JDS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J. Dairy Sci. 2008. 91:544-553. doi:10.3168/jds.2007-0667
© 2008 American Dairy Science Association ®
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Interpretive Summary
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by O’Driscoll, K.
Right arrow Articles by Hanlon, A.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by O’Driscoll, K.
Right arrow Articles by Hanlon, A.

The Effect of Out-Wintering Pad Design on Hoof Health and Locomotion Score of Dairy Cows

K. O’Driscoll*,{dagger},1, L. Boyle*, P. French* and A. Hanlon{dagger}

* Moorepark Dairy Production Research Centre, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
{dagger} School of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine, Veterinary Sciences Centre, National University of Ireland Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland

1 Corresponding author: keelin.odriscoll{at}teagasc.ie

This study compared locomotion, hoof health, and lameness of dairy cows confined in either indoor free stalls (FS) or 1 of 3 out-wintering pad (OWP) designs. Out-wintering pad treatments were 1) uncovered OWP with a concrete feed apron (UP); 2) covered OWP with a concrete feed apron (CO); and 3) uncovered OWP on top of which grass was ensiled so that the cows could self-feed (SP). Cows were assigned to treatment at drying off using a randomized complete block design. They remained on treatment until calving, when they were turned out to pasture. Sole lesions, heel erosion, dermatitis, and claw hardness on both hind feet were scored according to severity at assignment to treatment, at calving, and 9 and 14 wk postpartum. Locomotion score was recorded weekly after calving for 14 wk. Incidence of clinical lameness was recorded during the treatment period and in the subsequent lactation. Treatment had no effect on sole lesion score, but scores increased over time (calving = 5.5 ± 1.3, wk 9 = 10.8 ± 1.3, wk 14 = 14.2 ± 1.3, mean ± SE). Self-fed cows had higher heel erosion scores (6.4 ± 0.4) than FS and CO cows (4.7 ± 0.4 and 4.7 ± 0.4, respectively) at calving. Cows on SP had the highest dermatitis scores [1.14 (0–2) mean (interquartile range)] and FS cows the lowest [0.51 (0–0)]. Hooves were hardest at assignment to treatment (43.9 ± 0.6) with a significant reduction in hardness at calving (40.0 ± 0.6). The hooves of CO cows were harder than those of SP and UP cows (CO = 43.3 ± 0.7, SP = 41.7 ± 0.7, UP = 41.7 ± 0.7, Shore D scale). There was no treatment effect on locomotion scores or lameness incidence. Higher dermatitis scores and heel erosion in SP may be due to exposure to excreta and moisture, because the SP treatment had no manure removal system at the feed face. In FS, the alleys and the feed face were cleaned regularly by automatic scraper, explaining the lower dermatitis scores recorded indoors. Providing shelter for OWP likely reduced exposure to environmental moisture. This ensured that the hooves of CO cows remained as hard as those of FS cows. Low correlations between hardness and pathologies indicate that other factors are involved in the development of hoof pathologies. Confining dry dairy cows on OWP does not increase locomotion scores or lameness incidence.

Key Words: dairy cow • locomotion • hoof health • accommodation system






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2008 by the American Dairy Science Association ®.