。对于乳牛,等效数字分别为1.7%(最小0.0,最大17.8%)和1.3%(最小0.0,最大17.8%)。在断奶犊牛中,任何损伤的中位数发生率为0%(最小为0.0,最大为11.6%):几乎所有损伤(61/64例)都是偏差。母牛偏差率低于2%的农场,母牛偏差率比母牛偏差率≤2%的牧场平均高3.65 (95% CI = 0.7-6.6)%,但这只能解释母牛偏差率对数百分比变化的9%。结论和临床相关性:在所有组中,尾损伤的中位数患病率较低(低于奶牛中报道的发生率),但个别农场的尾损伤水平较高。肉牛的尾巴比奶牛/小牛更容易缩短或受伤,这可能是由于粪便尾环的增加。同一农场的小母牛和哺乳期母牛尾巴偏差的普遍程度与小母牛尾巴损伤程度一般较低之间的有限关联,不支持奶牛尾巴损伤主要由生命早期损伤引起的假设。这项研究为我们的假设提供了支持,即奶牛尾部损伤的主要原因是处理不当/基础设施不足。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信