Journal Articles
Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/7915
Browse
2 results
Search Results
Item Persistence of orthopaedic hoof blocks for the treatment of lame cattle kept permanently at pasture.(Taylor and Francis Group, 2023-09-01) Müller KR; Laven RA; Laven LJAIMS: To compare the retention by New Zealand dairy cows kept at pasture in a lame cow group, of three hoof block products commonly used in the remediation of lameness. METHODS: Sixty-seven farmer-presented Friesian and Friesian x Jersey dairy cows from a single herd in the Manawatū region (New Zealand) suffering from unilateral hind limb lameness attributable to a claw horn lesion (CHL) were randomly allocated to one of three treatments: foam block (FB), plastic shoe (PS) and a standard wooden block (WB). Blocks were applied to the contralateral healthy claw and checked daily by the farm staff (present/not present) and date of loss was recorded. Blocks were reassessed on Day 14 and Day 28 and then removed unless further elevation was indicated. Daily walking distances were calculated using a farm map and measurement software. Statistical analyses included a linear marginal model for distance walked until block loss and a Cox regression model for the relative hazard of a block being lost. RESULTS: Random allocation meant that differences between products in proportion used on left or right hind foot or lateral or medial claw were small. Mean distance walked/cow/day on farm tracks whilst the block was present was 0.32 (min 0.12, max 0.45) km/day; no biologically important difference between products in the mean distance walked was identified. Compared to PS, cows in the WB group were five times more likely to lose the block (HR = 4.8 (95% CI = 1.8-12.4)), while cows in the FB group were 9.5 times more likely to lose the block (HR = 9.5 (95% CI = 3.6-24.4)). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, PS were retained for much longer than either FB or WB. As cows were managed in a lame cow group for the study duration, walking distances were low and did not impact on the risk of block loss. More data are needed to define ideal block retention time. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In cows with CHL the choice of block could be based on the type of lesion present and the expected re-epithelisation times.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 RAInternal 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.