| Literature DB >> 30103790 |
Lisa Ekman1,2, Ann-Kristin Nyman3, Håkan Landin3, Karin Persson Waller4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hock lesions (HL) in dairy cows are a common animal welfare problem in modern dairy production with freestall housing systems, but there are no large-scale studies addressing its epidemiology in Sweden. The aims of this cross-sectional study were to investigate the prevalence of HL of different severity in 100 Swedish freestall dairy herds, and to identify cow- and herd-related risk factors. Associations between HL and mastitis as well as culling were also investigated.Entities:
Keywords: Dairy cow; Epidemiology; Hock damage; Injury; Pressure ulcer; Skin lesion; Sweden
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30103790 PMCID: PMC6090646 DOI: 10.1186/s13028-018-0401-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Vet Scand ISSN: 0044-605X Impact factor: 1.695
Herd-related variables analyzed for associations with hock lesions (HL) in 99 Swedish dairy herds
| Group of variables | Number of variables | Examples of variables |
|---|---|---|
| General herd factors | 4 | Herd size (cows/year), production system, milk production, slaughter weights |
| Housing-related factors | 17 | Cubicle dimensions, year of cubicle installation, cubicle base, bedding material, stocking ratio (cows/cubicle) |
| Management -related factors | 18 | Pasture period, cubicle and alley cleaning, hoof trimming, milking, and feeding routines |
| Herd health-related factors | 27 | Presence of ectoparasites and digital dermatitis, calf and cow mortalitya, incidence rate of cullings and veterinary-treated diseasesa, fertility traitsa |
aBased on “Welfare signals”—herd performance indicators from the Swedish Official Milk Recording Scheme (Växa Sverige, Stockholm) based on the 12 months preceding the herd visit
Fig. 1Prevalence (%) of mild (light grey) and severe (dark grey) hock lesions (HL) in 99 Swedish dairy herds sorted from highest to lowest HL prevalence (n = 3217 cows)
Cow- and herd-related variables associated with mild hock lesions (HL) in four multivariable mixed-effect logistic regression sub-models
| Sub-model/variable | β | SE | OR | CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sub-model 1: cow-related factors (n = 2685) | |||||
|
| |||||
| Swedish Holstein (SH) | Ref | ||||
| Swedish Red (SR) | − 0.34 | 0.12 | 0.71 | 0.56–0.90 | 0.005 |
| SH × SR | − 0.28 | 0.19 | 0.75 | 0.52–1.09 | 0.136 |
| 0–90 | Ref | ||||
| 91–180 | 0.27 | 0.12 | 1.31 | 1.04–1.65 | 0.022 |
| 180–305 | 0.62 | 0.12 | 1.87 | 1.46–2.38 | < 0.001 |
| > 305 | 0.24 | 0.16 | 1.28 | 0.93–1.74 | 0.127 |
| Sub-model 2: general herd and housing-related factors (n = 2545 cows) | |||||
|
| |||||
| Rubber mats | Ref | ||||
| Mattress | − 0.43 | 0.15 | 0.65 | 0.48–0.87 | 0.004 |
|
| |||||
| Conventional | Ref | ||||
| Organic | − 0.47 | 0.19 | 0.62 | 0.43–0.91 | 0.014 |
| Sub-model 3: management-related factors (n = 2685 cows) | |||||
|
| |||||
| No | Ref | ||||
| Yes | 0.40 | 0.20 | 1.50 | 1.01–2.21 | 0.042 |
|
| |||||
| Automatic feeding stations for individual concentrate rations | Ref | ||||
| Total mixed rations (TMR) | − 0.54 | 0.23 | 0.58 | 0.37–0.90 | 0.016 |
| Combination of TMR and individual concentration rations | − 0.11 | 0.17 | 0.90 | 0.64–1.26 | 0.535 |
|
| |||||
| Herringbone | Ref | ||||
| Tandem | − 0.47 | 0.15 | 0.62 | 0.46–0.84 | 0.002 |
| Sub-model 4: herd health-related factors (n = 2587 cows) | |||||
| 0–16 | Ref | ||||
| ≥ 17 | − 0.45 | 0.14 | 0.64 | 0.48–0.85 | 0.002 |
β regression coefficients, OR odds ratio, CI 95% confidence interval, Ref reference level
aBased on data from the Swedish Official Milk Recording Scheme for the 12 months preceding the herd visit
Cow- and herd-related factors associated with mild hock lesions (HL) in the final multivariable mixed-effect logistic regression model including 2447 cows in 79 Swedish dairy herds
| Variables and categories | β | SE | OR | CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | − 0.18 | 0.33 | 0.579 | ||
|
| |||||
| Swedish Holstein (SH) | Ref | ||||
| Swedish Red (SR) | − 0.29 | 0.12 | 0.74 | 0.59–0.94 | 0.012 |
| SH × SR | − 0.24 | 0.20 | 0.78 | 0.53–1.15 | 0.215 |
|
| |||||
| 0–90 | Ref | ||||
| 91–180 | 0.30 | 0.12 | 1.35 | 1.05–1.72 | 0.017 |
| 181–305 | 0.72 | 0.13 | 2.06 | 1.59–2.66 | < 0.001 |
| > 305 | 0.30 | 0.17 | 1.35 | 0.97–1.88 | 0.074 |
|
| |||||
| Peat | Ref | ||||
| Sawdust | 0.87 | 0.28 | 2.39 | 1.38–4.12 | 0.002 |
| Straw | 0.63 | 0.30 | 1.88 | 1.04–3.40 | 0.035 |
| Combination | 0.95 | 0.37 | 2.60 | 1.25–5.39 | 0.011 |
|
| |||||
| Rubber mat | Ref | ||||
| Mattress | − 0.42 | 0.13 | 0.66 | 0.51–0.84 | 0.001 |
| 0–16 | Ref | ||||
| ≥ 17 | − 0.49 | 0.13 | 0.61 | 0.48–0.79 | < 0.001 |
|
| |||||
| Herringbone | Ref | ||||
| Tandem | − 0.28 | 0.13 | 0.75 | 0.59–0.97 | 0.027 |
β regression coefficients, OR odds ratio, CI 95% confidence interval, Ref reference level
aBased on data from herd performance indicators from the Swedish Official Milk Recording Scheme
Cow- and herd-related variables associated with severe hock lesions (HL) in four multivariable mixed-effect logistic regression sub-models
| Sub-model/variable | β | SE | OR | CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sub-model 1: cow-level factors (n = 936) | |||||
|
| |||||
| Swedish Holstein (SH) | Ref | ||||
| Swedish Red (SR) | − 0.76 | 0.24 | 0.47 | 0.29–0.75 | 0.002 |
| SH × SR | − 0.49 | 0.34 | 0.61 | 0.31–1.19 | 0.149 |
| 0–90 | Ref | ||||
| 91–180 | 0.53 | 0.25 | 1.31 | 1.05–2.76 | 0.031 |
| 180–305 | 0.88 | 0.24 | 1.87 | 1.49–3.88 | < 0.001 |
| > 305 | 0.11 | 0.34 | 1.11 | 0.58–2.15 | 0.745 |
|
| |||||
| First parity | Ref | ||||
| Second parity | − 0.24 | 0.25 | 0.79 | 0.49–1.28 | 0.34 |
| Third or higher parity | 0.68 | 0.22 | 1.96 | 1.29–3.0 | 0.002 |
| No | Ref | ||||
| Yes | 0.75 | 0.29 | 2.11 | 1.19–3.74 | 0.011 |
| Hoof trimming records not available | 0.24 | 0.29 | 1.28 | 0.72–2.27 | 0.408 |
| Sub-model 2: general herd and housing-related factors (n = 880 cows) | |||||
|
| |||||
| < 9800 | Ref | ||||
| ≥ 9800 | 0.51 | 0.24 | 1.66 | 1.04–2.65 | 0.032 |
|
| |||||
| Below recommendation | Ref | ||||
| As recommended | − 0.80 | 0.24 | 0.45 | 0.28–0.73 | 0.001 |
|
| |||||
| Conventional | Ref | ||||
| Organic | − 1.07 | 0.33 | 0.34 | 0.18–0.66 | 0.001 |
| Sub-model 3: management-related factors (n = 936 cows) | |||||
|
| |||||
| Herringbone | Ref | ||||
| Tandem | − 0.84 | 0.27 | 0.43 | 0.25–0.74 | 0.002 |
| Sub-model 4: herd health-related factors (n = 897 cows) | |||||
| 0–16 | Ref | ||||
| ≥ 17 | − 0.59 | 0.25 | 0.55 | 0.34–0.91 | 0.02 |
|
| |||||
| No | Ref | ||||
| Yes | 0.73 | 0.25 | 2.01 | 1.26–3.43 | 0.004 |
β regression coefficients, OR odds ratio, CI 95% confidence interval, Ref reference level
aBased on data from the Swedish Official Milk Recording Scheme for the 12 months preceding the herd visit
Cow- and herd-related factors associated with severe hock lesions (HL) in the final multivariable logistic regression model including 919 cows from 88 Swedish dairy herds
| Variables and categories | β | SE | OR | CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | − 0.96 | 0.37 | 0.011 | ||
|
| |||||
| Swedish Holstein (SH) | Ref | ||||
| Swedish Red (SR) | − 0.52 | 0.19 | 0.60 | 0.41–0.87 | 0.008 |
| SH × SR | − 0.16 | 0.31 | 0.78 | 0.46–1.55 | 0.596 |
|
| |||||
| 0–90 | Ref | ||||
| 91–180 | 0.46 | 0.23 | 1.59 | 1.01–2.51 | 0.047 |
| 181–305 | 0.91 | 0.23 | 2.47 | 1.57–3.91 | < 0.001 |
| > 305 | 0.11 | 0.31 | 1.12 | 0.60–2.07 | 0.723 |
|
| |||||
| 1–2 | Ref | ||||
| 3 | − 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.84 | 0.56–1.26 | 0.404 |
| 4 | − 0.86 | 0.32 | 0.42 | 0.23–0.79 | 0.007 |
|
| |||||
| First parity | Ref | ||||
| Second parity | − 0.11 | 0.23 | 0.90 | 0.57–1.42 | 0.638 |
| Third or higher parity | 0.77 | 0.21 | 2.16 | 1.45–3.23 | < 0.001 |
|
| |||||
| Below recommendation | Ref | ||||
| As recommended | − 1.03 | 0.19 | 0.36 | 0.24–0.52 | < 0.001 |
|
| |||||
| Conventional | Ref | ||||
| Organic | − 1.54 | 0.27 | 0.21 | 0.13–0.36 | < 0.001 |
|
| |||||
| Spray | Ref | ||||
| Dip | − 0.75 | 0.30 | 0.47 | 0.26–0.85 | 0.012 |
| None | − 1.15 | 0.52 | 0.32 | 0.12–0.87 | 0.026 |
|
| |||||
| Herringbone | Ref | ||||
| Tandem | − 0.76 | 0.20 | 0.47 | 0.31–0.69 | < 0.001 |
β regression coefficients, OR odds ratio, CI 95% confidence interval, Ref reference level
aHygiene score 1–4: (1) completely clean, (2) manure stains on hind limb and/or udder (1 and 2 merged due to few observations in category 1), (3) one to two areas of manure patches of at least 10 cm in diameter, and (4) more than 2 areas of manure patches as described for score 3