| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
* Department of Animal Science, University of Minnesota, St. Paul 55108
University of Minnesota Extension Service, St. Cloud 56303
1 Corresponding author: miendres{at}umn.edu
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSACKNOWLEDGEMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
3 on a 1-to-5 scale, where 1 = normal and 5 = severely lame), and its association with lactation number, month of lactation, body condition score, and type of stall surface were evaluated. The mean prevalence of clinical lameness was 24.6%, which was 3.1 times greater, on average, than the prevalence estimated by the herd managers on each farm. The prevalence of lameness in first-lactation cows was 12.8% and prevalence increased on average at a rate of 8 percentage units per lactation. There was no association between the mean prevalence of clinical lameness and month of lactation (for months 1 to 10). Underconditioned cows had a higher prevalence of clinical lameness than normal or overconditioned cows. The prevalence of lameness was lower in freestall herds with sand stalls (17.1%) than in freestall herds with mattress stall surfaces (27.9%). Data indicate that the best 10th percentile of dairy farms had a mean prevalence of lameness of 5.4% with only 1.47% of cows with locomotion score = 4 and no cows with locomotion score = 5.
Key Words: lameness prevalence • freestall • locomotion score
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSACKNOWLEDGEMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
Few studies have been performed on the prevalence of lameness in the population of dairy cows, especially in high-producing Holstein cows. The last study of lameness prevalence in Minnesota dairy farms was published in 1993 and it included primarily tie-stall herds (Wells et al., 1993). The current trend in the dairy industry is for housing cows in freestall systems with concrete flooring. Research has indicated that exposure to concrete flooring can increase the proportion of cows with claw disorders compared with other systems (Somers et al., 2003).
In addition, there are limited or no data available in the literature on the distribution of locomotion scores of high-producing dairy cows housed in freestall barns. Locomotion scoring of dairy cattle evaluates certain walking behaviors and postures that are thought to be indicative of lameness (Wells et al., 1993; Clarkson et al., 1996; Sprecher et al., 1997). Use of locomotion scoring should help identify cows at earlier stages of lameness, and result in faster recovery and reduced treatment costs. Some research indicates that producers tend to underestimate the prevalence of lameness in their herds (Wells et al., 1993; Whay et al., 2002).
Body condition and parity have been associated with prevalence of lameness. Wells et al. (1993) reported an increased risk of lameness with increased parity; and they also found a strong correlation between poor body condition and clinical lameness. However, the authors explained that loss of body weight might be the result of lameness, and not a causative factor for lameness.
Factors related to the cow’s environment have been associated with lameness. Among all housing systems, freestall barns have been shown to be more detrimental to hoof health compared with tie-stall barns or straw yards (Cook, 2003; Sogstad et al., 2005). Stall base is another factor associated with lameness. Studies in Wisconsin have shown that cows in sand-based stalls have a lower prevalence of lameness than cows in mattress-based stalls (Cook, 2003; Cook et al., 2004).
A study of 17 nonrandomly selected herds housed mainly in tie stalls in Minnesota and Wisconsin, estimated the prevalence of clinical lameness to be 13.7% in summer and 16.7% in spring (Wells et al., 1993). In another study performed in 30 nonrandomly selected dairy herds in Wisconsin with Holstein as a predominant breed, Cook (2003) found a prevalence of clinical lameness of 21.1% in summer and 23.9% in winter.
The objectives of this study were to estimate the prevalence of clinical lameness and determine locomotion score distribution in high-producing Holstein cows housed in freestalls in a randomly selected dairy farm population in Minnesota, and to evaluate the association of lameness prevalence with lactation number, month of lactation, BCS, and type of stall surface.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSACKNOWLEDGEMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
). From the population of herds with 150 cows or greater in this geographical area (262 farms), a list of 70 farms was randomly selected using Microsoft Excel software. From this list, dairy producers were contacted and asked about their willingness to participate in the study until 50 farms were enrolled. The sampling methodology was a simple random sampling, in which all the dairy farms with more than 150 cows in the selected geographical area had the same opportunity to participate in the study, and without any previous knowledge about the prevalence of lameness on these farms. The sample size was calculated with the hypothesis that the prevalence of clinical lameness in these herds would average 20% with a 95% confidence interval from 10 to 30%.
|
. In 3 farms, we studied 2 high-production groups instead of 1, because the farmers considered both groups as high-production groups and there were differences in stall design or flooring type between the 2 groups. Therefore, we studied a total of 53 high-production groups on 50 farms. There were 16 high-production groups out of the total of 53 groups in the study that did not include first-lactation cows. High-production group cows (as defined by the herd manager) housed in the hospital pen at the day of the visit were also included in the study. All non-Holstein cows in the groups were excluded from the study. On average, 97.2% of the cows housed in the high-production groups were used in this study.
|
3) and the LS distribution in the groups were calculated as a proportion of cows affected in each group at the day of the visit. The overall prevalence of lameness in this study was the average of the prevalence in the groups. At the time of the visit and before the evaluation of the locomotion score, herd managers were asked how many cows they considered to be lame, using their own definition of lameness, in the high-production group on that day.
Cows were scored for body condition by the same experienced observer on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = thin and 5 = obese (Ferguson et al., 1994). Lactation number and DIM were obtained from DHIA records nearest to the time of the visit, with the exception of 2 farms that were not associated with DHIA, in which case on-farm daily milk records were used. For the analysis of the results, the variable DIM was grouped as month of lactation, and BCS was grouped as underconditioned (BCS 
2.5), normal condition (BCS 2.75 and 3.5), or overconditioned (BCS 3.75). Information about the stall surface was collected at the time of herd visit.
Statistical Analysis
Differences between farm means and group means were analyzed using one sample Z-test with the MEANS procedure of SAS (SAS Institute, 2004). The individual association between lactation number, month of lactation, BCS, and type of stall surface with mean prevalence of lameness was evaluated using the MIXED procedure of SAS (SAS Institute, 2004) with a mixed model weighted by the number of cows, in which the prevalence of lameness in the groups of cows (experimental unit) was the response variable and the high-production groups were used as random effect. The assumption of random distribution of the residual was visually evaluated on a residual chart. The Bonferroni t-test was used to compare the least squares means in categorically distributed variables.
|
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSACKNOWLEDGEMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
). No previous knowledge of herds’ lameness status affected selection of the farms. These selected farms had, on average, 470 cows and milk production averaged 37.6 kg of FCM/cow per day. Therefore, the results from this study would represent the population of cows in the high-production group housed in freestall barns with a herd size equal to or greater than 150 cows. The kappa coefficient analysis for locomotion scoring between observers was 0.77 with a 95% confidence interval between 0.70 and 0.84 (P < 0.01). The 2 observers agreed in the LS in 86.6% of the cases. In the remaining observations, the LS differed by one unit between observers. In contrast, Winckler and Willen (2001) found a percentage of agreement of 68% using a similar LS. In addition, in 30% of the cows, observers differed by one LS unit, and in 2% of the cows, differed by 2 units. The agreement evaluation in LS made by Winckler and Willen (2001) was performed using 3 independent observers, which likely increased the sources of variation compared with this study.
The prevalence of lameness (LS 3) in the 53 high-production groups averaged 24.6% (SD = 11.68) with a range from 3.3 to 57.3%. This prevalence of lameness was greater than in a previous study conducted in Minnesota by Wells et al. (1993). Those authors estimated that the prevalence of lameness in 17 dairy farms in Minnesota and Wisconsin was 13.7% during summer and 16.7% during spring. The difference between these 2 studies could be explained by the housing system. The results reported by Wells et al. (1993) involved mostly cows housed in tie-stall barns, whereas the current study focused exclusively on freestall barns. Cook (2003) found that the prevalence of clinical lameness in tie-stall barns was lower than in freestalls during the winter housing period. A study in the United Kingdom (Clarkson et al., 1996) estimated that the mean prevalence of lameness in 37 farms was 20.6% with a range of 2 to 53.9%. The mean prevalences during summer and winter were 18.6 and 25%, respectively. The mean prevalence in summer was lower than the mean prevalence in the current study. However, cows were on pasture during the summer and again, the housing system could account for the difference. The mean prevalence during the winter period when cows were housed in freestalls is similar to the mean prevalence estimated in the current study. Clarkson et al. (1996) scored cows for locomotion at regular visits during each season and concluded that prevalence measured at a single visit was significantly correlated with the mean prevalence for the respective season. Results of the current study agree with a more recent study in Wisconsin (Cook, 2003), in which the mean prevalence of lameness in 15 freestall dairy farms was 27.8% during winter and 22.8% during summer.
A summary of the distribution of LS in the 53 groups is given in Table 2. The mean percentage of cows in the 53 high-production groups without any gait abnormalities (LS = 1) was approximately 20%, which is less than half of the value (54.9%) reported by Cook (2003) in 30 dairy farms in Wisconsin during the summer. In addition, more than half of the cows were classified as having locomotion abnormalities (LS = 2), but not clinically lame. Many reasons could explain this imperfect locomotion such as the presence of mild or chronic lesions that are not painful enough to cause clinical lameness, abnormal conformation of legs or claws, pain in other body areas, or problems in the evaluation because of slippery or irregular floors. Approximately 6% of the cows had LS 4 (more severe lameness). This is also higher than that observed by Cook (2003), in which the proportion of cows with severe lameness (LS = 4) was 3 to 3.2% depending on the season. Although the latter study used a 1-to-4 scale LS system, an LS = 4 would correspond to the combination of scores 4 and 5 in our study (more severely lame cows). Cows in the high-production group are exposed to the stress of high milk production, which could have a negative effect on hoof health. There are almost no data in the literature on the locomotion score distribution of high-producing dairy cows in loose housing systems with concrete flooring. It is very possible that the high scores observed in this study reflect the fact that many of these cows have hoof problems. Somers et al. (2003) in a study of Dutch herds reported that 80% of the cows exposed to concrete flooring had at least one claw disorder at the time of observation.
|
4) could be an indication of a herd lameness problem. A goal of less than 15% clinically lame cows in a freestall herd should be achievable.
This study focused on Holstein cows housed in the high-production group in each dairy farm. As indicated earlier, there were 16 high-production groups out of the total of 53 groups in the study that did not include first-lactation cows. On average, the high-production groups had higher milk production, lower average DIM, and higher lactation number than the overall average for their farms (Table 1). Some of these characteristics could be associated with higher prevalence of lameness. An increase in the prevalence of lameness with lactation number was reported previously by Wells et al. (1993) and observed in the current study. High milk yield has been reported to increase the risk of lameness (Barkema et al., 1994; Green et al., 2002). These factors could contribute to the high prevalence of clinical lameness observed in this study. We caution that there could be a potential bias on the estimation of lameness prevalence in these herds because only high-production group cows were included in the study. However, these groups included cows with long DIM and approximately 70% of them were mixed groups of first-lactation and older cows, which might have helped reduce this bias.
The prevalence reported by the herd managers had a mean estimate of 8.3% with a range from 0 to 30%. Therefore, the prevalence of lameness estimated by the investigators in this study was 3.1 times higher than the prevalence of lameness estimated by herd managers. Wells et al. (1993) estimated 2.5-times higher prevalence of lameness than the prevalence estimated by the herd managers. In another study, Whay et al. (2002) reported a lower estimation of the prevalence of lameness by dairy farmers (3.86 times) compared with the prevalence estimated by investigators. The perception of the prevalence of lameness can be affected by different criteria of classification, lack of observation of lame cows, or unwillingness to openly admit the problem of lameness in their herds (Wells et al., 1993; Whay et al., 2002).
Results of the association between prevalence of lameness in the high-production groups and lactation number are in Table 3 and Figure 2. The lowest prevalence of lameness was observed in first-lactation cows and prevalence increased with lactation number. The greatest prevalence of lameness was observed in the group of cows with 6 or more lactations in which half of the cows were clinically lame. Wells et al. (1993) also observed an increase in the prevalence of lameness with lactation number. In a study in 45 selected farms in Michigan, Groehn et al. (1992) estimated that the risk of becoming lame increased 1.4-fold per lactation. In the current study, the prevalence of clinical lameness increased, on average, by 8 percentage units per lactation or 1.3-fold per lactation.
|
|
, Figure 3). Similarly, Warnick et al. (1995) did not find an association between lameness and DIM in a study of 20 dairy herds in Virginia. Some studies investigating incidence of lameness have reported contrasting results. Rowlands et al. (1985), in a study with 48 veterinary practices in the United Kingdom, described that the average incidence of lameness per month in the first 4 mo of lactation was twice the number observed in the following 3 mo, and 3 times greater than the last 3 mo of the lactation. In another study in the United Kingdom, Collick et al. (1989) reported that 65% of the cases of lameness occurred in the first 100 d of lactation. Cook (N. B. Cook, Univ. Wisconsin, Madison; personal communication) suggests that in the United Kingdom, first-lactation cows transition poorly into the lactating herd and might become lame in early lactation. The poor transition also appears to result in a higher risk of lameness in first-lactation cows than has been observed in the United States. In addition, incidence of new cases of lameness may be higher in early lactation; however, the prevalence of lameness would tend to increase as lactation proceeds because lameness is a long-term event.
|
2.5) was greater than the mean prevalence observed for normal (BCS 2.75 and 3.5) and overconditioned cows (BCS 3.75; P < 0.01). There was no difference between normal and over-conditioned cows (Table 4). Wells et al. (1993) also found a strong correlation between poor body condition and clinical lameness. However, those authors explained that loss of BW might be a result of the lameness, and not a causative factor for lameness. Reduction in body condition could be a consequence of the disability in locomotion causing a reduction in feed intake. Hassall et al. (1993) and Juarez et al. (2003) suggested that lame cows not only reduce their feeding time, but also eat slowly because of the restriction of movement. Hassall et al. (1993) and Winckler and Brill (2004) found a reduction in feeding time in lame cows on pasture and cubicles, respectively. Bareille et al. (2000) estimated a reduction in feed intake of 24.2 kg due to foot lesions during the period from diagnosis to recovery (63 d). However, Singh et al. (1993) and Galindo and Broom (2000) did not find differences in the total time spent eating for cows housed in cubicles in behavioral studies with lame cows. Juarez et al. (2003) proposed that lame cows tend to arrive later to the feed bunk, at which point the quantity and quality of feed is lower because of sorting by early-arriving cows. Consequently, they are not able to meet the nutritional requirements of high-producing cows, and eventually they lose condition.
|
Of the 53 groups of high-production cows, 23 were located in central Minnesota and 30 in southeast Minnesota. Sand and mattress stalls were not equally distributed in the central and in the southeast regions of the state. The analysis of the association between location and type of stall surface using 
2 test revealed that a higher (P < 0.01) proportion of the groups of cows housed in stalls with sand bases were located in the southeast region of the state (87.5%). Because farms were randomly selected, it is also possible to establish that most of the farms located in the central region of the state used mattresses as a stall base.
|
CONCLUSIONS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSACKNOWLEDGEMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
|
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSACKNOWLEDGEMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
Received for publication December 23, 2005. Accepted for publication March 1, 2006.
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSACKNOWLEDGEMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  F. Bernardi, J. Fregonesi, C. Winckler, D. M. Veira, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary The stall-design paradox: Neck rails increase lameness but improve udder and stall hygiene J Dairy Sci, July 1, 2009; 92(7): 3074 - 3080. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. H. Sanders, J. K. Shearer, and A. De Vries Seasonal incidence of lameness and risk factors associated with thin soles, white line disease, ulcers, and sole punctures in dairy cattle J Dairy Sci, July 1, 2009; 92(7): 3165 - 3174. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Liu, N. K. Neerchal, U. Tasch, R. M. Dyer, and P. G. Rajkondawar Enhancing the prediction accuracy of bovine lameness models through transformations of limb movement variables J Dairy Sci, June 1, 2009; 92(6): 2539 - 2550. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Cramer, K. D. Lissemore, C. L. Guard, K. E. Leslie, and D. F. Kelton The association between foot lesions and culling risk in Ontario Holstein cows J Dairy Sci, June 1, 2009; 92(6): 2572 - 2579. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. T. Thomsen Rapid screening method for lameness in dairy cows Vet Rec., May 30, 2009; 164(22): 689 - 690. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. A. Leach, S. Dippel, J. Huber, S. March, C. Winckler, and H. R. Whay Assessing lameness in cows kept in tie-stalls J Dairy Sci, April 1, 2009; 92(4): 1567 - 1574. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. Chapinal, A. M. de Passille, and J. Rushen Weight distribution and gait in dairy cattle are affected by milking and late pregnancy J Dairy Sci, February 1, 2009; 92(2): 581 - 588. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. M. Weary, J. M. Huzzey, and M. A. G. von Keyserlingk BOARD-INVITED REVIEW: Using behavior to predict and identify ill health in animals J Anim Sci, February 1, 2009; 87(2): 770 - 777. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Cramer, K. D. Lissemore, C. L. Guard, K. E. Leslie, and D. F. Kelton Herd- and Cow-Level Prevalence of Foot Lesions in Ontario Dairy Cattle J Dairy Sci, October 1, 2008; 91(10): 3888 - 3895. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. C. Chebel, F. Susca, and J. E. P. Santos Leptin Genotype Is Associated with Lactation Performance and Health of Holstein Cows J Dairy Sci, July 1, 2008; 91(7): 2893 - 2900. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. K. Fulwider, T. Grandin, B. E. Rollin, T. E. Engle, N. L. Dalsted, and W. D. Lamm Survey of Dairy Management Practices on One Hundred Thirteen North Central and Northeastern United States Dairies J Dairy Sci, April 1, 2008; 91(4): 1686 - 1692. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Norring, E. Manninen, A. M. de Passille, J. Rushen, L. Munksgaard, and H. Saloniemi Effects of Sand and Straw Bedding on the Lying Behavior, Cleanliness, and Hoof and Hock Injuries of Dairy Cows J Dairy Sci, February 1, 2008; 91(2): 570 - 576. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. T. Thomsen, L. Munksgaard, and F. A. Togersen Evaluation of a Lameness Scoring System for Dairy Cows J Dairy Sci, January 1, 2008; 91(1): 119 - 126. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. C. Bicalho, F. Vokey, H. N. Erb, and C. L. Guard Visual Locomotion Scoring in the First Seventy Days in Milk: Impact on Pregnancy and Survival J Dairy Sci, October 1, 2007; 90(10): 4586 - 4591. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. C. Bicalho, S. H. Cheong, G. Cramer, and C. L. Guard Association Between a Visual and an Automated Locomotion Score in Lactating Holstein Cows J Dairy Sci, July 1, 2007; 90(7): 3294 - 3300. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. E. Barberg, M. I. Endres, J. A. Salfer, and J. K. Reneau Performance and Welfare of Dairy Cows in an Alternative Housing System in Minnesota J Dairy Sci, March 1, 2007; 90(3): 1575 - 1583. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. A. Espejo and M. I. Endres Herd-Level Risk Factors for Lameness in High-Producing Holstein Cows Housed in Freestall Barns J Dairy Sci, January 1, 2007; 90(1): 306 - 314. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
) dairy farms in Minnesota; shaded area represents geographical area used in the selection procedure.
