Measuring the response to therapeutic foot trimming in dairy cows with fortnightly lameness scoring

Groenevelt, Margit; Main, David C J; Tisdall, D; Knowles, Toby G; Bell, Nick

doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2014.05.017

Cited by 60 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Tadich et al (28) highlighted that interferences made on hoof lesions observed only from markedly to severely lame cows underestimated the prevalence of some lesions and might have overestimated the association of these lesions with lameness. This is confirmed by the results of Groenevelt et al (12). According to their study, sole haemorrhage and digital dermatitis are probably greatly underreported conditions which cause early lameness.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 78%

Early detection and treatment of lame cows

Schulz¹,

Gundelach²,

Feldmann³

et al. 2016

Tierarztl Prax Ausg G

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Locomotion score was affected by the type of claw/limb disorder and the number of diseased limbs. Regular locomotion scoring and continuous treatment of cows with an LS > 1 is associated with a decrease in the prevalence of several claw lesions. Therefore, prevalence of severe claw lesions like WLD, which was associated with a long duration of lameness, can be reduced. In contrast, for decreasing prevalence of digital dermatitis more than weekly treatment of every cow with LS > 1 is required. Preventive measures like footbaths or improved hygiene should accompany the individual animal treatment.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 78%

Early detection and treatment of lame cows

Schulz¹,

Gundelach²,

Feldmann³

et al. 2016

Tierarztl Prax Ausg G

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Severely lame cows eat faster and eat larger meals but spend less time feeding and ruminating per day (Palmer et al, 2012;Miguel-Pacheco et al, 2014) and most of these changes are evident even before lameness is clinically diagnosed (Norring et al, 2014). Lame cows show long lying times and a higher variability in the duration of lying bouts (Ito et al, 2010;Groenevelt et al, 2011). However, it was also found that more chronically lame cows are seen standing up in the early hours of the morning, and the authors suggest that this may be a way to avoid conflict over feed (Blackie et al, 2011).…”

Section: Impact Of Lamenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast, several studies did not find a close relationship between production and lameness, showing, once more, that good management and husbandry conditions can help control some risk factors (Haskell et al, 2006;Kujala et al, 2010) Human factor: management, human-animal relationship Experience, knowledge, empathy, motivation, income and overall farmers' attitude were found to be closely related to lameness prevalence in a herd (Faye and Lescourret, 1989;Alban, 1995;Rouha-Mülleder et al, 2009;Leach et al, 2010;Lean et al, 2013a;Becker et al, 2014b, c). Early diagnosis, longer times checking cows and regular trimming reduces lameness prevalence, severity and recovery time (Mill and Ward, 1994;Clarkson et al, 1996;Ward, 1999;Fjeldaas et al, 2006;Barker et al, 2007;Smith et al, 2007;Espejo and Endres, 2007;Groenevelt et al, 2014;Lean et al, 2013b). In animals grazing, the patience shown by stockmen when driving cattle was associated with the prevalence of lameness (Clarkson and Ward, 1991).…”

Section: Output: Milk Yield Per Cowmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Opinion on the assessment of dairy cow welfare in small‐scale farming systems

2015

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This opinion reviews information on small-scale dairy cow farming systems in Europe, including the impact of production diseases on welfare of cows, and proposes a methodology for welfare assessment in those systems. To address specific expectations of consumers that food be produced locally or regionally or maintaining acceptable animal welfare conditions, in addition to herd size, criteria to define farms as "non-conventional" were proposed. Several sources were investigated for identifying criteria for the description and categorisation of small-scale farms, including dairy umbrella organisations and literature. In addition to herd size (up to 75 cows), proposed criteria related to small-scale farming comprise the workforce source, input level, indigenous breed use and production type certification. To cover the large diversity of farming systems across Europe, it was proposed that farms meeting at least two of these criteria be considered non-conventional. To adapt the welfare assessment to small-scale farms, the same risk factors and welfare consequences, as measured by corresponding animalbased measures identified in previous opinions for intensive farming systems were considered to be also relevant for small-scale systems. In addition, factors related to resources provided on pasture (e.g. shelter), management of pasture (e.g. mixing herds) and management of the cows (e.g. use of local breeds) were considered more likely to be present in small-scale systems. An on-farm survey was run to collect data for welfare assessment from 124 European farms. The distribution of risk factors and animal-based measures varied across the full range in study farms and showed similar patterns in farms with different grazing systems (from no time to full year on pasture). The animal-based measures identified for intensive farming are well suited for application in smallscale dairy farms. Production disease impact on the individual animal's welfare state does not depend on herd size or farming system.

show abstract

“…Automated lameness detection could provide useful cow and herd level information addressing an information gap, particularly regarding mild and moderately lame cows. Earlier detection and automatic drafting could reduce the time from onset to treatment preventing cases becoming severe, speeding up recovery, increasing production, and improving welfare (Leach et al, 2012;Groenevelt et al, 2014). Monitoring recovery after treatment (returning to normal locomotion) would also be facilitated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%