Department Welfare Health Traceability and Hygiene, French Livestock Institute, F-75595 Paris, France.
Animal. 2013 Sep;7(9):1542-50. doi: 10.1017/S1751731113000803. Epub 2013 May 1.
This study aimed to catalogue the digital dermatitis (DD) treatment practices used by French dairy farmers and to identify the motivators and barriers to the adoption of these treatments. A semi-structured survey was conducted involving 65 farmers in the main dairy production areas of France in the spring of 2009. The different treatment modalities implemented by farmers since the first diagnosis of DD in their herds were described. The reasons for adopting or abandoning these treatments were then investigated based on criteria of perceived effectiveness, labour, time, cost and toxicity related to their use. For individual treatments, farmers used 30 different products, applied through three different routes, for 1 to 21 consecutive days. For collective treatments, farmers used 31 products, applied through four different routes, at a rate ranging from once a day to once a year. Several products, especially antibiotics, were used without observing the manufacturer's instructions. The principal criteria for the adoption of a treatment was the perceived effectiveness in healing DD lesions and in limiting recurrence, while the principal barriers to adopting a treatment were the time and labour required for its application, followed by cost. Topical oxytetracycline treatments applied individually were used and adopted the most. They were perceived to be effective in healing DD lesions. However, these treatments were judged labour and time consuming, particularly when many animals had to be treated. Collective treatments combining formalin and copper sulphate often were applied topically using walk-though footbaths. These treatments often were judged to be insufficiently effective in healing DD lesions, difficult to implement, labour and time consuming and costly. The plethora of DD treatment practices and the misuse of some treatments could suggest that there is a lack of guidelines available to farmers on the optimal use and expected effectiveness of treatments. Clinical trials should be conducted to develop recommendations based on scientific rather than empirical data, and to identify the DD control measures which consume the least amount of time and labour.
本研究旨在对法国奶农使用的奶牛肢蹄病(digital dermatitis,DD)治疗措施进行分类,并确定采用这些治疗措施的动机和障碍。2009 年春季,我们对法国主要奶牛养殖区的 65 名奶农进行了半结构式调查。描述了奶农在其牛群首次诊断出 DD 后实施的不同治疗方式。然后,根据其使用的有效性、劳动力、时间、成本和毒性等标准,调查了采用或放弃这些治疗方法的原因。对于个体治疗,农民使用了 30 种不同的产品,通过三种不同的途径,连续使用 1 至 21 天。对于群体治疗,农民使用了 31 种产品,通过四种不同的途径,使用频率从每天一次到每年一次不等。许多产品,特别是抗生素,在没有遵守制造商的使用说明的情况下被使用。采用一种治疗方法的主要标准是治疗 DD 病变和限制复发的效果,而采用治疗方法的主要障碍是其应用所需的时间和劳动力,其次是成本。单独使用的局部土霉素治疗应用最广泛,被认为对治疗 DD 病变有效。然而,这些治疗方法被认为劳动和时间消耗量大,尤其是当许多动物需要治疗时。通常使用涂覆式蹄浴将结合福尔马林和硫酸铜的群体治疗进行局部应用。这些治疗方法通常被认为在治疗 DD 病变方面效果不够理想,难以实施,劳动和时间消耗量大,成本高。DD 治疗措施繁多,一些治疗方法被滥用,这可能表明缺乏关于治疗方法最佳使用和预期效果的指导方针。应开展临床试验,根据科学而不是经验数据制定建议,并确定耗时和劳动力最少的 DD 控制措施。