Laboratório de Etologia Aplicada e Bem-Estar Animal (LETA), Departamento de Zootecnia e Desenvolvimento Rural, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Rod. Admar Gonzaga, 1346, Itacorubi, 88034-001, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil; Animal Welfare Program, University of British Columbia, 2357 Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6T 1Z4.
Animal Welfare Program, University of British Columbia, 2357 Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6T 1Z4.
J Dairy Sci. 2018 Mar;101(3):2395-2405. doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-13462. Epub 2017 Dec 21.
Within the last few decades, the North American and European dairy industries have been collecting information about lameness and leg injury prevalence on dairy farms and have tried to develop solutions to mitigate these ailments. Few published articles report the prevalence of lameness and leg lesions in areas outside of those 2 regions, or how alternative housing systems, such as compost-bedded packs, affect the prevalence of these maladies. The objectives of this study were to compare the prevalence of lameness and leg lesions on confined dairies that used freestall, compost-bedded packs, or a combination of these 2 systems in Brazil. Data were collected in the autumn and winter of 2016 from 50 dairy farms located in Paraná state, including 12 compost-bedded pack dairies (CB), 23 freestall dairies (FS), and 15 freestall dairies that used compost-bedded packs for vulnerable cows (FS+C). A visit to the farm consisted of a management questionnaire, an inspection of the housing areas as well as the milking parlor, and an evaluation of all lactating cows as they exited the parlor for lameness (score 1-5), hygiene (score 0-2), body condition score (score 1-5), and hock and knee lesions (score 0-1). Median 1-way chi-squared test was used to compare production systems. We found no difference between farm types in management practices related to hoof health management or average daily milk production per cow [31 (29-33.9) kg/d; median (quartile 1-3)], percentage of Holstein cattle in the herd [100% (90-100%)], conception rate [35.8% (30.2-38%)], or pregnancy rate [15% (13.7-18%)]. The CB farms were smaller [85 (49.5-146.5) milking cows] than both the FS [270 (178-327.5) milking cows] and FS+C farms [360 (150-541.5) milking cows). The overall prevalence of severe lameness (score 4 and 5) across all farms was 21.2% (15.2-28.5%) but was lower on the CB farms [14.2% (8.45-15.5%)] in comparison to the FS [22.2% (16.8-26.7%)] and the FS+C farms [22.2% (17.4-32.8%)]. Less than 1% of all cows scored on CB farms were observed with swollen or wounded knees (or both), which was lower than either the FS or FS+C farms [7.4% (3.6-11.9%) and 6.4% (2.6-11.8%) of all cows scored, respectively]. The same pattern was found for hock lesions, where the farm-level prevalence within the 3 different housing types was 0.5% (0-0.9%), 9.9% (0.8-15.3%), and 5.7% (2.6-10.9%) for CB, FS, and FS+C farms, respectively. No differences between farm systems were observed for hygiene or body condition score. On average, 2.7% (0.8-10.9%) of lactating cows had a soiled side, 15.4% (2.1-37.4%) had dirty legs and 1.7% (0-9.3%) had dirty udders. The average herd-level body condition score across farms was 2.9 (2.9-3), with 0.86% of the all cows scored having a body condition score <2.5. These results indicate that lameness prevalence on confined dairies in Brazil is high and highlight the need for remedial changes in environmental design and management practices. We found that CB farms in this region had reduced lameness and lesions in relation to FS or FS+C dairies.
在过去的几十年里,北美和欧洲的乳制品行业一直在收集有关奶牛场跛行和腿部损伤流行率的信息,并试图开发解决方案来减轻这些疾病。很少有发表的文章报告除了这两个地区之外,跛行和腿部病变的流行率,或者替代的住房系统,如堆肥床包,如何影响这些疾病的流行率。本研究的目的是比较巴西使用自由放养、堆肥床包或这两种系统组合的封闭式奶牛场的跛行和腿部病变的流行率。数据于 2016 年秋季和冬季从位于巴拉那州的 50 个奶牛场收集,包括 12 个堆肥床包奶牛场(CB)、23 个自由放养奶牛场(FS)和 15 个自由放养奶牛场,这些奶牛场为易受伤害的奶牛使用堆肥床包(FS+C)。对农场的访问包括管理问卷、住房区以及挤奶厅的检查,以及所有泌乳奶牛离开挤奶厅时的跛行(评分 1-5)、卫生(评分 0-2)、身体状况评分(评分 1-5)和跗关节和膝关节病变(评分 0-1)的评估。使用中位数 1 路卡方检验比较生产系统。我们发现,在与蹄健康管理或每头奶牛平均日产量相关的管理实践方面,农场类型之间没有差异[31(29-33.9)kg/d;中位数(四分位 1-3)]、牛群中荷斯坦奶牛的比例[100%(90-100%)]、受孕率[35.8%(30.2-38%)]或妊娠率[15%(13.7-18%)]。CB 农场的奶牛数量较小[85(49.5-146.5)头泌乳奶牛],而 FS [270(178-327.5)头泌乳奶牛]和 FS+C 农场[360(150-541.5)头泌乳奶牛]。所有农场的严重跛行(评分 4 和 5)总流行率为 21.2%(15.2-28.5%),但 CB 农场[14.2%(8.45-15.5%)]的流行率低于 FS [22.2%(16.8-26.7%)]和 FS+C 农场[22.2%(17.4-32.8%)]。在 CB 农场,只有不到 1%的奶牛被观察到膝盖肿胀或受伤(或两者兼而有之),这低于 FS 或 FS+C 农场[分别为 3.6%-11.9%和 2.6%-11.8%的所有奶牛评分]。跗关节病变也存在同样的模式,3 种不同住房类型的农场水平患病率分别为 0.5%(0-0.9%)、9.9%(0.8-15.3%)和 5.7%(2.6-10.9%),分别为 CB、FS 和 FS+C 农场。不同的农场系统之间在卫生或身体状况评分方面没有差异。平均而言,2.7%(0.8-10.9%)的泌乳奶牛侧身有污垢,15.4%(2.1-37.4%)的腿部有污垢,1.7%(0-9.3%)的乳房有污垢。农场层面的平均 herd-level 身体状况评分是 2.9(2.9-3),所有奶牛中有 0.86%的评分身体状况评分<2.5。这些结果表明,巴西封闭式奶牛场的跛行流行率很高,并强调需要在环境设计和管理实践方面进行补救性改变。我们发现,该地区的 CB 农场与 FS 或 FS+C 奶牛场相比,跛行和腿部病变减少。