Department of Population Health Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, 3584 CL, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Department of Production Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada, T2N 4N1.
J Dairy Sci. 2021 Jan;104(1):947-956. doi: 10.3168/jds.2020-18730. Epub 2020 Nov 6.
The etiopathogenesis of bovine digital dermatitis (DD) is not well understood, but its risk factors on dairy farms have been studied extensively. The objective of this study was to identify associations between a DD risk score [determined by a DD risk assessment questionnaire (RAQ)] and DD prevalence (determined by an in-parlor M-score). We also investigated whether feedback for farmers on their DD management using the DD RAQ resulted in changes that decreased DD prevalence in their herds. The DD RAQ consisted of multiple-choice questions related to foot health, housing, and general management that were used to create a total risk score (TRS). In 2016 and 2018, the DD RAQ-together with a DD prevalence determination in the lactating herd-was used on 19 Dutch dairy farms from 1 veterinary practice. After each visit, farmers and their consulting veterinarians received a 1-page summary that identified herd-specific strengths and weaknesses in DD management. In 2018, the summary included suggestions for improvement. In 2019, farmers and veterinarians were contacted to ask whether the use of the DD RAQ and the 1-page summary had led them to implement changes in their DD management in 2016 and 2018. We tested the association between TRS and DD prevalence using linear mixed model analysis. The TRS ranged from 13 to 65% and 20 to 68% in 2016 and 2018, respectively. Herd DD prevalence ranged from 15 to 59% and 27 to 69% in 2016 and 2018, respectively. For both years, the DD RAQ identified that DIM, herd size, and breed were often present in a manner associated with increased risk for DD. The linear mixed model analysis identified that each 10-point increase in TRS was associated with an increase in herd DD prevalence of less than 1%. The association between TRS and herd DD prevalence was caused mainly by risk factors related to housing. We found no important relationship between change in TRS and change in DD prevalence between the 2 visits. Only a few farmers indicated some form of change in their DD management following a visit. Veterinarians in general said that they discussed the 1-page summaries and DD control with farmers during a routine visit, but the majority admitted a lack of follow-up. We propose that the DD RAQ could be used as a tool to start a discussion on DD control on farm, but simply undertaking a DD RAQ and providing a 1-page summary of the results was insufficient to initiate behavioral change that led to a decrease in DD prevalence.
奶牛数字皮炎（DD）的病因发病机制尚不清楚，但已对其在奶牛场的风险因素进行了广泛研究。本研究的目的是确定 DD 风险评分[通过 DD 风险评估问卷（RAQ）确定]与 DD 流行率（通过在牛舍中进行的 M 评分确定）之间的关联。我们还研究了使用 DD RAQ 向农民提供有关其 DD 管理的反馈是否会导致他们的牛群 DD 流行率降低。DD RAQ 由与脚健康、住房和一般管理相关的多项选择问题组成，用于创建总风险评分（TRS）。在 2016 年和 2018 年，来自 1 家兽医诊所的 19 家荷兰奶牛场使用了 DD RAQ 以及对泌乳牛群中 DD 的流行率进行了测定。每次访问后，农民及其咨询兽医都会收到 1 页摘要，其中确定了牛群在 DD 管理方面的特定优势和劣势。在 2018 年，摘要中包括了改进建议。在 2019 年，联系了农民和兽医，询问他们是否使用 DD RAQ 和 1 页摘要，以促使他们在 2016 年和 2018 年改变 DD 管理。我们使用线性混合模型分析测试了 TRS 与 DD 流行率之间的关联。2016 年和 2018 年，TRS 分别在 13％至 65％和 20％至 68％之间变化。2016 年和 2018 年，牛群 DD 流行率分别为 15％至 59％和 27％至 69％。对于这两年，DD RAQ 都确定了 DIM、牛群规模和品种通常以与 DD 风险增加相关的方式出现。线性混合模型分析表明，TRS 每增加 10 分，牛群 DD 流行率就会增加不到 1％。TRS 与牛群 DD 流行率之间的关联主要是由与住房相关的风险因素引起的。我们没有发现 TRS 变化与两次访问之间 DD 流行率变化之间的重要关系。只有少数农民表示在一次访问后对其 DD 管理进行了某种形式的改变。兽医普遍表示，他们在常规访问期间与农民讨论了 1 页摘要和 DD 控制，但大多数人承认缺乏后续行动。我们建议可以将 DD RAQ 用作在农场开始讨论 DD 控制的工具，但是仅进行 DD RAQ 并提供结果的 1 页摘要不足以促使行为改变，从而导致 DD 流行率降低。
