Clinical and diagnostic comparisons of bovine foot rot and bovine digital dermatitis lesions and management differences in feedlot cattle in Alberta.

IF 1 4区农林科学 Q3 VETERINARY SCIENCES

Canadian Veterinary Journal-revue Veterinaire Canadienne Pub Date : 2025-08-01

Susan Pyakurel, Lithira Amarajeewa, Cameron Greig Knight, Angelica Petersen Dias, Karin Orsel

{"title":"Clinical and diagnostic comparisons of bovine foot rot and bovine digital dermatitis lesions and management differences in feedlot cattle in Alberta.","authors":"Susan Pyakurel, Lithira Amarajeewa, Cameron Greig Knight, Angelica Petersen Dias, Karin Orsel","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Bovine foot rot (BFR) and bovine digital dermatitis (BDD) are infectious foot lesions with overlapping clinical features that complicate diagnosis.Objective: Our objective was to differentiate BFR and BDD using quantitative and qualitative techniques. Populations of BFR- and BDD-associated bacteria were compared across sampling strategies, histopathological features described, and risk factors assessed via surveys.Animals and procedure: Lame cattle were assessed and bacteria in punch biopsy samples (PB-samples), swabs, and subcutaneous samples (SC-samples) were quantified using quantitative real-time PCR. In addition, PB-samples were used for hematoxylin and eosin and Warthin-Faulkner staining. Feedlot records and producer surveys captured risk factors and producers' opinions on management practices.Results: Swabs and SC-samples had varying bacterial abundances compared to PB-samples. Histopathology and risk factors were not diagnostic for BFR versus BDD.Conclusion and clinical relevance: Higher bacterial loads in swabs compared to PB-samples suggested careful consideration of their use as an alternative to punch biopsies in studying BFR and BDD. Furthermore, histology did not differentiate these diseases. Fusobacterium spp. population differences in dermis and SC-samples could indicate distinct, species-level roles in BFR pathogenesis. In addition, risk factors such as weight and lameness scores could not distinguish between BFR and BDD.","PeriodicalId":9429,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Veterinary Journal-revue Veterinaire Canadienne","volume":"66 8","pages":"892-902"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12330794/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Veterinary Journal-revue Veterinaire Canadienne","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"","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

Background: Bovine foot rot (BFR) and bovine digital dermatitis (BDD) are infectious foot lesions with overlapping clinical features that complicate diagnosis.

Objective: Our objective was to differentiate BFR and BDD using quantitative and qualitative techniques. Populations of BFR- and BDD-associated bacteria were compared across sampling strategies, histopathological features described, and risk factors assessed via surveys.

Animals and procedure: Lame cattle were assessed and bacteria in punch biopsy samples (PB-samples), swabs, and subcutaneous samples (SC-samples) were quantified using quantitative real-time PCR. In addition, PB-samples were used for hematoxylin and eosin and Warthin-Faulkner staining. Feedlot records and producer surveys captured risk factors and producers' opinions on management practices.

Results: Swabs and SC-samples had varying bacterial abundances compared to PB-samples. Histopathology and risk factors were not diagnostic for BFR versus BDD.

Conclusion and clinical relevance: Higher bacterial loads in swabs compared to PB-samples suggested careful consideration of their use as an alternative to punch biopsies in studying BFR and BDD. Furthermore, histology did not differentiate these diseases. Fusobacterium spp. population differences in dermis and SC-samples could indicate distinct, species-level roles in BFR pathogenesis. In addition, risk factors such as weight and lameness scores could not distinguish between BFR and BDD.

本刊更多论文

阿尔伯塔省饲养场牛的牛足腐病和牛数字性皮炎病变的临床和诊断比较以及管理差异。

背景：牛足腐病（BFR）和牛指状皮炎（BDD）是具有重叠临床特征的传染性足部病变，使诊断复杂化。目的：利用定量和定性技术鉴别BFR和BDD。通过调查比较了不同采样策略的BFR和bdd相关细菌的种群，描述了组织病理学特征，并评估了危险因素。动物和程序：对跛牛进行评估，并使用实时荧光定量PCR对穿刺活检样本（pb样本）、拭子和皮下样本（sc样本）中的细菌进行定量。另外，pb样品进行苏木精和伊红染色，Warthin-Faulkner染色。饲养场记录和生产者调查记录了风险因素和生产者对管理实践的意见。结果：与铅样品相比，棉签和sc样品具有不同的细菌丰度。组织病理学和危险因素不能诊断BFR和BDD。结论和临床意义：与铅样本相比，拭子中较高的细菌负荷提示在研究BFR和BDD时应仔细考虑将其作为穿孔活检的替代方法。此外，组织学不能区分这些疾病。真皮和sc样品中的梭杆菌种群差异可能表明在BFR发病过程中不同的物种水平的作用。此外，体重和跛行评分等危险因素无法区分BFR和BDD。

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

Canadian Veterinary Journal-revue Veterinaire Canadienne 农林科学-兽医学

CiteScore

1.20

自引率

10.00%

发文量

177

审稿时长

12-24 weeks

期刊介绍： The Canadian Veterinary Journal (CVJ) provides a forum for the discussion of all matters relevant to the veterinary profession. The mission of the Journal is to educate by informing readers of progress in clinical veterinary medicine, clinical veterinary research, and related fields of endeavor. The key objective of The CVJ is to promote the art and science of veterinary medicine and the betterment of animal health. A report suggesting that animals have been unnecessarily subjected to adverse, stressful, or harsh conditions or treatments will not be processed for publication. Experimental studies using animals will only be considered for publication if the studies have been approved by an institutional animal care committee, or equivalent, and the guidelines of the Canadian Council on Animal Care, or equivalent, have been followed by the author(s).