Farm-Level Risk Factors for Lameness in 659 German Dairy Herds Kept in Loose Housing Systems
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Farm Recruitment and Data Collection
2.2. Data Management and Statistical Analyses
3. Results
3.1. Cubicle Design
3.2. Feeding Management
3.3. Claw Health Management, Lameness Assessment, Stocking Density, Floor Design
3.4. First Lactation Cows
4. Discussion
4.1. Cubicle Design
4.2. Feeding Management
4.3. Claw Health Management, Lameness Assessment, Stocking Density, Floor Design
4.4. First Lactation Cows (Lameness Assessment)
4.5. Farm-Level Lameness Prevalence
4.6. Study Design and Limitations
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Whay, H.R.; Waterman, A.E.; Webster, A.J.; O’Brien, J.K. The influence of lesion type on the duration of hyperalgesia associated with hindlimb lameness in dairy cattle. Vet. J. 1998, 156, 23–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Booth, C.J.; Warnick, L.D.; Grohn, Y.T.; Maizon, D.O.; Guard, C.L.; Janssen, D. Effect of lameness on culling in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2004, 87, 4115–4122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bruijnis, M.R.N.; Hogeveen, H.; Stassen, E.N. Assessing economic consequences of foot disorders in dairy cattle using a dynamic stochastic simulation model. J. Dairy Sci. 2010, 93, 2419–2432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Green, L.E.; Hedges, V.J.; Schukken, Y.H.; Blowey, R.W.; Packington, A.J. The impact of clinical lameness on the milk yield of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2002, 85, 2250–2256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wiedenhöft, D. Einfluss von Lahmheiten auf die Fruchtbarkeitsleistungen von Milchkühen. Ph.D. Thesis, Tierärztliche Hochschule Hannover, Hannover, Germany, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Gieseke, D.; Lambertz, C.; Gauly, M. Effects of cubicle characteristics on animal welfare indicators in dairy cattle. Animal 2020, 14, 1934–1942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tillack, A.; Merle, R.; Müller, K.-E.; Hoedemaker, M.; Jensen, K.C.; Bartel, A.; Oehm, A.W.; Klawitter, M.; Stock, A. The relationship between lameness prevalence and pasture access in 659 dairy herds in Germany. PLoS ONE 2024, 19, e0305536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Foditsch, C.; Oikonomou, G.; Machado, V.S.; Bicalho, M.L.; Ganda, E.K.; Lima, S.F.; Rossi, R.; Ribeiro, B.L.; Kussler, A.; Bicalho, R.C. Lameness Prevalence and Risk Factors in Large Dairy Farms in Upstate New York. Model Development for the Prediction of Claw Horn Disruption Lesions. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0146718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Matson, R.D.; King, M.T.M.; Duffield, T.F.; Santschi, D.E.; Orsel, K.; Pajor, E.A.; Penner, G.B.; Mutsvangwa, T.; DeVries, T.J. Farm-level factors associated with lameness prevalence, productivity, and milk quality in farms with automated milking systems. J. Dairy Sci. 2022, 105, 793–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ranjbar, S.; Rabiee, A.R.; Ingenhoff, L.; House, J.K. Farmers’ perceptions and approaches to detection, treatment and prevention of lameness in pasture-based dairy herds in New South Wales, Australia. Aust. Vet. J. 2020, 98, 264–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Vries, M.; Bokkers, E.A.; van Reenen, C.G.; Engel, B.; van Schaik, G.; Dijkstra, T.; de Boer, I.J. Housing and management factors associated with indicators of dairy cattle welfare. Prev. Vet. Med. 2015, 118, 80–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bicalho, R.C.; Vokey, F.; Erb, H.N.; Guard, C.L. Visual locomotion scoring in the first seventy days in milk: Impact on pregnancy and survival. J. Dairy Sci. 2007, 90, 4586–4591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ranjbar, S.; Rabiee, A.R.; Gunn, A.; House, J.K. Identifying risk factors associated with lameness in pasture-based dairy herds. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 7495–7505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lim, P.Y.; Huxley, J.N.; Willshire, J.A.; Green, M.J.; Othman, A.R.; Kaler, J. Unravelling the temporal association between lameness and body condition score in dairy cattle using a multistate modelling approach. Prev. Vet. Med. 2015, 118, 370–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bran, J.A.; Daros, R.R.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.G.; LeBlanc, S.J.; Hotzel, M.J. Cow- and herd-level factors associated with lameness in small-scale grazing dairy herds in Brazil. Prev. Vet. Med. 2018, 151, 79–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oehm, A.W.; Merle, R.; Tautenhahn, A.; Jensen, K.C.; Mueller, K.E.; Feist, M.; Zablotski, Y. Identifying cow—Level factors and farm characteristics associated with locomotion scores in dairy cows using cumulative link mixed models. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0263294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fjeldaas, T.; Sogstad, A.M.; Osteras, O. Claw trimming routines in relation to claw lesions, claw shape and lameness in Norwegian dairy herds housed in tie stalls and free stalls. Prev. Vet. Med. 2006, 73, 255–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sogstad, A.M.; Fjeldaas, T.; Osteras, O. Lameness and claw lesions of the Norwegian red dairy cattle housed in free stalls in relation to environment, parity and stage of lactation. Acta Vet. Scand. 2005, 46, 203–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Solano, L.; Barkema, H.W.; Pajor, E.A.; Mason, S.; LeBlanc, S.J.; Zaffino Heyerhoff, J.C.; Nash, C.G.; Haley, D.B.; Vasseur, E.; Pellerin, D.; et al. Prevalence of lameness and associated risk factors in Canadian Holstein-Friesian cows housed in freestall barns. J. Dairy Sci. 2015, 98, 6978–6991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Griffiths, B.E.; Grove White, D.; Oikonomou, G. A Cross-Sectional Study Into the Prevalence of Dairy Cattle Lameness and Associated Herd-Level Risk Factors in England and Wales. Front. Vet. Sci. 2018, 5, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Westin, R.; Vaughan, A.; de Passille, A.M.; DeVries, T.J.; Pajor, E.A.; Pellerin, D.; Siegford, J.M.; Witaifi, A.; Vasseur, E.; Rushen, J. Cow- and farm-level risk factors for lameness on dairy farms with automated milking systems. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 3732–3743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haskell, M.J.; Rennie, L.J.; Bowell, V.A.; Bell, M.J.; Lawrence, A.B. Housing system, milk production, and zero-grazing effects on lameness and leg injury in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2006, 89, 4259–4266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hultgren, J. Foot/leg and udder health in relation to housing changes in Swedish dairy herds. Prev. Vet. Med. 2002, 53, 167–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Livesey, C.T.; Harrington, T.; Johnston, A.M.; May, S.A.; Metcalf, J.A. The effect of diet and housing on the development of sole haemorrhages, white line haemorrhages and heel erosions in Holstein heifers. Anim. Sci. 1998, 67, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manson, F.J.; Leaver, J.D. The Influence of Dietary-Protein Intake and of Hoof Trimming on Lameness in Dairy-Cattle. Anim. Prod. 1988, 47, 191–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Westwood, C.T.; Bramley, E.; Lean, I.J. Review of the relationship between nutrition and lameness in pasture-fed dairy cattle. N. Z. Vet. J. 2003, 51, 208–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blowey, R. Factors associated with lameness in dairy cattle. Practice 2005, 27, 154–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oehm, A.W.; Jensen, K.C.; Tautenhahn, A.; Mueller, K.E.; Feist, M.; Merle, R. Factors Associated with Lameness in Tie Stall Housed Dairy Cows in South Germany. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020, 7, 601640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rittweg, N.; Stock, A.; Jensen, K.C.; Merle, R.; Stoll, A.; Feist, M.; Muller, K.E.; Hoedemaker, M.; Oehm, A.W. Associations of cow and farm characteristics with cow-level lameness using data from an extensive cross-sectional study across three structurally different dairy regions in Germany. J. Dairy Sci. 2023, 106, 9287–9303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- PraeRi. Animal Health, Hygiene and Biosecurity in German Dairy Cow Operations—A Prevalence Study (PraeRi). 2020. Available online: https://www.vetmed.fu-berlin.de/en/einrichtungen/vph/we16/forschung/angewandte_epidemiologie/PraeRi/index.html (accessed on 14 August 2023).
- Jensen, K.C.; Oehm, A.W.; Campe, A.; Stock, A.; Woudstra, S.; Feist, M.; Müller, K.E.; Hoedemaker, M.; Merle, R. German Farmers’ Awareness of Lameness in Their Dairy Herds. Front. Vet. Sci. 2022, 9, 866791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merle, R.; Hoedemaker, M.; Knubben-Schweizer, G.; Metzner, M.; Müller, K.-E.; Campe, A. Application of Epidemiological Methods in a Large-Scale Cross-Sectional Study in 765 German Dairy Herds—Lessons Learned. Animals 2024, 14, 1385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ashton, M.C.; Lee, K. Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2007, 11, 150–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adler, F.; Campe, A. Large-scale assessment of German dairy farmers personality and resulting ideas for improving veterinary consultancy. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0277219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sprecher, D.J.; Hostetler, D.E.; Kaneene, J.B. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology 1997, 47, 1179–1187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Landis, J.R.; Koch, G.G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977, 33, 159–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freigang, C.; Jensen, K.C.; Campe, A.; Feist, M.; Ohm, A.; Klawitter, M.; Stock, A.; Hoedemaker, M. Hock Lesions in Dairy Cows in Cubicle Housing Systems in Germany: Prevalence and Risk Factors. Animals 2023, 13, 2919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Textor, J.; van der Zander, B.; Gilthorpe, M.S.; Liskiewicz, M.; Ellison, G.T.H. Robust causal inference using directed acyclic graphs: The R package ‘dagitty’. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2016, 45, 1887–1894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tucker, C.B.; Weary, D.M. Bedding on geotextile mattresses: How much is needed to improve cow comfort? J. Dairy Sci. 2004, 87, 2889–2895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gomez, A.; Cook, N.B. Time budgets of lactating dairy cattle in commercial freestall herds. J. Dairy Sci. 2010, 93, 5772–5781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ito, K.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.; Leblanc, S.J.; Weary, D.M. Lying behavior as an indicator of lameness in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2010, 93, 3553–3560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hut, P.R.; Hostens, M.M.; Beijaard, M.J.; van Eerdenburg, F.; Hulsen, J.; Hooijer, G.A.; Stassen, E.N.; Nielen, M. Associations between body condition score, locomotion score, and sensor-based time budgets of dairy cattle during the dry period and early lactation. J. Dairy Sci. 2021, 104, 4746–4763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Espejo, L.A.; Endres, M.I.; Salfer, J.A. Prevalence of lameness in high-producing holstein cows housed in freestall barns in Minnesota. J. Dairy Sci. 2006, 89, 3052–3058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cook, N.B.; Bennett, T.B.; Nordlund, K.V. Effect of free stall surface on daily activity patterns in dairy cows with relevance to lameness prevalence. J. Dairy Sci. 2004, 87, 2912–2922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chapinal, N.; Barrientos, A.K.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.; Galo, E.; Weary, D.M. Herd-level risk factors for lameness in freestall farms in the northeastern United States and California. J. Dairy Sci. 2013, 96, 318–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Galindo, F.; Broom, D.M. The relationships between social behaviour of dairy cows and the occurrence of lameness in three herds. Res. Vet. Sci. 2000, 69, 75–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tucker, C.B.; Weary, D.M.; Rushen, J.; Passillé, A.M. Designing better environments for dairy cattle to rest. Adv. Dairy Technol. 2004, 16, 39–53. [Google Scholar]
- Tucker, C.B.; Weary, D.M.; Fraser, D. Free-stall dimensions: Effects on preference and stall usage. J. Dairy Sci. 2004, 87, 1208–1216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bergsten, C. Causes, risk factors, and prevention of laminitis and related claw lesions. Acta Vet. Scand. Suppl. 2003, 98, 157–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cook, N.B.; Nordlund, K.V.; Oetzel, G.R. Environmental influences on claw horn lesions associated with laminitis and subacute ruminal acidosis in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2004, 87, E36–E46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Espejo, L.A.; Endres, M.I. Herd-level risk factors for lameness in high-producing holstein cows housed in freestall barns. J. Dairy Sci. 2007, 90, 306–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manske, T.; Hultgren, J.; Bergsten, C. The effect of claw trimming on the hoof health of Swedish dairy cattle. Prev. Vet. Med. 2002, 54, 113–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kulualp, K.; Ozturan, Y.A.; Akin, I. Assessment of animal and management based potential risk factor relation with claw health and lameness in dairy cows: A cross-sectional study. Large Anim. Rev. 2021, 27, 323–328. [Google Scholar]
- Cutler, J.H.H.; Rushen, J.; de Passille, A.M.; Gibbons, J.; Orsel, K.; Pajor, E.; Barkema, H.W.; Solano, L.; Pellerin, D.; Haley, D.; et al. Producer estimates of prevalence and perceived importance of lameness in dairy herds with tiestalls, freestalls, and automated milking systems. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 9871–9880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bicalho, R.C.; Machado, V.S.; Caixeta, L.S. Lameness in dairy cattle: A debilitating disease or a disease of debilitated cattle? A cross-sectional study of lameness prevalence and thickness of the digital cushion. J. Dairy Sci. 2009, 92, 3175–3184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Newsome, R.F.; Green, M.J.; Bell, N.J.; Bollard, N.J.; Mason, C.S.; Whay, H.R.; Huxley, J.N. A prospective cohort study of digital cushion and corium thickness. Part 1: Associations with body condition, lesion incidence, and proximity to calving. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 4745–4758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beggs, D.S.; Jongman, E.C.; Hemsworth, P.H.; Fisher, A.D. Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring, and the position of lame cows within the milking order. J. Dairy Sci. 2019, 102, 1522–1529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Blackie, N.; Maclaurin, L. Influence of Lameness on the Lying Behaviour of Zero-Grazed Lactating Jersey Dairy Cattle Housed in Straw Yards. Animals 2019, 9, 829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mason, W. Association between age and time from calving and reported lameness in a dairy herd in the Waikato region of New Zealand. N. Z. Vet. J. 2017, 65, 163–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schranner, A. Prävalenzen von Lahmheiten bei Milchkühen in niedersächsischen Milchviehbetrieben. Ph.D. Thesis, Tierärztliche Hochschule Hannover, Hannover, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Whitaker, D.A.; Kelly, J.M.; Smith, S. Disposal and disease rates in 340 British dairy herds. Vet. Rec. 2000, 146, 363–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alban, L. Lameness in Danish Dairy-Cows—Frequency and Possible Risk-Factors. Prev. Vet. Med. 1995, 22, 213–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richert, R.M.; Cicconi, K.M.; Gamroth, M.J.; Schukken, Y.H.; Stiglbauer, K.E.; Ruegg, P.L. Perceptions and risk factors for lameness on organic and small conventional dairy farms. J. Dairy Sci. 2013, 96, 5018–5026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cook, N.B.; Hess, J.P.; Foy, M.R.; Bennett, T.B.; Brotzman, R.L. Management characteristics, lameness, and body injuries of dairy cattle housed in high-performance dairy herds in Wisconsin. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 5879–5891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Region | Small | Medium | Large |
---|---|---|---|
North | 1–64 | 65–113 | ≥114 |
East | 1–160 | 161–373 | ≥374 |
South | 1–29 | 30–52 | ≥53 |
Variable | Scale/Categories | Frequencies n (%) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
North | East | South | Total | ||
Housing/Farm Management | |||||
predominant housing system 1 | loose housing with cubicles | 210 (87.5) | 194 (78.5) | 168 (97.7) | 572 (86.8) |
pasture based | 9 (3.8) | 6 (2.4) | . | 15 (2.3) | |
straw based | 6 (2.5) | 10 (4.0) | 2 (1.2) | 18 (2.7) | |
mixed | 15 (6.3) | 37 (15.0) | 2 (1.2) | 54 (8.2) | |
farming type | conventional | 229 (95.4) | 225 (91.1) | 141 (82.0) | 595 (90.3) |
organic | 11 (4.6) | 22 (8.9) | 31 (18.0) | 64 (9.7) | |
access to pasture | no access to pasture | 53 (22.2) | 113 (46.1) | 113 (65.7) | 279 (42.5) |
only for lactating cows | 23 (9.6) | 5 (2.0) | 3 (1.7) | 31 (4.7) | |
only for dry cows | 39 (16.3) | 74 (30.2) | 13 (7.6) | 126 (19.2) | |
for all cows | 124 (51.9) | 53 (21.6) | 43 (25.0) | 220 (33.5) | |
access to exercise area 2 | no access to exercise area | 169 (70.4) | 144 (59.0) | 122 (70.9) | 435 (66.3) |
for special groups | 56 (23.3) | 84 (34.4) | 24 (14.0) | 164 (25.0) | |
for all cows | 15 (6.3) | 16 (6.6) | 26 (15.1) | 57 (8.7) | |
automated milking system (AMS) | no AMS | 109 (77.9) | 144 (82.8) | 112 (81.2) | 365 (80.8) |
AMS | 31 (22.1) | 30 (17.2) | 26 (18.8) | 87 (19.2) | |
predominant breed 3,4 | Holstein-Friesian | 195 (81.3) | 201 (81.4) | 4 (2.3) | 400 (60.7) |
Simmental | 1 (0.4) | 2 (0.8) | 120 (69.8) | 123 (18.7) | |
Swiss Brown | . | 1 (0.4) | 14 (8.1) | 15 (2.3) | |
others | 44 (18.3) | 43 (17.4) | 34 (19.8) | 121 (18.4) | |
Lameness Assessment | |||||
Method | during other activities | 231 (97.9) | 224 (92.2) | 165 (98.2) | 620 (95.8) |
separate work task | 5 (2.1) | 19 (7.8) | 3 (1.8) | 27 (4.2) | |
Frequency | daily | 217 (90.4) | 210 (85.0) | 163 (95.3) | 590 (89.7) |
less than daily or never | 23 (9.6) | 37 (15.0) | 8 (4.7) | 68 (10.3) | |
Claw Health Management | |||||
veterinary herd health management program (VHHMP) | no | 198 (82.5) | 163 (66.3) | 169 (99.4) | 530 (80.8) |
yes | 42 (17.5) | 83 (33.7) | 1 (0.6) | 126 (19.2) | |
foot bath | no | 128 (53.6) | 48 (19.4) | 164 (96.5) | 340 (51.8) |
yes | 111 (46.4) | 199 (80.6) | 6 (3.5) | 316 (48.2) | |
who performs claw trimming | farmer | 51 (21.3) | 28 (11.3) | 70 (41.4) | 149 (22.7) |
professional claw trimmer | 189 (78.8) | 219 (88.7) | 99 (58.6) | 507 (77.3) | |
claw trimming frequency | ≤1/year | 57 (24.1) | 22 (9.0) | 59 (35.8) | 138 (32.1) |
2×/year | 140 (59.1) | 131 (53.5) | 96 (59.2) | 367 (35.7) | |
≥3×/year | 40 (16.9) | 92 (37.6) | 10 (6.1) | 142 (21.9) | |
claw trimming | in herds/groups and as needed | 155 (64.6) | 191 (77.3) | 64 (37.9) | 410 (62.5) |
only in herds/groups or as needed | 85 (35.4) | 56 (22.7) | 105 (62.1) | 246 (37.5) | |
Feeding Management | |||||
feed submission 5 | <4 times per day | 231 (96.3) | 222 (89.9) | 162 (94.2) | 615 (93.3) |
≥4 times per day | 9 (3.8) | 25 (10.1) | 10 (5.8) | 44 (6.7) | |
ration type 6,7 | total mixed ration | 70 (38.9) | 189 (81.1) | 24 (17.8) | 283 (51.6) |
partial mixed ration | 46 (25.6) | 19 (8.2) | 28 (20.7) | 93 (17.0) | |
single components | 64 (35.6) | 25 (10.7) | 83 (61.5) | 172 (31.4) | |
Stocking Density | |||||
animal: stall ratio (ASR) 8,1 | >1.2 = poor | 20 (8.7) | 18 (7.5) | 18 (10.5) | 56 (8.7) |
1–1.2= moderate | 86 (37.4) | 50 (20.7) | 55 (32.0) | 191 (29.7) | |
1:1 = good | 124 (53.9) | 173 (71.8) | 99 (57.6) | 396 (61.6) | |
Cubicle Design | |||||
predominant cubicle type 9 | raised cubicle | 90 (46.9) | 132 (59.2) | 52 (35.4) | 274 (48.8) |
deep cubicle | 46 (24.0) | 27 (12.1) | 72 (49.0) | 145 (25.8) | |
raised deep cubicle | 25 (13.0) | 49 (22.0) | 4 (2.7) | 78 (13.9) | |
others | 31 (16.1) | 15 (6.7) | 19 (12.9) | 65 (11.6) | |
cubicle type + bedding | raised cubicle without bedding | 42 (22.6) | 60 (26.9) | 46 (30.9) | 148 (26.5) |
raised cubicle with bedding | 41 (22.0) | 67 (30.0) | 18 (12.1) | 126 (22.6) | |
deep cubicle | 103 (55.4) | 96 (43.0) | 85 (57.0) | 284 (50.9) | |
cubicle bedding 6 | yes | 154 (78.6) | 165 (73.7) | 107 (69.9) | 426 (74.3) |
no | 42 (21.4) | 59 (26.3) | 46 (30.1) | 147 (25.7) | |
Floor | |||||
predominant flooring type 6 | predominant solid/concrete floors | 20 (9.0) | 111 (48.9) | 44 (26.0) | 175 (28.4) |
predominant slatted floors | 170 (76.9) | 66 (29.1) | 104 (61.5) | 340 (55.1) | |
various floors | 31 (14.0) | 50 (22.0) | 21 (12.4) | 102 (16.5) | |
rubber flooring 6 | yes | 25 (11.3) | 73 (32.3) | 44 (26.0) | 142 (23.1) |
no | 196 (88.7) | 153 (67.7) | 125 (74.0) | 474 (76.9) | |
manure removing system 6 | manure scraper | 41 (22.8) | 103 (47.7) | 50 (32.7) | 194 (35.3) |
robot | 24 (13.3) | 10 (4.6) | 11 (7.2) | 45 (8.2) | |
person | 70 (38.9) | 83 (38.4) | 60 (39.2) | 213 (38.8) | |
no removing system | 45 (25.0) | 20 (9.3) | 32 (20.9) | 97 (17.7) | |
floor contamination 6 | clean or single cow pats | 40 (18.3) | 51 (22.5) | 29 (17.3) | 120 (19.6) |
<50% contaminated | 108 (49.5) | 109 (48.0) | 77 (45.8) | 294 (48.0) | |
>50% contaminated or entirely covered with faeces | 70 (32.1) | 67 (29.5) | 62 (36.9) | 199 (32.5) | |
slip resistance on concrete floors 6 | little resistance | 40 (18.1) | 63 (27.8) | 19 (11.3) | 122 (19.8) |
moderate resistance | 100 (45.2) | 111 (48.9) | 77 (45.8) | 288 (46.8) | |
much resistance | 81 (36.7) | 53 (23.3) | 72 (42.9) | 206 (33.4) |
Region | N | Mean | Min | 0.25 | Median | 0.75 | Max |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Housing/Farm Management | |||||||
herd size | |||||||
North | 240 | 106.65 | 10 | 61 | 90 | 129 | 991 |
East | 247 | 350.47 | 1 | 136 | 251 | 449 | 2821 |
South | 172 | 53.58 | 7 | 34 | 51 | 65 | 231 |
proportion of first lactation cows in % | |||||||
North | 231 | 29.31 | 6.25 | 24.05 | 29.70 | 33.78 | 57.69 |
East | 244 | 29.76 | 9.68 | 25.89 | 29.84 | 33.33 | 66.60 |
South | 160 | 28.77 | 5.88 | 24.77 | 28.90 | 33.63 | 53.48 |
culling rate due to lameness in % (log10) | |||||||
North | 236 | 0.52 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.58 | 0.83 | 1.45 |
East | 231 | 0.60 | 0.00 | 0.35 | 0.64 | 0.89 | 1.50 |
South | 171 | 0.29 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.64 | 1.34 |
Extraversion of the farmer 1 | |||||||
North | 173 | 3.79 | 2.0 | 3.5 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 |
East | 167 | 3.73 | 2.0 | 3.5 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 |
South | 146 | 3.80 | 2.0 | 3.5 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 |
Openness of the farmer 1 | |||||||
North | 173 | 3.46 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 3.5 | 4.0 | 5.0 |
East | 167 | 3.52 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 3.5 | 4.0 | 5.0 |
South | 146 | 3.42 | 1.5 | 3.0 | 3.5 | 4.0 | 5.0 |
Feeding Management | |||||||
roughage ratio in % dry matter | |||||||
North | 156 | 64.87 | 38.39 | 56.33 | 64.36 | 72.88 | 93.17 |
East | 199 | 70.21 | 26.19 | 63.09 | 70.61 | 77.35 | 99.38 |
South | 64 | 68.52 | 49.79 | 61.03 | 69.03 | 74.50 | 96.17 |
Stocking Density | |||||||
max. animals per compartment (log) | |||||||
North | 240 | 1.85 | 1.08 | 1.72 | 1.85 | 2.00 | 2.42 |
East | 246 | 1.93 | 0.30 | 1.72 | 1.96 | 2.11 | 2.62 |
South | 172 | 1.63 | 0.85 | 1.51 | 1.66 | 1.76 | 2.24 |
animal: feeding place ratio (AFR) 2 | |||||||
North | 231 | 1.18 | 0.25 | 0.96 | 1.10 | 1.36 | 3.07 |
East | 241 | 1.31 | 0.51 | 1.03 | 1.26 | 1.51 | 7.50 |
South | 172 | 1.06 | 0.57 | 0.92 | 1.00 | 1.18 | 2.26 |
Cubicle Design | |||||||
cubicle width 1 in cm | |||||||
North | 222 | 112.14 | 99 | 110 | 113 | 115 | 121 |
East | 227 | 112.45 | 101 | 110 | 113 | 114 | 139 |
South | 169 | 115.61 | 101 | 113 | 116 | 119 | 126 |
neck rail to curb distance 1 in cm | |||||||
North | 222 | 197.49 | 176 | 191 | 198 | 204 | 222 |
East | 227 | 195.30 | 168 | 189 | 195 | 200 | 238 |
South | 169 | 194.55 | 170 | 189 | 194 | 200 | 221 |
brisket board height 1 in cm | |||||||
North | 223 | 12.91 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 19 | 41 |
East | 228 | 9.85 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 19 | 37 |
South | 169 | 12.03 | 0 | 6 | 12 | 18 | 40 |
curb height 1 in cm | |||||||
North | 222 | 23.24 | 6 | 21 | 23 | 25 | 39 |
East | 227 | 22.97 | 8 | 20 | 23 | 26 | 43 |
South | 168 | 20.91 | 4 | 18 | 21 | 23 | 35 |
Not Adjusted Univariable Analysis | Adjusted Model | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Risk Factor | Crude Estimate | OR | p-Value | Adjusted Estimate | SE | p-Value | IRR | 95% CI | ||
Cubicle Design | ||||||||||
predominant cubicle type 1 | 0.000 | 0.000 | ||||||||
deep cubicle | Reference | Reference | ||||||||
raised cubicle | 0.36 | 1.43 | 0.000 | 0.25 | 0.0463 | 0.000 | 1.29 | 1.17 | 13.01 | |
raised deep cubicle | 0.21 | 1.23 | 0.001 | 0.04 | 0.0617 | 0.465 | 1.04 | 0.92 | 8.21 | |
others | 0.19 | 1.21 | 0.007 | 0.20 | 0.0656 | 0.002 | 1.22 | 1.07 | 11.68 | |
cubicle 2 | 0.000 | 0.000 | ||||||||
raised cubicle with bedding | Reference | Reference | ||||||||
raised cubicle without bedding | 0.09 | 1.09 | 0.134 | 0.14 | 0.0505 | 0.006 | 1.14 | 1.04 | 9.92 | |
deep cubicle | −0.23 | 0.80 | 0.000 | −0.17 | 0.0450 | 0.000 | 0.85 | 0.77 | 5.50 | |
cubicle bedding 1 | ||||||||||
yes | Reference | . | Reference | . | ||||||
no | 0.24 | 1.27 | 0.000 | 0.15 | 0.0470 | 0.002 | 1.16 | 1.05 | 10.11 | |
cubicle width in cm 3 | −0.02 | 0.98 | 0.000 | −0.02 | 0.0045 | 0.000 | 0.98 | 0.97 | 6.90 | |
neck rail to curb distance in cm 4 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.249 | 0.00 | 0.0020 | 0.751 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 7.12 | |
brisket board height in cm 5 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.047 | 0.00 | 0.0018 | 0.415 | 1.00 | 0.99 | 7.09 | |
curb height in cm 6 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.422 | 0.00 | 0.0038 | 0.924 | 1.00 | 0.99 | 7.13 | |
Feeding Management | ||||||||||
feed submission 7,8 | ||||||||||
≥4 times per day | Reference | Reference | ||||||||
<4 times per day | −0.10 | 0.90 | 0.193 | −0.01 | 0.0770 | 0.858 | 0.99 | 0.85 | 7.48 | |
ration type 7,9 | 0.000 | 0.079 | ||||||||
upgraded mixed ration | Reference | Reference | . | . | . | . | ||||
total mixed ration | 0.15 | 1.16 | 0.011 | −0.13 | 0.0566 | 0.025 | 0.88 | 0.79 | 5.94 | |
single components | −0.24 | 0.79 | 0.001 | −0.06 | 0.0615 | 0.307 | 0.94 | 0.84 | 6.76 | |
roughage ratio in % dry matter 7,10 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.294 | 0.00 | 0.0019 | 0.412 | 1.00 | 0.99 | 7.09 | |
Claw Health Management | ||||||||||
who performs claw trimming 7,11 | ||||||||||
professional claw trimmer | Reference | Reference | . | . | . | . | ||||
farmer | −0.18 | 0.83 | 0.000 | −0.10 | 0.0538 | 0.063 | 0.91 | 0.82 | 6.26 | |
claw trimming frequency 7,12 | 0.000 | 0.417 | ||||||||
2×/year | Reference | Reference | ||||||||
≥3×/year | 0.18 | 1.20 | 0.000 | 0.00 | 0.0543 | 0.976 | 1.00 | 0.90 | 7.52 | |
≤1/year | −0.31 | 0.73 | 0.000 | −0.08 | 0.0629 | 0.190 | 0.92 | 0.81 | 6.45 | |
foot bath 7,13 | ||||||||||
yes | Reference | Reference | ||||||||
no | −0.35 | 0.70 | 0.000 | −0.07 | 0.0477 | 0.166 | 0.94 | 0.85 | 6.56 | |
Lameness Assessment | ||||||||||
method 7,14 | ||||||||||
seperate work task | Reference | Reference | ||||||||
during other activities | −0.30 | 0.74 | 0.003 | −0.17 | 0.1078 | 0.106 | 0.84 | 0.68 | 5.78 | |
frequency 7,15 | ||||||||||
less than daily or never | Reference | Reference | ||||||||
daily | −0.26 | 0.77 | 0.000 | −0.11 | 0.0681 | 0.103 | 0.89 | 0.78 | 6.18 | |
Stocking Density | ||||||||||
max. animals per compartement 7,16 | 0.69 | 2.00 | 0.000 | 0.07 | 0.0990 | 0.452 | 1.08 | 0.89 | 9.12 | |
ASR7 17 | 0.003 | 0.061 | ||||||||
good | Reference | Reference | ||||||||
moderate | −0.15 | 0.86 | 0.001 | −0.08 | 0.0417 | 0.072 | 0.93 | 0.85 | 6.42 | |
poor | 0.02 | 1.02 | 0.794 | 0.07 | 0.0682 | 0.312 | 1.07 | 0.94 | 8.74 | |
AFR 7,18 | 0.14 | 1.15 | 0.007 | −0.02 | 0.0468 | 0.676 | 0.98 | 0.89 | 7.16 | |
Floor Design | ||||||||||
predominant flooring type 7,19 | 0.001 | 0.235 | ||||||||
predominant solid/concrete floors | Reference | Reference | . | . | . | . | ||||
predominant slatted floors | −0.16 | 0.85 | 0.000 | 0.08 | 0.0458 | 0.089 | 1.08 | 0.99 | 8.71 | |
various floors | −0.03 | 0.97 | 0.645 | 0.04 | 0.0549 | 0.471 | 1.04 | 0.93 | 8.12 | |
rubber flooring 7,20 | ||||||||||
yes | Reference | Reference | ||||||||
no | −0.04 | 0.96 | 0.443 | 0.05 | 0.0441 | 0.226 | 1.05 | 0.97 | 8.26 | |
manure removing system 7,21 | 0.009 | 0.344 | ||||||||
manure scraper | Reference | Reference | ||||||||
robot | −0.08 | 0.93 | 0.345 | 0.02 | 0.0878 | 0.796 | 1.02 | 0.86 | 8.11 | |
person | −0.07 | 0.93 | 0.135 | −0.03 | 0.0573 | 0.612 | 0.97 | 0.87 | 7.11 | |
no removing system | −0.21 | 0.81 | 0.001 | −0.10 | 0.0733 | 0.157 | 0.90 | 0.78 | 6.30 |
Not Adjusted Univariable Analysis | Adjusted Model | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Risk Factor | Crude Estimate | OR | p-Value | Adjusted Estimate | SE | p-Value | IRR | 95% CI | ||
Cubicle Design | ||||||||||
predominant cubicle type 1 | 0.000 | 0.000 | ||||||||
deep cubicle | Reference | Reference | ||||||||
raised cubicle | 0.37 | 1.45 | 0.000 | 0.30 | 0.07 | 0.000 | 1.35 | 1.17 | 15.00 | |
raised deep cubicle | 0.11 | 1.11 | 0.224 | 0.01 | 0.09 | 0.932 | 1.01 | 0.84 | 7.89 | |
others | 0.27 | 1.31 | 0.007 | 0.27 | 0.10 | 0.006 | 1.31 | 1.08 | 14.49 | |
Cubicle 2 | 0.000 | 0.000 | ||||||||
raised cubicle with bedding | Reference | Reference | ||||||||
raised cubicle without bedding | 0.18 | 1.20 | 0.012 | 0.22 | 0.07 | 0.002 | 1.25 | 1.09 | 12.45 | |
deep cubicle | −0.22 | 0.81 | 0.001 | −0.18 | 0.07 | 0.005 | 0.83 | 0.73 | 5.46 | |
cubicle bedding 1 | ||||||||||
yes | Reference | Reference | ||||||||
no | 0.33 | 1.40 | 0.000 | 0.22 | 0.07 | 0.001 | 1.24 | 1.09 | 12.23 | |
cubicle width in cm 3 | −0.03 | 0.97 | 0.000 | −0.02 | 0.01 | 0.001 | 0.98 | 0.96 | 6.83 | |
neck rail to curb distance in cm 4 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.768 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.682 | 1.00 | 0.99 | 7.10 | |
brisket board height in cm 5 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.172 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.600 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 7.14 | |
curb height in cm 6 | −0.01 | 0.99 | 0.128 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.767 | 1.00 | 0.99 | 7.12 | |
Feeding Management | ||||||||||
feed submission 7,8 | ||||||||||
≥4 times per day | Reference | Reference | ||||||||
<4 times per day | −0.19 | 0.82 | 0.054 | −0.10 | 0.11 | 0.365 | 0.91 | 0.73 | 6.59 | |
ration type 7,9 | 0.008 | 0.055 | ||||||||
upgraded mixed ration | Reference | Reference | ||||||||
total mixed ration | 0.05 | 1.05 | 0.543 | −0.19 | 0.09 | 0.024 | 0.82 | 0.70 | 5.48 | |
single components | −0.18 | 0.83 | 0.056 | −0.04 | 0.10 | 0.649 | 0.96 | 0.79 | 7.19 | |
roughage ratio in % dry matter 7,10 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.893 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.254 | 1.00 | 0.99 | 7.07 | |
Claw Health Management | ||||||||||
who performs claw trimming 7,11 | ||||||||||
professional claw trimmer | Reference | Reference | ||||||||
farmer | −0.16 | 0.85 | 0.025 | −0.12 | 0.09 | 0.168 | 0.89 | 0.75 | 6.21 | |
claw trimming frequency 7,12 | 0.000 | 0.437 | ||||||||
2×/year | Reference | Reference | ||||||||
≥3×/year | 0.16 | 1.18 | 0.009 | −0.01 | 0.08 | 0.871 | 0.99 | 0.84 | 7.47 | |
≤1/year | −0.22 | 0.80 | 0.005 | −0.13 | 0.11 | 0.199 | 0.88 | 0.71 | 6.23 | |
foot bath 7,13 | ||||||||||
yes | Reference | . | Reference | |||||||
no | −0.25 | 0.78 | 0.000 | −0.03 | 0.07 | 0.637 | 0.97 | 0.84 | 7.15 | |
Lameness Assessment | ||||||||||
method 7,14 | ||||||||||
seperate work task | Reference | Reference | ||||||||
during other activities | −0.40 | 0.67 | 0.001 | −0.38 | 0.14 | 0.008 | 0.68 | 0.52 | 4.41 | |
frequency 7,15 | ||||||||||
less than daily or never | Reference | Reference | ||||||||
daily | −0.34 | 0.71 | 0.000 | −0.21 | 0.90 | 0.022 | 0.81 | 0.14 | 12.12 | |
Stocking Density | ||||||||||
max. animals per compartement 7,16 | 0.53 | 1.71 | 0.000 | 0.12 | 0.15 | 0.422 | 1.13 | 0.84 | 10.50 | |
ASR7 17 | 0.111 | 0.401 | ||||||||
good | Reference | Reference | ||||||||
moderate | −0.12 | 0.89 | 0.043 | −0.05 | 0.06 | 0.486 | 0.95 | 0.84 | 6.92 | |
poor | 0.02 | 1.02 | 0.841 | 0.09 | 0.10 | 0.357 | 1.10 | 0.90 | 9.49 | |
AFR 7,18 | 0.08 | 1.08 | 0.219 | −0.01 | 0.06 | 0.837 | 0.99 | 0.87 | 7.38 | |
Floor Design | ||||||||||
predominant flooring type 7,19 | 0.047 | 0.669 | ||||||||
predominant solid/concrete floors | Reference | Reference | ||||||||
predominant slatted floors | −0.13 | 0.88 | 0.029 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.447 | 1.05 | 0.92 | 8.45 | |
various floors | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.981 | 0.05 | 0.08 | 0.500 | 1.05 | 0.91 | 8.51 | |
rubber flooring 7,20 | ||||||||||
yes | Reference | Reference | ||||||||
no | 0.02 | 1.02 | 0.804 | 0.02 | 0.06 | 0.804 | 1.02 | 0.90 | 7.80 | |
manure removing system 7,21 | 0.029 | 0.206 | ||||||||
manure scraper | Reference | Reference | ||||||||
robot | −0.02 | 0.98 | 0.871 | 0.09 | 0.13 | 0.482 | 1.09 | 0.85 | 9.72 | |
person | −0.02 | 0.98 | 0.777 | 0.03 | 0.08 | 0.675 | 1.03 | 0.88 | 8.24 | |
no removing system | −0.24 | 0.78 | 0.004 | −0.13 | 0.11 | 0.238 | 0.88 | 0.71 | 6.26 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Tillack, A.; Merle, R.; Müller, K.-E.; Hoedemaker, M.; Jensen, K.C.; Oehm, A.W.; Klawitter, M.; Stock, A. Farm-Level Risk Factors for Lameness in 659 German Dairy Herds Kept in Loose Housing Systems. Animals 2024, 14, 2578. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14172578
Tillack A, Merle R, Müller K-E, Hoedemaker M, Jensen KC, Oehm AW, Klawitter M, Stock A. Farm-Level Risk Factors for Lameness in 659 German Dairy Herds Kept in Loose Housing Systems. Animals. 2024; 14(17):2578. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14172578
Chicago/Turabian StyleTillack, Anna, Roswitha Merle, Kerstin-Elisabeth Müller, Martina Hoedemaker, Katharina Charlotte Jensen, Andreas W. Oehm, Marcus Klawitter, and Annegret Stock. 2024. "Farm-Level Risk Factors for Lameness in 659 German Dairy Herds Kept in Loose Housing Systems" Animals 14, no. 17: 2578. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14172578