Susan Pyakurel, Lithira Amarajeewa, Cameron Greig Knight, Angelica Petersen Dias, Karin Orsel
{"title":"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。","authors":"Susan Pyakurel, Lithira Amarajeewa, Cameron Greig Knight, Angelica Petersen Dias, Karin Orsel","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Bovine foot rot (BFR) and bovine digital dermatitis (BDD) are infectious foot lesions with overlapping clinical features that complicate diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>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 <i>via</i> surveys.</p><p><strong>Animals and procedure: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Swabs and SC-samples had varying bacterial abundances compared to PB-samples. Histopathology and risk factors were not diagnostic for BFR <i>versus</i> BDD.</p><p><strong>Conclusion and clinical relevance: </strong>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. <i>Fusobacterium</i> 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.</p>","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":"{\"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\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Bovine foot rot (BFR) and bovine digital dermatitis (BDD) are infectious foot lesions with overlapping clinical features that complicate diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>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 <i>via</i> surveys.</p><p><strong>Animals and procedure: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Swabs and SC-samples had varying bacterial abundances compared to PB-samples. Histopathology and risk factors were not diagnostic for BFR <i>versus</i> BDD.</p><p><strong>Conclusion and clinical relevance: </strong>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. <i>Fusobacterium</i> 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.</p>\",\"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}","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}
Clinical and diagnostic comparisons of bovine foot rot and bovine digital dermatitis lesions and management differences in feedlot cattle in Alberta.
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.
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).