Browsing by Author "Gifford D"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Investigating the effect of prophylactic claw trimming on the interval between calving and first observed elevated locomotion score in pasture-based dairy cows.
    (Taylor and Francis Group, 2023-11-01) Werema CW; Hoekstra F; Laven LJ; Müller KR; Gifford D; Laven RA
    AIMS: To evaluate, in a pasture-based dairy herd, the response to a three-time point hoof trimming regime on lameness incidence and time from calving to observation of an elevated locomotion score (LS). METHODS: This study was conducted on a 940-cow spring-calving herd in New Zealand's North Island between May 2018 and May 2019. Cows (n = 250) were randomly allocated to the hoof trimming group, with the remainder assigned to the non-trim cohort. One trained professional hoof trimmer used the five-step Dutch method to trim the hind feet of the trimming group. Throughout the subsequent production season, the whole herd was locomotion-scored fortnightly using the 4-point (0-3) Dairy NZ lameness score. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to assess the univariable effect of trimming on the interval between calving and first LS of ≥ 2 and first LS ≥ 1. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to further evaluate the effect of trimming on time to elevated LS. RESULTS: Mean lameness (LS ≥ 2) prevalence was 2.6%, with 30% of cows having ≥ 4 observations during the study period when at least one LS was ≥ 2. For LS ≥ 1, mean prevalence was 40%, with 98.6% of cows having ≥ 4 observations during the study period when at least one LS was ≥ 1 during lactation. Hoof trimming had no apparent effect on the incidence of clinical lameness (LS ≥ 2) (trimmed vs. non-trimmed: 33.2% vs. 28.8%, respectively), but for LS ≥ 1, there was a small decrease in the incidence of LS ≥ 1 (trimmed vs. non-trimmed: 96.9% vs. 99.3%, respectively). The hazard of a cow having a first observed LS ≥ 2 in the control group was 0.87 (95% CI = 0.66-1.14) times that of the trimmed group; however, the hazard of a cow having a first LS ≥ 1 was 1.60 (95% CI = 1.37-1.88) times higher in the control than in the trimmed group. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: On this farm, prophylactic hoof trimming had no clinically relevant impact on the incidence of clinical lameness and was not associated with clinically beneficial reductions in time to first observed LS ≥ 2. This may be because claw horn imbalance was not pronounced on this farm, with 53% of cows needing no trim on either hind limb on the first trimming occasion. Further research on the response to prophylactic trimming in pasture-based dairy cattle is required.