Journal Articles

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/7915

Browse

Filters

2022 - 20245

Settings

Author: search.filters.author.Laven RASubject: search.filters.subject.Lactation

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Investigating the effect of prophylactic claw trimming on the interval between calving and first observed elevated locomotion score in pasture-based dairy cows.
    (Taylor and Francis Group, 2023-11-01) Werema CW; Hoekstra F; Laven LJ; Müller KR; Gifford D; Laven RA
    AIMS: To evaluate, in a pasture-based dairy herd, the response to a three-time point hoof trimming regime on lameness incidence and time from calving to observation of an elevated locomotion score (LS). METHODS: This study was conducted on a 940-cow spring-calving herd in New Zealand's North Island between May 2018 and May 2019. Cows (n = 250) were randomly allocated to the hoof trimming group, with the remainder assigned to the non-trim cohort. One trained professional hoof trimmer used the five-step Dutch method to trim the hind feet of the trimming group. Throughout the subsequent production season, the whole herd was locomotion-scored fortnightly using the 4-point (0-3) Dairy NZ lameness score. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to assess the univariable effect of trimming on the interval between calving and first LS of ≥ 2 and first LS ≥ 1. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to further evaluate the effect of trimming on time to elevated LS. RESULTS: Mean lameness (LS ≥ 2) prevalence was 2.6%, with 30% of cows having ≥ 4 observations during the study period when at least one LS was ≥ 2. For LS ≥ 1, mean prevalence was 40%, with 98.6% of cows having ≥ 4 observations during the study period when at least one LS was ≥ 1 during lactation. Hoof trimming had no apparent effect on the incidence of clinical lameness (LS ≥ 2) (trimmed vs. non-trimmed: 33.2% vs. 28.8%, respectively), but for LS ≥ 1, there was a small decrease in the incidence of LS ≥ 1 (trimmed vs. non-trimmed: 96.9% vs. 99.3%, respectively). The hazard of a cow having a first observed LS ≥ 2 in the control group was 0.87 (95% CI = 0.66-1.14) times that of the trimmed group; however, the hazard of a cow having a first LS ≥ 1 was 1.60 (95% CI = 1.37-1.88) times higher in the control than in the trimmed group. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: On this farm, prophylactic hoof trimming had no clinically relevant impact on the incidence of clinical lameness and was not associated with clinically beneficial reductions in time to first observed LS ≥ 2. This may be because claw horn imbalance was not pronounced on this farm, with 53% of cows needing no trim on either hind limb on the first trimming occasion. Further research on the response to prophylactic trimming in pasture-based dairy cattle is required.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The prevalence of damaged tails in New Zealand dairy cattle.
    (Taylor and Francis Group, 2024-03-11) Cuttance EL; Mason WA; Hea SY; Bryan MA; Laven RA
    AIMS: To undertake a survey of the prevalence of tail deviations, trauma and shortening on a representative selection of New Zealand dairy farms, and to assess whether sampling based on milking order could be used instead of random sampling across the herd to estimate prevalence. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional observational study, with 200 randomly selected farms enrolled across nine regions of New Zealand via selected veterinary practices (one/region). Veterinary clinics enrolled 20-25 farms each depending on region, with 1-2 trained technicians scoring per region. All cows (n = 92,348) present at a milking or pregnancy testing event were tail scored using a modified version of the New Zealand Veterinary Association Industry Scoring System. Palpated lesions were recorded as deviated (i.e. non-linear deformity), shortened (tail shorter than normal) or traumatic (all other lesions). The location of lesions was defined by dividing the tail into three equal zones: upper, middle and lower. A cow could have more than one lesion type and location, and/or multiple lesions of the same type, but for the prevalence calculation, only the presence or absence of a particular lesion was assessed. Prevalence of tail damage calculated using whole herd scoring was compared to random sampling across the herd and sampling from the front and back of the milking order. Bootstrap sampling with replacement was used to generate the sampling distributions across seven sample sizes ranging from 40-435 cows. RESULTS: When scoring all cows, the median prevalence for deviation was 9.5 (min 0.9, max 40.3)%; trauma 0.9 (min 0, max 10.7)%, and shortening was 4.5 (min 1.3, max 10.8)%. Deviation and trauma prevalence varied between regions; the median prevalence of deviations ranged from 6% in the West Coast to 13% in Waikato, and the median prevalence of all tail damage from 7% in the West Coast to 29% in Southland. Sampling based on milking order was less precise than random sampling across the herd. With the latter and using 157 cows, 95% of prevalence estimates were within 5% of the whole herd estimate, but sampling based on milking order needed > 300 cows to achieve the same precision. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The proportion of cows identified as having damaged tails was consistent with recent reports from New Zealand and Ireland, but at 11.5%, the proportion of cows with trauma or deviation is below acceptable standards. An industry-wide programme is needed to reduce the proportion of affected cows.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Can lameness prevalence in dairy herds be predicted from farmers' reports of their motivation to control lameness and barriers to doing so? An observational study from New Zealand.
    (Elsevier B.V., 2024-04-01) Mason WA; Laven LJ; Huxley JN; Laven RA
    Understanding what motivates and prevents behavioral change in farmers is a critical step in disease control in dairy cattle. A total of 101 New Zealand dairy farmers across 8 regions were randomly enrolled into a cross-sectional study to investigate farmer barriers and motivators to lameness control for cows managed 100% at pasture and the relationship between these responses and the true lameness status on farm. Trained technicians lameness scored all lactating cows on the enrolled farms on 2 occasions during one lactation. Farm-level prevalence proportions were calculated as the mean of the 2 lameness scores. Enrolled farmers were asked their perception of lameness in the current milking season and responded to 26 ordinal Likert-type items with 5 options ranging from not important at all to extremely important. The questions were grouped under 3 categories; barriers to lameness control (n = 9), impacts of lameness (n = 10), and motivators to control lameness (n = 7). The association between farmer perception of lameness and lameness prevalence was reported using linear regression. Multiple-factor analysis was conducted to identify latent variable themes within the responses. Linear discriminant analysis was used to assess whether barriers, impacts, and motivators could be used to predict farmer perception of lameness and lameness prevalence. Lameness prevalence was 0.8% greater on farms where farmers perceived lameness as a moderate or a major problem compared with farms where the farmer perceived lameness as a minor problem or not a problem. Farmers ranked all potential motivators to lameness control as important and declared few barriers to be important at preventing them from controlling lameness. Feeling sorry for lame cows and pride in a healthy herd were the most important motivators, with lack of time and skilled labor the most important barriers. The most important effects of lameness were cow-related factors such as pain and production, with farm and industry impacts of less importance. Farmers place different weightings of importance on barriers to lameness control compared with motivators for lameness control. The impacts and motivators were strongly correlated with the first dimension from the multiple-factor analysis, with only weak correlation between barriers and the first dimension. Linear discriminant analysis identified that the importance that farmers place on barriers, motivators, and impacts of lameness were poor predictors of farmers' belief in regard to their lameness problem or actual lameness prevalence (above or below the median lameness prevalence for the study cohort). Despite relatively low lameness prevalence, many New Zealand dairy farmers believe lameness is a problem on their farm, and they rank welfare effects of lameness of high importance. To investigate how farmer behavior change can be used to manage lameness, future studies should consider theoretical social science frameworks beyond the theory of planned behavior or involve prospective interventional studies investigating farmer actions instead of beliefs.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Retention of internal teat sealants over the dry period and their efficacy in reducing clinical and subclinical mastitis at calving
    (Elsevier Inc and the Federation of Animal Science Societies (Fass) Inc on behalf of the American Dairy Science Association, 2022-06) Bates AJ; King C; Dhar M; Fitzpatrick C; Laven RA
    Internal teat sealants (ITS) reduce the risk of new intramammary infections over the dry period by forming a physical barrier to pathogen ingress. As the first and last 2 wk of the dry period are high-risk periods for new infections, maintaining an effective barrier in this period is a key requirement. Few studies have systematically examined sealant retention and none have done so under New Zealand pastoral conditions, where cows frequently move to separate grazing for dry periods, typically 80 to 90 d long. This multi-herd study was a split-udder equivalence trial comparing 2 ITS formulations for retention and efficacy in preventing periparturient clinical and subclinical mastitis. Both ITS contained 65% (2.6 g) bismuth salts, which contribute to the barrier within the teat canal, emulsified in ≤1.4 g of mineral oil. However, one ITS additionally contained <10% amorphous silica. At dry-off, treatment was randomly allocated to diagonal teat-pairs within 409 cows on 4 farms. All cows met industry best practice criteria for ITS treatment alone. The study unit was quarter within cow and farm. Outcomes included clinical mastitis (CM) incidence for the last 7 d of the dry period and first 42 d of lactation, subclinical mastitis (SCM) incidence 96 h after calving, and quantity of residual after centrifuging 50 mL of colostrum collected from each quarter within 24 h of calving. Proportional outcomes were analyzed using Bayesian mixed models with a binomial distribution and logit link function, whereas the quantity of residual was analyzed using Bayesian finite mixture models and cluster bootstrapping. We set a region of probable equivalence (ROPE) of ±2.5% between proportions and ±0.2 g for residual weight. Records were available for 1,596 quarters (399 cows). We detected no meaningful difference in incidence of CM or SCM attributable to differences in sealant: the model predicted treatment differences of 0.00 with a 95% highest density interval (HDI) of ±1.00%. Across all cows and farms, the marginal difference in the percentage of quarters with CM was 0.11% (95% HDI: -2.11 to 2.49%), and for SCM 0.00 (95% HDI: -1.98 to 1.94%). Including the quantity of residual recovered at calving did not improve fit or predictive ability of the models predicting CM or SCM, and the coefficient spanned the null value. The distribution of the weight of material recovered at calving was multi-modal; for 25% of quarters, more residual was recovered than inserted. When the residual weight was less than or equal to the median residual weight (2.06 g; range: 0.19-6.03 g), there was a ≥90% probability that any treatment difference in residual was ≤0.2 g. When the residual weight was between the median and 75th percentile (4.40 g; 95% HDI: 4.00 to 4.75 g), there was no clear difference in residual between products. Above the 75th percentile, there was a 90% probability that the residual from quarters differed by product type (difference = 0.36 g, 90% HDI: 0.20 to 0.54 g). In conclusion, both products had equivalent efficacy for SCM and CM. As the quantity of residual increased, the difference in residual weight recovered increased but this may represent increases in debris rather than indicating a more effective barrier.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Randomized clinical trial investigating the effect of exercise and standing on concrete prior to first calving on time to first lameness event in dairy heifers
    (Elsevier Inc and Fass Inc on behalf of the American Dairy Science Association, 2022-09) Mason WA; Huxley JL; Laven RA
    This controlled clinical trial investigated if an intervention immediately before the first calving event could reduce lameness incidence in pasture-based dairy heifers. Seven hundred ninety heifers across 6 farms in the Waikato region of New Zealand were randomly enrolled into treatment or control groups at a ratio of 1:1. The treatment consisted of heifers walking approximately 1 km from pasture along the farm race, standing on concrete for one hour, and then walking back to their paddock. This occurred once a day, 5 times a week, for 5 wk before calving. The control heifers were managed solely at pasture before calving. Just before calving, both groups were bought together and managed as one group for the remainder of the study. Heifers were followed for up to 28 wk, with fortnightly lameness scores collected to identify animals with a lameness score of ≥2 (lameness score 0–3). Lameness could also be diagnosed by the farmers, who had no formal lameness scoring training. The primary outcome of interest was time to first lame event. Secondary outcomes included milk solid production, change in body condition score during early lactation, time from onset of breeding season until conception, feasibility of the regimen and change in sole soft tissue thickness and profile. From a total of 782 heifers that had data collected on the outcomes, 102 (13.0%) individual first lameness events were recorded, 53 in heifers in the treatment group and 49 in control heifers. Of those 102 lameness events, 51 were first diagnosed by farmers. No apparent differences were detected in the hazard rate for time to first lame event between heifers in the 2 treatment groups. Treatment heifers had a 1.12 times hazard rate (95% confidence interval: 0.65–1.95) of a lame event compared with control heifers. No associations were identified between heifers in the 2 groups for any of the secondary outcome measures. However, farmers did report that the intervention was practical and easy to implement. It is possible that the intervention did not challenge the hoof enough, and that longer duration and distances walked may have resulted in a different outcome. Although no improvement in lameness outcomes were reported, no negative effects during and after the intervention were noted in animals in the intervention group. Further research into the area of lameness prevention is needed as there are few evidence-based solutions available to reduce lameness incidence in pasture-based systems.