HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Nordlund, K. V. Articles by Oetzel, G. R. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Nordlund, K. V. Articles by Oetzel, G. R.

Investigation Strategies for Laminitis Problem Herds^*

School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison 53706-1102

Corresponding author: K. V. Nordlund; e-mail: nordlunk{at}svm.vetmed.wisc.edu.

	ABSTRACT

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION ASSESSING THE SEVERITY OF... MONITORING RISK FACTORS FOR... ENVIRONMENTAL RISK FACTORS DIETARY RISK FACTORS CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

 
Lameness in dairy cows is the result of many disease conditions, and a systematic approach is required to diagnose the predominant causes and identify important risk factors. Lameness prevalence can be quantified using locomotion scoring systems. Entire herds can be scored quite easily as they walk access lanes. If lameness prevalence exceeds 15% of the herd, it is important to differentiate the cause. Improved hoof-health recording systems have become commonplace among many professional hoof trimmers, which has made it easier to monitor the prevalence of infectious and noninfectious causes of lameness. If laminitis and its associated claw horn lesions are identified as a major problem, environmental and ruminal acidosis risk factors should be assessed.

Environmental risk factors for laminitis include aberrant and excess standing behavior, exposure to concrete and hard floor surfaces, and abrupt introduction to confinement systems from pastures or bedded packs. Total daily time spent by cows in holding areas and parlors can be assessed, emphasizing the longest times for the last individual cows to come through the parlor. Stall usage indices are being developed to identify poorly designed or maintained free stalls. The diagnosis of ruminal acidosis is made with a combination of clinical signs, ration evaluation, ruminal-fluid analysis, feces examination, or milk fat indicators. Rumenocentesis is a direct measure of rumen pH that can provide diagnostic information, provided that adequate samples are collected. This paper presents a clinical approach to investigations of lameness problem herds and discusses strengths and weaknesses of various tests to identify risk factors for laminitis.

Key Words: lameness • laminitis • ruminal acidosis • stall usage

Abbreviation key: CCQ = cow comfort quotient, CCI = cow comfort index, SSI = stall standing index, SARA = subacute ruminal acidosis

	INTRODUCTION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION ASSESSING THE SEVERITY OF... MONITORING RISK FACTORS FOR... ENVIRONMENTAL RISK FACTORS DIETARY RISK FACTORS CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

 
Lesions of the bovine hoof are common in dairy cows managed in a variety of different management systems. They cause milk production loss (Warnick et al., 2001; Green et al., 2002), reduced fertility (Collick et al., 1989; Hernandez et al., 2001), and increased risk of culling (Collick et al., 1989). In addition to the economic impact, hoof disease is extremely painful (Whay et al., 1998), making lameness in dairy cattle a serious animal welfare issue.

There are many different lesions associated with the bovine hoof, but it is useful to divide them into 3 primary groups—infectious digital disease, laminitis and associated claw horn lesions, and lesions caused by excessive hoof wear and/or trauma (Guard, 2000). This classification provides a simple, yet useful framework from which to approach lameness problems from a herd perspective.

In the last decade, a variety of practical field tools have been developed that can differentiate lameness conditions in a specific herd and identify primary risk factors for laminitis. An investigative approach using many of these tools is presented as a flowchart (Figure 1). The paper summarizes field experiences using these tools and suggests modifications of some of them, with the goal of increased efficiency in achieving a herd-based diagnosis of laminitis and recognition of its associated risk factors.

View larger version (18K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. Flowchart for investigation of a lameness problem herd.

	ASSESSING THE SEVERITY OF LAMENESS IN A HERD

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION ASSESSING THE SEVERITY OF... MONITORING RISK FACTORS FOR... ENVIRONMENTAL RISK FACTORS DIETARY RISK FACTORS CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

Using various combinations of these signs, a variety of locomotion scoring systems have been developed for dairy cattle. There are important practical differences between the systems when they are applied in the field. With 9 points, the Manson and Leaver (1988) system is difficult to learn and is somewhat cumbersome, especially as the first 5 scores deal with animals that are not clinically lame. It does, however, have the advantage of stressing the importance of early signs of discomfort. Wells et al. (1993) and Vokey et al. (2001) introduced 4-point systems that score the animal as sound, mild, moderately, and severely lame. Sprecher et al. (1997) introduced the shape of the cows’ back into a 5-point scoring system. A practical limitation of the Sprecher system is the distinction between the score 2 cow that arches her back while walking and stands with a flattened back and the score 3 cow that maintains an arch both when walking and standing. Most herds are scored as the cows walk between the parlor and the pen. It is unusual for the investigator to be able to view each cow while it is both standing and walking, making it difficult to make the distinction between the 2 and 3 scores. Because of this limitation, Cook (2003) used the scale proposed by Wells et al. (1993) but modified it to utilize observations on the arch of the back (Sprecher et al., 1997). The specific criteria for scoring are shown in Table 1. Cows scoring 3 or 4 in this system are considered to be clinically lame.

Interpretation of lameness prevalence determined by locomotion scoring is somewhat subjective. Benchmarks have been established for Wisconsin confinement dairies using the system described by Cook (2003). In these herds, housed in either tie-stall or free-stall barns, an average lameness prevalence (score 3 or 4) of 22% was found. After dividing the herds into quartiles, the soundest 25% of the herds had lameness prevalence rates under 15%. Accordingly, a lameness prevalence of less than 15% is an achievable goal for a confinement dairy. If the prevalence of lameness is greater than 15%, an investigation should be conducted to assess the lesions and identify the primary risk factors. It should be noted, however, that other targets might be appropriate for herds in different management systems, such as grazing or dry-lot dairies.

Locomotion scoring has proven to be a useful tool not only for determining the prevalence of lameness on a farm, but also for making farmers more aware of cows with lameness problems. This helps them identify lame cows earlier, preventing some of the more life-threatening severe lesions that may be viewed as a major cow welfare problem.

Incidence of Lameness Treatments
Retrospective examination of herd records for lameness treatments would appear to be a logical source of information to determine lameness incidence. However, lameness treatment records typically do not provide a good source of data from which to estimate incidence. There are several common reasons for the inadequacy. First, dairy operators typically underestimate lameness prevalence within their own herds compared with trained investigators (Wells et al., 1993; Whay et al., 2002), which suggests that some lame cows will not be selected for examination. In practice, lame cows are typically sorted for hoof trimmers along with cows selected for routine trimming. Whereas records may describe the lesions found, it is unusual for the records to indicate whether or not the cow was clinically lame at the time the lesion was found. Finally, many dairies secure the services of a hoof trimmer for fixed periods on a regular interval. Thus, the number of lame cows examined is determined by the capacity of the hoof trimming service and is not necessarily related to the number of lame cows present on the farm at the time.

Whereas lameness incidence rates based on treatment records are frequently unreliable, Clarkson et al. (1996) report that annual incidence of lameness can be estimated from the prevalence at one point in time. In that study of 37 dairies, the mean prevalence of lameness was 20.6%, and the mean annual incidence rate of lameness episodes was 54.6. These data suggest that the annual lameness incidence can be estimated to be 2.6 times the observed prevalence.

ASSESSMENT OF HOOF LESIONS
If locomotion scoring indicated that the herd has a lameness problem, the second step of an investigation is to determine the predominant foot lesions. Whereas treatment records have limitations for retrospective determinations of lameness incidence, they are frequently very useful for ranking lesion frequency. In recent years, hoof health record systems developed by Bergsten et al. (1998), Burgi (2000), and Shearer et al. (2002) are used by many professional hoof trimmers. These systems use a standardized nomenclature for lesion type, severity, and location, which has made it easier to monitor the relative importance of the specific hoof diseases.

Whether or not records of lameness treatments are kept on a farm, the investigator should plan to examine 10 to 15 clinically lame cows and cows that have been recently trimmed. Ideally, the examination should occur with the hoof trimmer present so that the classification of lesions can be verified. It also gives the investigator the opportunity to assess the method and skill of the hoof trimmer.

Whereas many specific diagnoses may be recorded, it is useful to group them into the classes suggested by Guard (2000) of infectious causes—lesions caused by excessive hoof wear and/or trauma and laminitis and associated claw horn lesions. The predominant causes of lameness should be ranked, and appropriate management steps should be taken to minimize problems.

Infectious Causes of Lameness
Infectious causes of hoof lameness have been reviewed by Bergsten (1997). Cattle housed in wet, manure-contaminated conditions are more likely to suffer diseases of the interdigital space and heel. Digital dermatitis (hairy heel warts) is by far the most important of these conditions (Wells et al., 1999), but heel horn erosion and foot rot (interdigital phlegmon, interdigital necrobacillosis) are also significant problems that must be recognized and their risk factors investigated (Collick, 1997).

Excessive Wear and Trauma
Excessive hoof wear may occur in certain housing systems with rough concrete flooring and long distances to and from the milking parlor. This may lead to imbalance between the inner and outer claws of the hind feet (Vokey et al., 2003), creating overloading of the outer claws and thereby predisposing the cow to laminitis and claw horn lesions (Toussaint-Raven, 1985). These problems may be exacerbated by overtrimming—now recognized as a common risk factor for claw horn lesion development and especially for toe ulcers (Kofler, 1999; Van Amstel and Shearer, 2000). It is essential that routine hoof care does not compromise sole thickness or reduce the effective weight-bearing surface of the claws by excessive removal of horn. Assessment of the adequacy of hoof trimming is an essential part of hoof-health monitoring on the farm.

Penetration of the sole and other traumatic lesions may result from poorly maintained cow tracks, which are an important risk factor for lameness in grazing herds (Chesterton et al., 1989; Clackson and Ward, 1991). An objective evaluation of walking surfaces may be helpful in assessing the degree of risk. Faull et al. (1996) describe a scoring system that was used to assess walking surfaces both indoors and outdoors on farms. The system identifies 5 surfaces: very smooth (like glass), smooth, satisfactory (good grip without coarse projections), rough, and very rough (broken and exposed, very coarse material). Digital and video photography can provide valuable support to document adverse walking conditions. Whereas it may not clearly identify the causative factors, video is excellent for visually documenting the difficulty that cows have walking on some surfaces and for convincing herd owners that the surface requires improvement.

Laminitis and Associated Claw Horn Lesions
Laminitis is present as a variety of claw horn lesions, which include sole hemorrhage, sole and toe ulceration, double sole, heel fissure, white line disease (hemorrhage, fissure, and abscess), and horizontal fissures of the wall (Burgi, 2000). If these lesions emerge as a significant herd problem, further diagnostic work must be undertaken to identify significant risk factors for their development.

	MONITORING RISK FACTORS FOR LAMINITIS AND ASSOCIATED CLAW HORN LESIONS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION ASSESSING THE SEVERITY OF... MONITORING RISK FACTORS FOR... ENVIRONMENTAL RISK FACTORS DIETARY RISK FACTORS CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

 
Whereas the causes of laminitis and associated claw horn lesions are multi-factorial in nature, our current understanding of the etiology of the disease syndrome focuses our investigations primarily on the environment and diet. Monitoring laminitis risks in the cow environment include the assessment of factors that affect the time that cows stand on concrete and lie down in stalls, the quality of walking surfaces, and factors that impact the period of acclimation for heifers first introduced into confinement housing. Dietary risk factors include ration composition, as well as feeding-management factors that may be related to ruminal acidosis.

	ENVIRONMENTAL RISK FACTORS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION ASSESSING THE SEVERITY OF... MONITORING RISK FACTORS FOR... ENVIRONMENTAL RISK FACTORS DIETARY RISK FACTORS CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

 
Time Spent Standing in Holding Areas and Parlors
The total time that cows spend in holding areas and parlors each day should be assessed. Smith et al. (2000) recommend that pen sizes in herds with herringbone and parallel parlors should be no greater than 4.5 times the parlor size. Other guidelines for milking center construction suggest limiting total time in the holding area and parlor to 3 h/cow per day (Vokey et al., 2003). Estimates of time spent for milking are frequently calculated for the average cow in the pen, which would be appropriate if cows enter the parlor in random order at each milking. However, several studies by Dickson et al. (1967) and Rathore (1982) have shown that cows develop a consistent order of parlor entry, which suggests that some proportion of the herd is repeatedly subjected to longer than average sessions in the holding area. It is more accurate to measure the total time elapsed from when a pen of cows is moved to the holding area until the last cows from the pen return from the parlor. We have found individual cows that spend up to 5.7 h/d in the holding area and parlor in herds that meet the above recommendations for an average cow.

Measuring Stall Comfort
Colam-Ainsworth et al. (1989) and Leonard et al. (1994, 1996) have documented that stall usage behavior, in terms of daily lying and standing times, is a significant risk factor for the development of claw horn lesions. An assessment of stall comfort and use is therefore an essential component of a herd lameness investigation.

Health care consultants have used various indices as predictors of daily lying time and cow comfort. Nelson (1996) described a cow comfort quotient (CCQ), defined as cows lying properly/cows either lying or standing in stalls. Overton et al. (2003) recently summarized the use of 3 indices of cow comfort: proportion lying (number lying/number in pen); proportion eligible lying or stall usage index (number lying/total cows in pen not eating), and cow comfort index (CCI) (number lying/number touching a stall surface). Cook (2002a) has used another index of stall usage, now called the stall standing index (SSI) (cows standing with 2 or 4 feet in stalls/number touching a stall), which is essentially the inverse of the CCI or CCQ.

Data to interpret these indices are limited. Nelson (1996) reported a target of 80% for the CCQ and suggests that a CCQ of 85 to 90% is usually achieved in the best-managed facilities. The study by Overton et al. (2002) of a herd in California with sand free stalls, milked 3 times per day, and filmed between 3 a.m. and 10 p.m., showed peak numbers lying 1 h after the return of cows to the pen from the morning milking. Based on this single herd, it was suggested that the CCI should exceed 85% and the proportion eligible lying should be more than 75%. Unfortunately, data from herds with poor comfort are not currently available to develop further benchmark targets for these indices.

Wagner-Storch et al. (2003) conducted a stall preference study in a 4-row barn with one pen stocked at 100% (one cow per stall) and a second pen at less than 100%. Both pens included 6 types of stall surface, including sand as well as a variety of mattresses. Cows spent similar amounts of time lying in stalls with sand or with mattresses, but cows on mattresses spent more time standing and perching (front feet in the stall and rear feet in the alley) in stalls instead of spending time in the alley. Because cows occupied mattress stalls more than sand stalls, but lying time was similar, it was suggested that indices such as CCQ may unfairly penalize mattress stalls if the goal is to estimate the attractiveness for lying down. It was also suggested that the preferred time for assessing stall use is early morning, before feeding and milking and by counting the number of stalls with a cow lying and those stalls that are occupied. At 100% stocking rate, stall usage was considered very good if cows occupied 80 to 85% of the stalls or were lying down in 55 to 65% of the total stalls in these early morning hours. These target values will drop by 10 to 20% as the day progresses and also decline if stocking density is reduced.

Unfortunately, data presented by Overton et al. (2003) and Wagner-Storch et al. (2003) were derived from single herds. Index targets suggested by these studies have not been applied on a wide range of farms with different designs and management systems. However, Cook (2002a, 2002b) determined SSI in 30 herds and found a range from 6 to 35%. The quartile of herds with the greatest proportion of cows lying in stalls has an SSI of less than 15%.

Based on Nelson (1996), Overton et al. (2002), and the best quartile of herds in the Cook (2002a, 2002b) study, an SSI of less than 15% is suggested as a target for cow comfort. An SSI greater than 15%, determined at a time of 1 to 2 h prior to milking, suggests that stall usage is a potential problem and that stall design and maintenance should be evaluated. Nordlund and Cook (2003) have recently described a 5-point system for assessing any stall from the perspective of a cow getting into, lying down, rising, and exiting the stall. The key points to be assessed are adequacy of stall surface cushion as measured by a subjective "knee" test, a defined resting area of appropriate size related to the type of animal, adequate room for lunging and an unobstructed "bob zone," adequate height below and behind the neck rail to rise without hindrance, and a curb height that is high enough to avoid manure contamination from the alleyways but not so high as to deter heifers from using the stalls.

Acclimation to Confinement Housing
Bergsten and Frank (1996) identified abrupt changes when cattle are moved from relatively soft surfaces, such as pasture or bedded packs, onto hard surfaces of confinement barns as a risk factor for laminitis. Whereas abrupt changes can occur at a number of stages in the heifer-growing period, they most commonly occur at or near their anticipated calving date. If during the course of an investigation a change is determined to be abrupt, heifers should be introduced to concrete surfaces at feeding areas for several weeks or months prior to calving, and they should have access to well-cushioned surfaces after parturition. Straw bedded areas have successfully been used to reduce the severity of claw changes triggered at first parturition (Webster, 2001).

	DIETARY RISK FACTORS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION ASSESSING THE SEVERITY OF... MONITORING RISK FACTORS FOR... ENVIRONMENTAL RISK FACTORS DIETARY RISK FACTORS CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

 
Ruminal acidosis is widely viewed as a major risk factor for laminitis (Nocek, 1997; Ossent et al., 1997; National Research Council, 2001). Ruminal acidosis encompasses a wide range of physiological conditions and ranges from peracute acidosis that can result in death to the animal, through acute, subacute, and mild stages (Radostits et al., 2000). Garrett et al. (1997) found that subacute ruminal acidosis (SARA) is a common finding in modern dairy herds. The diagnosis of ruminal acidosis in a herd should be based on a combination of supporting clinical signs, production records, diet characteristics, and ruminal fluid pH.

Clinical Evaluation of the Herd
A dairy herd with SARA will exhibit a variable syndrome of clinical signs, depending on the prevalence, severity, and duration of the acidosis problem. Clinical signs may include depression, diarrhea, multifocal hepatic and pulmonary abscesses, hemoptysis or epistaxis, and laminitis (Nordlund et al., 1995). Other diseases can cause any of the individual clinical signs of SARA, so the diagnosis cannot be made without corroborating evidence.

Irregular and reduced DMI is the most consistent feature of SARA in feedlot cattle (Owens et al., 1998). However, changes in DMI due to SARA are extremely difficult to document in group feeding situations in dairy herds. Commercial dairies typically do not intensely monitor DMI, and cattle at commercial dairies are moved frequently enough between pens to make interpretation of group DMI challenging even when it is attempted.

Diet Evaluation
The NRC (2001) has established guidelines for diet formulation that are effective in preventing low ruminal pH under experimental conditions. Low ruminal pH appears to be much more common under field conditions than in experimental trials (Garrett, 1996). It appears that ruminal pH is influenced by much more than the chemical measures of dietary fiber such as ADF, NDF, and nonfiber carbohydrates defined by NRC. Other factors such as high DMI, consumption of large meals, short forage-particle length, easily sorted TMR, highly digestible forages, and finely processed concentrates can all increase the risk for SARA (Grant et al., 1990; Oetzel, 2000; Maekawa et al., 2002). Allen (1997) noted that measures of diet chemical composition, intake, and digestibility are poorly related to ruminal pH and that interaction among these factors are more significant. As a clinical tool, diet evaluation alone is a poor predictor of the presence or absence of SARA in a herd.

Milk Fat Depression
Herd milk-fat depression is commonly used to rule ruminal acidosis in or out as a risk factor for laminitis in a herd. Pennington (1999) suggests that milk-fat depression is defined as below 3.2% in Holstein, Ayrshire, and Milking Shorthorn herds, 3.4% for Brown Swiss, 4.0% for Guernsey, and 4.2% in Jersey herds. Milk-fat depression was thought to be related to rumen VFA changes of decreased acetate and increased propionate, both of which occur in ruminal acidosis. However, recent research suggests that interference with ruminal biohydrogenation of fatty acids is apparently the cause of milk-fat depression, resulting in accumulation and absorption of certain trans fatty acids from the gastrointestinal tract, reducing milk-fat synthesis by the mammary gland (Bauman and Griinari, 2001).

Allen (1997) summarized data from several trials to show a relationship between ruminal pH and milk-fat percentage where ruminal pH = 4.44 + 0.46 x milk fat percentage (r² = 0.39). While the relationship was not robust, a ruminal pH of 5.6 was associated with about 2.5% milk fat. In Holstein herds, we view more than 10% of the herd with milk fat percentage below 2.5% as possible (but not confirmatory) evidence for SARA.

Our clinical work also suggests that milk-fat depression in dairy herds can be largely independent of SARA. In a field trial, Garrett (1996) found little correlation between herd milk fat percentage and prevalence of low ruminal pH as measured by rumenocentesis or subjective clinical signs of SARA within a herd. The clinical impression of the authors is that low milk fat percentage suggests an increased likelihood of SARA, high milk fat percentage suggests a lower likelihood of SARA, but that a normal milk fat percentage gives very little information about the likelihood of SARA within a herd.

Some dairy consultants calculate the ratio of milk fat to milk protein percentages for individual cows and suggest that ratios less than 1.0 indicate ruminal acidosis (Tomaszewski et al., 1993). Because milk fat and milk protein synthesis are independent processes, the calculation of milk-fat protein ratios is probably of even less value in diagnosing SARA than are milk fat percentages alone.

Rumen Fluid pH Determinations
Rumenocentesis is a direct field test of ruminal pH and has been used in combination with other indicators for herd-based diagnosis of SARA (Nordlund et al., 1995). The test is performed using a needle to aspirate rumen fluid directly from the rumen. Oetzel (2000) has suggested that approximately 12 samples should be collected when ruminal pH is expected to reach the nadir, approximately 2 to 4 h after the concentrate meal when diet components are fed separately, and 4 to 8 h after a TMR meal. Using the interpretive guidelines, if more than 25% of the samples have a pH less than 5.5, the group is considered to be at risk of subacute ruminal acidosis. These guidelines will characterize groups correctly in situations of either high prevalence or low prevalence of low ruminal pH, but will provide uncertain results in herds where the true prevalence of low ruminal pH is in the range of 10 to 25% (Garrett et al., 1999).

Obviously, it is important that pH meters are accurate when used for these field tests. The authors recommend that samples should be collected as a batch, and the pH determinations made inside at normal room temperatures. The pH meters should be calibrated prior to sample testing, and the readings validated by measuring the pH of the standardization solutions upon completion of the tests. Sometimes pH meters will fail in the field. It is possible to determine the pH of field-collected samples in an office or laboratory instead, because ruminal pH is stable for 8 h when kept refrigerated in sealed syringes (Nordlund, 2001).

Concerns about the health risks to the cows tested by rumenocentesis have been raised by Wheeler-Aceto et al. (1999) who used ultrasound to diagnose peritonitis in cows that were sampled repeatedly. Whereas there is an obvious potential for peritonitis from a rumen puncture, the authors view the risk as very modest when cows are sampled only once and when cow restraint is satisfactory. In a field trial involving 150 cows on 10 commercial dairy farms, agreements were made with herd owners to reimburse any health damages attributed by the herd veterinarian to rumenocentesis (Garrett, 1996). No claims were made. The authors are aware of reports of 2 cows that developed mild fevers and were treated without complications from approximately 2000 rumenocentesis procedures performed during field investigations.

Rumen fluid samples can also be collected by stomach tube or other oro-ruminal probes. These collection techniques present very low risk to the cow. However, oral collection devices are difficult to clean on farms, making them a risk for cow-to-cow or farm-to-farm transmission of infectious organisms (Hancock, 1995). Samples collected by oral routes will likely be contaminated with variable amounts of saliva. Duffield et al. (2004) compared rumen fluid samples collected by rumenocentesis and by oro-ruminal probes to samples collected through a rumen cannula. Rumenocentesis samples had the lowest pH values and showed the higher correlation with samples obtained by rumen cannulation. Rumenocentesis was evaluated as the more accurate field technique.

Evaluation of Feces
Fecal evaluation is of very limited value in monitoring or diagnosing SARA in dairy herds. Ireland-Perry and Stallings (1993) found no effect of dietary fiber on fecal consistency. Fecal pH can be used as an indicator of small intestinal pH (Wheeler and Noller, 1977) but not necessarily ruminal pH.

Visual evaluations of washed screened feces may provide qualitative evidence for SARA (Hall, 1999). Feces from cows may contain many particles greater than 0.5 inch in length, whole pieces of corn stalks, and recognizable undigested feed (green grass, cottonseeds with lint, orange citrus pulp). In addition, foamy manure, diarrhea, and mucin casts may suggest extensive hindgut fermentation, which can be associated with SARA.

	CONCLUSIONS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION ASSESSING THE SEVERITY OF... MONITORING RISK FACTORS FOR... ENVIRONMENTAL RISK FACTORS DIETARY RISK FACTORS CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

 
Practical field techniques developed in the past decade have made systematic investigations of dairy herd lameness problems feasible. Scoring systems have been developed to determine lameness prevalence. Improved hoof lesion record systems that facilitate the ranking of predominant problems within a herd have been adopted by professional hoof trimmers. Whereas laminitis and associated claw horn lesions remain a complex disease, tests such as stall usage indices, rumenocentesis, and other monitoring tools are proving helpful in identifying environmental and dietary risk factors within individual dairy herds.

	FOOTNOTES

 
^* Presented at a symposium titled "Laminitis in Dairy Cattle" at the ADSA-ASAS Joint Annual Meeting, June 2003, Phoenix, AZ.

Received for publication July 18, 2003. Accepted for publication October 21, 2003.

	REFERENCES

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION ASSESSING THE SEVERITY OF... MONITORING RISK FACTORS FOR... ENVIRONMENTAL RISK FACTORS DIETARY RISK FACTORS CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

 


Allen, M. S. 1997. Relationship between fermentation acid production in the rumen and the requirement for physically effective fiber. J. Dairy Sci. 80:1447–1462.[Abstract]

Bauman, D. E., and J. M. Griinari. 2001. Regulation and nutritional manipulation of milk fat: Low-fat milk syndrome. Livest. Prod. Sci. 70:15–29.

Bergsten, C. 1997. Infectious diseases of the digits. Pages 89–100 in Lameness in Cattle. 3rd ed. W. B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia, PA.

Bergsten, C., and B. Frank. 1996. Sole hemorrhages in tied heifers in early gestation as an indicator of laminitis: Effects of diet and flooring. Acta Vet. Scand. 37:375–382.[Medline]

Bergsten, C., D. D. Hancock, J. M. Gay, C. C. Gay, and L. K. Fox. 1998. Claw diseases: The most common cause of dairy lameness diagnoses, frequencies and risk groups in a university herd. Pages 188–194 in Proc. 31st Annu. Conv. Am. Assoc. Bov. Pract., Spokane, WA. Am. Assoc. Bov. Pract., Rome, GA.

Burgi, K. 2000. Keeping records and standardized nomenclature. Pages 33–36 in Proc. Hoof Health Conf., Duluth, MN. Hoof Trimmers Assoc., Missoula, MT.

Chesterton, R. N., D. U. Pfeiffer, R. S. Morris, and C. M. Tanner. 1989. Environmental and behavioral factors affecting the prevalence of foot lameness in New Zealand dairy herds: A case control study. N.Z. Vet. J. 37:135–142.

Clackson, D. A., and W. R. Ward. 1991. Farm tracks, stockman’s herding and lameness in dairy cattle. Vet. Rec. 129:511–512.[Medline]

Clarkson, M. J, D. Y. Downham, W. B. Faull, J. W. Hughes, F. J. Manson, J. B. Merritt, R. D. Murray, W. B. Russell, J. E. Sutherst, and W. R. Ward. 1996. Incidence and prevalence of lameness in dairy cattle. Vet. Rec. 138:563–567.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Colam-Ainsworth, P., G. A. Lunn, R. C. Thomas, and R. G. Eddy. 1989. Behaviour of cows in cubicles and its possible relationship with laminitis in replacement dairy heifers. Vet. Rec. 125:573–576.[Abstract]

Collick, D. W. 1997. Heel horn erosion. Pages 116–118 in Lameness in Cattle. 3rd ed. W. B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia, PA.

Collick, D. W., W. R. Ward, and H. Dobson. 1989. Associations between types of lameness and fertility. Vet. Rec. 125:103–106.[Abstract]

Cook, N. B. 2002a. Lameness prevalence and the effect of housing on 30 Wisconsin dairy herds. Pages 325–327 in Proc. 12th Intl. Symp. Lameness in Ruminants. Orlando, FL.

Cook, N. B. 2002b. The influence of barn design on dairy cow hygiene, lameness, and udder health. Pages 97–103 in Proc. of the 35th Annu. Conv. Am. Assoc. Bov. Pract., Madison, WI. Am. Assoc. Bov. Pract., Rome, GA.

Cook, N. B. 2003. The prevalence of lameness in a selection of Wisconsin dairy herds utilizing different types of housing and stall surface. JAVMA 223:1324–1328.

Dickson, D. P., G. R. Barr, and D. A. Wieckert. 1967. Social relationships of dairy cows in a feed lot. Behaviour 29:195–203.

Duffield, T. F., J. Plaizier, R. Bagg, G. Vessie, P. Dick, J. Wilson, J. Aramini, and B. W. McBride. 2004. Comparison of techniques for measurement of rumen pH in lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 87:59–66.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Faull, W. B., J. W. Hughes, M. J. Clarkson, D. Y. Downham, F. J. Manson, J. B. Merritt, R. D. Murray, W. B. Russell, J. E. Sutherst, and W. R. Ward. 1996. Epidemiology of lameness in dairy cattle: The influence of cubicles and indoor and outdoor walking surfaces. Vet. Rec. 139:130–136.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Garrett, E. F. 1996. Rumenocentesis: Methodology and application in the diagnosis of subacute ruminal acidosis in dairy herds. M.S. thesis, Univ. Wisconsin, Madison.

Garrett, E. F., K. V. Nordlund, W. J. Goodger, and G. R. Oetzel. 1997. A cross-sectional field study investigating the effect of periparturient dietary management on ruminal pH in early lactational cows. J. Dairy Sci. 80(Suppl. 1):169. (Abstr.)

Garrett, E. F., M. N. Pereira, K. V. Nordlund, L. E. Armentano, W. J. Goodger, and G. R. Oetzel. 1999. Diagnostic methods for the detection of subacute ruminal acidosis in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 82:1170–1178.[Abstract]

Grant, R. J., V. F. Colenbrander, and D. R. Mertens. 1990. Milk fat depression in dairy cows: Role of silage particle size. J. Dairy Sci. 73:1834–1842.[Abstract]

Green, L. E., V. J. Hedges, Y. H. Schukken, R. W. Blowey, and A. J. Packington. 2002. The impact of clinical lameness on the milk yield of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 85:2250–2256.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Guard, C. L. 2000. Investigating herds with lameness problems. Pages 29–32 in Proceedings of Hoof Health Conference, Duluth, Minnesota. Hoof Trimmers Association, Missoula, MT.

Hall, M. B. 1999. Management strategies against ruminal acidosis. Pages 104–113 in 10th Annu. Florida Nutr. Symp., Gainseville, FL.

Hancock, D. 1995. Strategic laboratory use: How to use hypothesis-based laboratory testing. Pages 118–129 in Proc. 28th Annu. Conv. Am. Assn. Bov. Pract., San Antonio, TX. Am. Assn. Bov. Pract., Rome, GA.

Hernandez, J., J. K. Shearer, and D. W. Webb. 2001. Effect of lameness on the calving-to-conception interval in dairy cows. JAVMA 218:1611–1614.

Ireland-Perry, R. L., and C. C. Stallings. 1993. Fecal consistency as related to dietary composition in lactating Holstein cows. J. Dairy Sci. 76:1074–1082.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Kofler, J. 1999. Clinical study of toe ulcer and necrosis of the apex of the distal phalanx in 53 cattle. Vet. J. 157:139–147.[Medline]

Leonard, F. C., J. M. O’Connell, and K. J. O’Farrell. 1994. Effect of different housing conditions on behaviour and foot lesions in Friesian heifers. Vet. Rec. 134: 490–494.[Abstract]

Leonard, F. C., J. M. O’Connell, and K. J. O’Farrell. 1996. Effect of overcrowding on claw health in first-calved friesian heifers. Br. Vet. J. 152:459–472.[Medline]

Maekawa, M., K. A. Beauchemin, and D. A. Christensen. 2002. Chewing activity, saliva production, and ruminal pH of primiparous and multiparous lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 85:1176–1182.[Abstract]

Manson, F. J., and J. D. Leaver. 1988. The influence of concentrate amount on locomotion and clinical lameness in dairy cattle. Anim. Prod. 47:185–190.

National Research Council. 2001. Pages 197–199 in Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle. 7th rev. ed. Natl. Acad. Sci., Washington, DC.

Nelson, A. J. 1996. On-farm nutrition diagnostics. Pages 76–85 in Proc. 29th Annu. Conv. Am. Assoc. Bov. Pract. San Diego, CA. Am. Assoc. Bov. Pract., Rome, GA.

Nocek, J. E. 1997. Bovine acidosis: Implications on laminitis. J. Dairy Sci. 80:1005–1028.[Abstract]

Nordlund, K. V., E. F. Garrett, and G. R. Oetzel. 1995. Herd-based rumenocentesis: A clinical approach to the diagnosis of subacute rumen acidosis. Compend. Contin. Educ. Pract. Vet. 17:S48–S56.

Nordlund, K. V. 2001. Diagnosis and management of subacute ruminal acidosis in dairy herds. Pages 46–53 in Proc. 1995 Annu. Mtg. Ontario Vet. Med. Assoc., Toronto, Canada.

Nordlund, K. V., and N. B. Cook. 2003. A flowchart for evaluating dairy cow freestalls. Bovine Pract. 37:89–96.

Oetzel, G. R. 2000. Clinical aspects of ruminal acidosis in dairy cattle. Pages 46–53 in Proc. 33rd Am. Assoc. Bov. Pract., Rapid City, SD. Am. Assoc. Bov. Pract., Rome, GA.

Ossent, P., P. R. Greenough, and J. J. Vermunt. 1997. Laminitis. Pages 277–292 in Lameness in Cattle. W. B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia, PA.

Overton, M. W., W. M. Sischo, G. D. Temple, and D. A. Moore. 2002. Using time-lapse video photography to assess dairy cattle lying behavior in a free-stall barn. J. Dairy Sci. 85:2407–2413.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Overton, M. W., D. A. Moore, and W. M. Sischo. 2003. Comparison of commonly used indices to evaluate dairy cattle lying behavior. Pages 125–130 in Proc. Dairy Housing Conf., Fort Worth, TX. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng., St. Joseph, MI.

Owens, F. N., D. S. Secrist, W. J. Hill, and D. R. Gill. 1998. Acidosis in cattle: A review. J. Anim. Sci. 76:275–286.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Pennington, J. A. 1999. Factors affecting fat percent in milk of lactating cows. University of Arkansas Extension Publication No. FSA4014, University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service, Little Rock.

Radostits, O. M., C. C. Gay, D. C. Blood, and K. W. Hinchcliff. 2000. Pages 284–293 in Veterinary Medicine. 9th ed. W. B. Saunders Co., Philadephia, PA.

Rathore, A. K. 1982. Order of cow entry at milking and its relationships with milk yield and consistency of the order. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 8:45–52.

Shearer, J., E. Belknap, S. Berry, C. Guard, K. Hoblet, E. Hovingh, G. Kirksey, A. Langill, and S. van Amstel. 2002. The standardization of input codes for capture of lameness data in dairy records. Pages 346–349 in Proc. 12th Int. Symp. Lameness in Ruminants, Orlando, FL.

Smith, J. F., J. P. Harner, III, M. J. Brouk, D. V. Armstrong, M. J. Gamroth, and M. J. Meyer. 2000. Relocation and expansion planning for dairy producers. Publ. MF2424. Kansas State Univ. Coop. Ext. Serv., Manhattan.

Sprecher, D. J., D. E. Hostetler, and J. B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology 47:1179–1187.

Tomaszewski, M. A., and T. J. Cannon. 1993. Using records for large herd management. Pages 137–140 in Proc. Western Large Herd Mgt. Conf., Las Vegas, NV.

Toussaint-Raven, E. 1985. The principles of claw trimming. Vet. Clin. North Am. Food Anim. Pract. 1:93–107.[Medline]

Van Amstel, S. R., and J. K. Shearer. 2000. Toe abscess: A serious cause of lameness in the US dairy industry. Pages 212–214 in Proc. XI Int. Symp. Disorders Ruminant Digit, Parma, Italy.

Vokey, F. J., C. L. Guard, H. N. Erb, and D. M. Galton. 2001. Effects of alley and stall surfaces on indices of claw and leg health in dairy cattle housed in a free-stall barn. J. Dairy Sci. 84:2686–2699.[Abstract]

Vokey, F. J., C. L. Guard, H. N. Erb, and D. M. Galton. 2003. Observations on flooring and stall surfaces for dairy cattle housed in a free-stall barn. Pages 165–170 in Proc. 5th Int. Dairy Housing Conf., Houston, TX. Am. Soc. Agric. Engineers, St. Joseph, MI.

Wagner-Storch, A. M, R. W. Palmer, and D. W. Kammel. 2003. Factors affecting stall use for different freestall bases. J. Dairy Sci. 86:2253–2266.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Warnick, L. D., D. Jansen, C. L. Guard, and Y. T. Grohn. 2001. The effect of lameness on milk production in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 84:1988–1997.[Abstract]

Webster, A. J. F. 2001. Effects of housing and two forage diets on the development of claw horn lesions in dairy cows at first calving and in first lactation. Vet. J. 162:56–65.[Medline]

Wells, S. J., A. M. Trent, W. E. Marsh, and R. A. Robinson. 1993. Prevalence and severity of lameness in lactating dairy cows in a sample of Minnesota and Wisconsin herds. JAVMA 202:78–82.

Wells, S. J., L. P. Garber, and B. A. Wagner. 1999. Papillomatous digital dermatitis and associated risk factors in US dairy herds. Prev. Vet. Med. 38:11–24.[Medline]

Whay, H. R., A. E. Waterman, A. J. F. Webster, and J. K. O’Brien. 1998. The influence of lesion type on the duration of hyperalgesia associated with hindlimb lameness in dairy cattle. Vet. J. 156:23–29.[Medline]

Whay, H. R., D. C. J. Main, L. E. Green, and A. J. F. Webster. 2002. Farmer perception of lameness prevalence. Pages 355–358 in Proc. 12th Int. Symp. Lameness in Ruminants, Orlando, FL.

Wheeler, W. E., and C. H. Noller. 1977. Gastrointestinal tract pH and starch in feces of ruminants. J. Anim. Sci. 44:131–135.

Wheeler-Aceto, H., C. Meadows, and J. Ferguson. 1999. The effects of dietary starch and nonstructural carbohydrate on production, rumen pH, and neutrophil function in Holstein cows. J. Dairy Sci. 82(Suppl. 1):43. (Abstr.)

This article has been cited by other articles:

				N. B. Cook, M. J. Marin, R. L. Mentink, T. B. Bennett, and M. J. Schaefer Comfort Zone-Design Free Stalls: Do They Influence the Stall Use Behavior of Lame Cows? J Dairy Sci, December 1, 2008; 91(12): 4673 - 4678. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. A. Gonzalez, A. Ferret, X. Manteca, J. L. Ruiz-de-la-Torre, S. Calsamiglia, M. Devant, and A. Bach Performance, behavior, and welfare of Friesian heifers housed in pens with two, four, and eight individuals per concentrate feeding place J Anim Sci, June 1, 2008; 86(6): 1446 - 1458. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. B. Kristensen, J. Sehested, S. K. Jensen, and M. Vestergaard Effect of Milk Allowance on Concentrate Intake, Ruminal Environment, and Ruminal Development in Milk-Fed Holstein Calves J Dairy Sci, September 1, 2007; 90(9): 4346 - 4355. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. B. Cook, R. L. Mentink, T. B. Bennett, and K. Burgi The Effect of Heat Stress and Lameness on Time Budgets of Lactating Dairy Cows J Dairy Sci, April 1, 2007; 90(4): 1674 - 1682. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. N. Gozho, D. O. Krause, and J. C. Plaizier Rumen lipopolysaccharide and inflammation during grain adaptation and subacute ruminal acidosis in steers. J Dairy Sci, November 1, 2006; 89(11): 4404 - 4413. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Neveux, D. M. Weary, J. Rushen, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and A. M. de Passille Hoof discomfort changes how dairy cattle distribute their body weight. J Dairy Sci, July 1, 2006; 89(7): 2503 - 2509. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Nordlund, K. V. Articles by Oetzel, G. R. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Nordlund, K. V. Articles by Oetzel, G. R.