Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T04:27:20.877Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing the welfare impact of foot disorders in dairy cattle by a modeling approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 December 2011

M. R. N. Bruijnis ,
B. Beerda ,
H. Hogeveen  and
E. N. Stassen
M. R. N. Bruijnis*
Affiliation:
Animal and Society, Department of Animal Sciences, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
B. Beerda
Affiliation:
Adaptation Physiology Group, Department of Animal Sciences, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
H. Hogeveen
Affiliation:
Department of Farm Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, PO Box 80151, 3584 CL Utrecht, The Netherlands Business Economics Group, Department of Social Sciences, Wageningen University, PO Box 8130, 6706 KN Wageningen, The Netherlands
E. N. Stassen
Affiliation:
Animal and Society, Department of Animal Sciences, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Foot disorders are the main cause of dairy cow lameness and are considered to have a major impact on the welfare of dairy cattle. This study adopts a modeling approach, using a dynamic stochastic model, to provide more insight into the welfare impact of different types of foot disorders, both clinical and subclinical. The impact of specific foot disorders on welfare was assessed by simulating the incidence and duration of foot disorders and the pain associated with them. Pain assessment was based on locomotion scores, with underlying knowledge obtained from scientific literature and experts. The results demonstrated the seriousness of the welfare impact of foot disorders. The negative welfare impact was measured on a scale from 0 to 60, where the maximum outcome represents a cow having very severe pain during the whole year. On average, each cow achieves a welfare impact score of 12, which is 20% of the maximum welfare impact score. This welfare score equals having severe pain for a period of 3 months, indicating a serious impact on welfare. On average, digital dermatitis impacts most on welfare, which is caused by a high incidence of the painful clinical stage, followed by sole hemorrhages (SoH) and interdigital dermatitis and heel horn erosion (IDHE). The combination of a high incidence and long duration of SoH and IDHE causes this relatively high welfare impact of foot disorders that occur mostly subclinically. On average, over 1 year, 46% of the welfare impact due to foot disorders is caused by clinical foot disorders. The fact that subclinical foot disorders contribute more or less equally to the effects on welfare as clinical ones, indicates that farmers may readily underestimate the welfare impact by a factor two. Modeling welfare impact at cow level, individual cases of foot disorders, stresses the importance of pain intensity, indicating the importance of clinical foot disorders. This study demonstrated the serious welfare impact of foot disorders in dairy cattle and pointed out the considerable impact of subclinical foot disorders. Furthermore, the approach of welfare assessment, for example herd v. cow level, influenced the ranking of foot disorders for their impact on animal welfare. Potentially, this leads to different prioritization of specific solution strategies for dairy farmers, for example, focusing on cow comfort, hygiene or preventive medical treatments, foot trimming and/or health monitoring. The findings in this study support in raising awareness about this welfare issue.

Keywords

dairy cowfoot disordermodelingwelfare impact
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 6 , Issue 6 , June 2012 , pp. 962 - 970
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahmadzadeh, A, Frago, F, Shafii, B, Dalton, JC, Price, WJ, McGuire, MA 2009. Effect of clinical mastitis and other diseases on reproductive performance of Holstein cows. Animal Reproduction Science 112, 273–282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Algers, B, Bertoni, G, Broom, DM, Hartung, J, Lidfors, L, Metz, JHM, Munksgaard, L, Nunes Pina, T, Oltenacu, T, Rehage, J, Rushen, J, Smulders, F, Stassen, EN, Stilwell, G, Waiblinger, S, Webster, AJF 2009. Scientific report of EFSA prepared by the Animal Health and Animal Welfare Unit on the effects of farming systems on dairy cow welfare and disease. Annex to the EFSA Journal 1143, 1–7.Google Scholar
Ariely, D 1998. Combining experiences over time: the effects of duration, intensity changes and on-line measurements on retrospective pain evaluations. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 11, 19–45.3.0.CO;2-B>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, A, Dinarés, M, Devant, M, Carré, X 2007. Associations between lameness and production, feeding and milking attendance of Holstein cows milked with an automatic milking system. Journal of Dairy Research 74, 40–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bell, NJ, Bell, MJ, Knowles, TG, Whay, HR, Main, DJ, Webster, AJF 2009. The development, implementation and testing of a lameness control programme based on HACCP principles and designed for heifers on dairy farms. The Veterinary Journal 180, 178–188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bicalho, RC, Vokey, F, Erb, HN, Guard, CL 2007. Visual locomotion scoring in the first seventy days in milk: impact on pregnancy and survival. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 4586–4591.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blowey, RW, Weaver, AD 2003. Locomotor disorders. Color atlas of diseases and disorders of cattle, 2nd edition, pp. 83–122. Mosby, New York, NY.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, DM 1996. Animal welfare defined in terms of attempt to cope with the environment. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 46, 22–28.Google Scholar
Broom, DM 2007. Quality of life means welfare: how is it related to other concepts and assessed? Animal Welfare 16 (Suppl.), 45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruijnis, MRN, Hogeveen, H, Stassen, EN 2010. Assessing economic consequences of foot disorders in dairy cattle using a dynamic stochastic simulation model. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 2419–2432.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clarkson, MJ, Downham, DY, Faull, WB, Hughes, JW, Manson, FJ, Merritt, JB, Murray, RD, Russell, WB, Sutherst, JE, Ward, WR 1996. Incidence and prevalence of lameness in dairy cattle. Veterinary Record 138, 563–567.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawkins, MS 1980. Animal suffering, the science of animal welfare. Chapman and Hall, New York, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, MS 2003. Behaviour as a tool in the assessment of animal welfare. Zoology 106, 383–387.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Greef, K, Stafleu, F, De Lauwere, C 2006. A simple value-distinction approach aids transparency in farm animal welfare debate. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19, 57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick, J, Scott, M, Nolan, A 2006. Assessment of pain and welfare in sheep. Small Ruminant Research 62, 55–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flower, FC, Weary, DM 2009. Gait assessment in dairy cattle. Animal 3, 87–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flower, FC, Sedlbauer, M, Carter, E, Von Keyserlingk, MAG, Sanderson, DJ, Weary, DM 2008. Analgesics improve the gait of lame dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 3010–3014.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frankena, K, Somers, JGCJ, Schouten, WGP, Van Stek, JV, Metz, JHM, Stassen, EN, Graat, EAM 2009. The effect of digital lesions and floor type on locomotion score in Dutch dairy cows. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 88, 150–157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fraser, D 1999. Animal ethics and animal welfare science: bridging the two cultures. Applied Animal Behavior Science 65, 171–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 2008. Understanding animal welfare: the science in its cultural context. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, UK.Google Scholar
Fraser, D, Weary, DM, Pajor, EA, Milligan, BN 1997. A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare 6, 187–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galindo, F, Broom, DM 2002. The effects of lameness on social and individual behavior of dairy cows. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 5, 193–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garbarino, EJ, Hernandez, JA, Shearer, JK, Risco, CA, Thatcher, WW 2004. Effect of lameness on ovarian activity in postpartum Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 4123–4131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hedges, J, Blowey, RW, Packington, AJ, O'Callaghan, CJ, Green, LE 2001. A longitudinal field trial of the effect of biotin on lameness in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 1969–1975.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holzhauer, M, Hardenberg, C, Bartels, CJM, Frankena, K 2006. Herd- and cow-level prevalence of digital dermatitis in The Netherlands and associated risk factors. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 580–588.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lischer, CJ, Dietrich-Hunkeler, A, Geyer, H, Schulze, J, Ossent, P 2001. Healing process of uncomplicated sole ulcers in dairy cows kept in tie stalls: clinical description and biochemical investigations. Schweitzer Archiv für Tierheilkunde 143, 125–133.Google Scholar
Manson, FJ, Leaver, JD 1988. The influence of concentrate amount on locomotion and clinical lameness in dairy cattle. Animal Production 47, 185–190.Google Scholar
Melendez, P, Bartolome, J, Archbald, LF, Donovan, A 2003. The association between lameness, ovarian cysts and fertility in lactating dairy cows. Theriogenology 59, 927–937.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nielsen, B, Thomsen, P, Sorensen, J 2009. A study of duration of digital dermatitis lesions after treatment in a Danish dairy herd. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 51, 27–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Callaghan, KA, Cripps, PJ, Downham, DY, Murray, RD 2003. Subjective and objective assessment of pain and discomfort due to lameness in dairy cattle. Animal Welfare 12, 605–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onyiro, OM, Offer, J, Brotherstone, S 2008. Risk factors and milk yield losses associated with lameness in Holstein-Friesian dairy cattle. Animal 2, 1230–1237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roqueplo, P 1997. Entre savoir et décisioin, l'expertise scientific. INRA editions, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Rushen, J, De Passillé, AM 2006. Effects of roughness and compressibility of flooring on cow locomotion. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 2965–2972.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Somers, JGCJ, Frankena, K, Noordhuizen-Stassen, EN, Metz, JHM 2003. Prevalence of claw disorders in Dutch dairy cows exposed to several floor systems. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 2082–2093.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vanegas, J, Overton, M, Berry, SL, Sischo, WM 2006. Effect of rubber flooring on claw health in lactating dairy cows housed in free-stall barns. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 4251–4258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Von Keyserlingk, MAG, Rushen, J, De Passillé, AM, Weary, DM 2009. Invited review: the welfare of dairy cattle – key concepts and the role of science. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 4101–4111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walker, SL, Smith, RF, Routly, JE, Jones, DN, Morris, MJ, Dobson, H 2008. Lameness, activity time-budgets, and estrus expression in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 4552–4559.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whay, HR, Waterman, AE, Webster, AJF 1997. Associations between locomotion, claw lesions and nociceptive threshold in dairy heifers during the peri-partum period. The Veterinary Journal 154, 155–161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whay, HR, Main, DCJ, Green, LE, Webster, AJF 2002. Farmer perception on lameness prevalence. Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Lameness in Ruminants, Orlando, FL, USA, pp. 355–358.Google Scholar
Whitaker, DA, Macrae, AI, Burrough, E 2004. Disposal and disease rates in British dairy herds between April 1998 and March 2002. Veterinary Record 155, 43–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winckler, C, Willen, S 2001. The reliability and repeatability of a lameness scoring system for use as an indicator of welfare in dairy cattle. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Secton A – Animal Science 51, 103–107.Google Scholar