Browsing by Author "Müller KR"

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Farm-level risk factors and treatment protocols for lameness in New Zealand dairy cattle.
    (Taylor and Francis Group, 2024-05-08) Mason WA; Müller KR; Laven LJ; Huxley JN; Laven RA
    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.
  • 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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Persistence of orthopaedic hoof blocks for the treatment of lame cattle kept permanently at pasture.
    (Taylor and Francis Group, 2023-09-01) Müller KR; Laven RA; Laven LJ
    AIMS: To compare the retention by New Zealand dairy cows kept at pasture in a lame cow group, of three hoof block products commonly used in the remediation of lameness. METHODS: Sixty-seven farmer-presented Friesian and Friesian x Jersey dairy cows from a single herd in the Manawatū region (New Zealand) suffering from unilateral hind limb lameness attributable to a claw horn lesion (CHL) were randomly allocated to one of three treatments: foam block (FB), plastic shoe (PS) and a standard wooden block (WB). Blocks were applied to the contralateral healthy claw and checked daily by the farm staff (present/not present) and date of loss was recorded. Blocks were reassessed on Day 14 and Day 28 and then removed unless further elevation was indicated. Daily walking distances were calculated using a farm map and measurement software. Statistical analyses included a linear marginal model for distance walked until block loss and a Cox regression model for the relative hazard of a block being lost. RESULTS: Random allocation meant that differences between products in proportion used on left or right hind foot or lateral or medial claw were small. Mean distance walked/cow/day on farm tracks whilst the block was present was 0.32 (min 0.12, max 0.45) km/day; no biologically important difference between products in the mean distance walked was identified. Compared to PS, cows in the WB group were five times more likely to lose the block (HR = 4.8 (95% CI = 1.8-12.4)), while cows in the FB group were 9.5 times more likely to lose the block (HR = 9.5 (95% CI = 3.6-24.4)). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, PS were retained for much longer than either FB or WB. As cows were managed in a lame cow group for the study duration, walking distances were low and did not impact on the risk of block loss. More data are needed to define ideal block retention time. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In cows with CHL the choice of block could be based on the type of lesion present and the expected re-epithelisation times.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Practicability of a Time-Limited Welfare Assessment Protocol for Pasture-Based Dairy Farms, and a Preliminary Assessment of Welfare Outcome Thresholds
    (MDPI (Basel, Switzerland), 2022-09-19) Sapkota S; Laven R; Müller KR; Kells N; Bernabucci U
    This study assessed a new time-limited protocol developed for pasture-based cows across 23 dairy farms. The process started prior to milking with a questionnaire, followed by an assessment of resources (16 farms only) and behavioural observation of cows at pasture. Remaining animal-based measures were assessed during milking, usually by two assessors (one parlour based and one outside). The protocol proved to be practical and feasible with limited changes needed, except for the assessment of water availability and behaviour. As most cows could access only one water trough, distance between troughs was not a measure of water availability, while the observation of a large numbers of cows at pasture for 30 min resulted in few observations and an uncertain denominator (effective number of observed cows). Further research is needed to determine the best way of assessing water availability and cow behaviour in a time-limited assessment of pasture-based cows. Three animal-based measures (broken tails, dirtiness, and coughing) had mean values higher than the author-determined acceptable thresholds, while <50% of farms met trough cleanliness and track condition targets, and none met the criteria for shelter and shade. This was a sample of farms based on convenience, so more data are required to establish the representativeness of these results. Such testing should involve assessment of the repeatability and reliability of the measures in our protocol.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Repeatability of whole herd lameness scoring: an analysis of a New Zealand dataset
    (Taylor and Francis Group, 2024-09-03) Laven RA; Mason WA; Laven LJ; Müller KR
    AIMS: To assess whether a whole-herd lameness score on a New Zealand dairy farm in spring could predict lameness prevalence on the same farm in summer (and vice versa) and whether a single-herd lameness score could be used to determine whether herd lameness prevalence was < 5% in both spring and summer. METHODS: Prevalence data (proportion of the herd with lameness score ≥ 2 and with score 3; 0-3 scale) from a study where 120 dairy farms across New Zealand were scored in spring and in the following summer were analysed using limits-of-agreement analysis. In addition, farms were categorised as having either acceptable welfare (lameness prevalence < 5% in both spring and summer) or not (lameness prevalence ≥ 5% in either spring or summer or both). The accuracy and specificity of a single, whole-herd lameness score at identifying herds with acceptable welfare were then calculated. RESULTS: The limits-of-agreement analysis suggests that 95% of the time, the prevalence of lameness in summer would be expected to be between 0.23 and 4.3 times that of the prevalence in spring. The specificity and accuracy of identifying a farm as acceptable on both occasions from a single observation were, respectively, 74% and 92% in spring, and 59% and 87% in summer. CONCLUSIONS: A single, one-off, whole-herd lameness score does not accurately predict future lameness prevalence. Similarly, acceptable status (lameness prevalence < 5%) in one season is not sufficiently specific to be used to predict welfare status in subsequent seasons. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Whole-herd lameness scoring should be used principally as a means of detecting lame cows for treatment. A single whole-herd lameness score by an independent assessor should not be used to determine a herd's welfare status.