Journal Articles

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

Browse

Author: search.filters.author.Mason WASubject: search.filters.subject.Lameness, Animal

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • 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
    Farm-level risk factors and treatment protocols for lameness in New Zealand dairy cattle.
    (Taylor and Francis Group, 2024-05-08) Mason WA; Müller KR; Laven LJ; Huxley JN; Laven RA
    Aims To identify farm-level risk factors for dairy cow lameness, and to describe lameness treatment protocols used on New Zealand dairy farms. Methods One hundred and nineteen farms from eight veterinary clinics within the major dairying regions of New Zealand were randomly enrolled into a cross-sectional lameness prevalence study. Each farmer completed a questionnaire on lameness risk factors and lameness treatment and management. Trained observers lameness scored cattle on two occasions, between October–December (spring, coinciding with peak lactation for most farms) and between January–March (summer, late lactation for most farms). A four-point (0–3) scoring system was used to assess lameness, with animals with a lameness score (LS) ≥2 defined as lame. At each visit, all lactating animals were scored including animals that had previously been identified lame by the farmer. Associations between the farmer-reported risk factors and lameness were determined using mixed logistic regression models in a Bayesian framework, with farm and score event as random effects. Results A lameness prevalence of 3.5% (2,113/59,631) was reported at the first LS event, and 3.3% (1,861/55,929) at the second LS event. There was a median prevalence of 2.8% (min 0, max 17.0%) from the 119 farms. Most farmers (90/117; 77%) relied on informal identification by farm staff to identify lame animals. On 65% (75/116) of farms, there was no external provider of lame cow treatments, with the farmer carrying out all lame cow treatments. Most farmers had no formal training (69/112; 62%). Animals from farms that used concrete stand-off pads during periods of inclement weather had 1.45 times the odds of lameness compared to animals on farms that did not use concrete stand-off pads (95% equal-tailed credible interval 1.07–1.88). Animals from farms that reported peak lameness incidence from January to June or all year-round, had 0.64 times odds of lameness compared to animals from farms that reported peak lameness incidence from July to December (95% equal-tailed credible interval 0.47–0.88). Conclusions Lameness prevalence was low amongst the enrolled farms. Use of concrete stand-off pads and timing of peak lameness incidence were associated with odds of lameness. Clinical relevance Veterinarians should be encouraging farmers to have formal lameness identification protocols and lameness management plans in place. There is ample opportunity to provide training to farmers for lame cow treatment. Management of cows on stand-off pads should consider the likely impact on lameness.
  • 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.